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.

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 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.

Clean Line Energy's Grain Belt Express transmission project proposes to plow through fifteen (15) counties in Missouri on its route from southwestern Kansas to western Indiana.

Clean Line has indeed awoken the sleeping giant, or as they like to think of it "poked the bear."

On January 13, 2014, Clean Line's Grain Belt Express subsidiary filed a Notice of Intended Case Filing with the Missouri Public Service Commission.  The notice is legally necessary at least 60 days prior to filing its application to be granted public utility status and a certificate to own and operate the project in Missouri.  You can participate in this process once the application is filed.

For now, you can file your comments about this case with the PSC on Docket No. EA-2014-0207.  Click the "Public Comments" tab on the horizontal menu of the MO PSC's EFIS and fill out the form.  You can also mail your comments to the PSC.  Be sure to mark them with the case number.

You can also let Missouri Governor Jay Nixon know that you do not support this project.  Click here to submit your comments online.

The good people of Missouri are standing up and banding together in record numbers to successfully stop this incredibly destructive project.

If you have questions or concerns about the Grain Belt Express, get in touch with Block Grain Belt Express to be connected with a group in your local area, and to find out how you can defend your interests.

This project is far from "a done deal," and prospects for future approval continue to dim with each citizen of Missouri who joins together with others to create a formidable chain of opposition that cannot be broken.

Citizen action has stopped transmission projects and can stop Grain Belt Express!  Take action now!

The "Right-to-Take Action" must be Settled BEFORE CPCN May be Granted

The main purpose for the  Wisconsin Public Service Commission's approval process of the CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) is to determine the NEED for ATC's Badger Coulee Line.  At the PSC's hearing (docket 05-CE-142), it must be proven that the  NEED for the high tension power line is so great that it justifies granting ATC the authority to condemn private property and take the land it needs under "eminent domain".

The fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states:  "No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of the law..."  And Wisconsin Statute 32.06(5) "Right-to-take Action, provides that a private property owner may challenge a taking for any reason other than just compensation".  In the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision of July 13, 2013 it states:  The challenge to ATC's condemnation..."is not a meaningless exercise swallowed up in the compensation process," but a property owner's assertion to protect his or her rights."

Common sense tells us that any property owner who has been notified that his or her land is under consideration for ATC's Badger-Coulee line, has the right to begin a "right-to-take" action immediately, before the PSC hearing, in order to protect his or her property rights BEFORE the ROUTE for the line IS CHOSEN.  For instance, an Amish man has a right to challenge the condemnation of his land because his farm house is also a church. Or an organic farmer has the right to challenge the right to condemn any portion of his farm because ATC's taking would endanger his or her organic certification and that would threaten their livelihood.

Therefore, any property owner who is threatened by the possibility of the PSC granting ATC condemnation rights, should become an "intervener" in PSC Docket 05-CE-142 and request that the PSC postpone their consideration of ATC's application until after any challenges to ATC's possible taking of their private property, under a "right -to-take action", is settled in the courts.  That is the only way a private property owner can assert the protection of his or her private property rights.  To grant the authority to condemn before  giving the property owner his or her "day in court" is to put the cart before the horse.  Not allowing a property owner his or her right to prevent condemnation of their private property through a "right-to-take action" would be to deny them "due process under the law", which would be a violation of the fifth amendment of our Constitution.

Lots of news coverage this week about public notice meetings in Iowa for the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL).  The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance has done a fantastic job getting information to landowners so they are prepared for the power company meetings.

One story I came across featured some whiny comments from RICL's attorneys, complaining that the Alliance was making RICL's progress difficult.

Let's take a look at who is making the process "unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated," shall we?

Each state has a different process for transmission line permitting.  In Iowa, a hearing must be held if objections are filed, or when a petition involves the taking of property by eminent domain.  The Alliance has helped lots of landowners file objections, therefore a hearing is guaranteed.  Also, Iowa law requires informational meetings for landowners before they can be approached by RICL's land agents.  But, because RICL will stretch across nearly 400 miles of Iowa, eminent domain will most likely be needed to secure easements.  When a company files an application for its project, it must also state whether eminent domain will be sought.  If so, the applicant must provide an "Exhibit E" with specific information on each property it expects to take by eminent domain, to include specific ownership, legal description, a map of the property showing buildings, electric lines, and other features, as well as the names of any tenants on the property.

Clean Line can't be bothered to spend this much time and money on each property it wants to acquire, so they have asked the IUB to bifurcate (separate) the franchise process into two separate proceedings.  First, Clean Line wants the IUB to determine if its project is needed and serves a public purpose.  That way Clean Line can try to keep affected landowners out of that part of the process.  Only after that determination has been made would Clean Line bother to spend the money to provide "Exhibit E" information for eminent domain takings.  Clean Line also states that an affirmative determination granting it the requested franchise would "put Clean Line in a better position" to spend the money.  What they really mean is that it would put them into a better position to threaten landowners and tell them it's a done deal, hoping that would result in less eminent domain takings and less "Exhibit E" material.

Let's take a minute here to talk about Clean Line's "RSVP" for the initial public hearings.  I'm not sure why the IUB let them get away with this, but landowner notice of the project and meetings included a superfluous "RSVP" for the meeting, and a "request for information."  What kind of information does RICL want?  "Exhibit E" info. it would have a hard time gathering on its own, the names of any tenants.  This is the same info. it is whining about having to supply in order to apply for eminent domain.

Much to Clean Line's chagrin, however, the Alliance has some very smart attorneys who have filed a motion to resist the motion to bifurcate.  First of all, they argue that a motion to bifurcate is premature until the actual application for the franchise is filed because it deprives any potential intervenors of due process to object to the bifurcation.  They also note that Clean Line unsuccessfully lobbied for legislation to bifurcate the franchise process in 2011.  What Clean Line was unsuccessful at legislatively, they are now trying to acquire through the IUB.  They also point out how Clean Line intends to use any potential approval of the franchise before eminent domain proceedings to coerce landowners to voluntarily sign easement agreements.

Now, here's where it gets funny.  Clean Line starts to squeal and whine.  First, they want to limit the Alliance's participation in the case.  I'm sure our friends in Kansas, who were denied due process by having their own participation limited by the KCC, will identify with this tactic:

And then Clean Line starts whining about how it got outsmarted by quoting information it harvested from the Alliance's website:

Umm... so?  The Alliance is just using existing laws that were put in place to protect Iowa landowners from out-of-state speculators like Clean Line.  If the process is "overly complicated" Clean Line ought to be taking its whining to the Iowa legislature, who made this law.

Clean Line also gives away another one of its strategies:   to financially break the Alliance by requiring them to participate in two separate legal processes, hoping they'll run out money and determination somewhere along the way.

I really don't think Clean Line's strategy is working.  It's only encouraging landowners to dig in even deeper and resist a voluntary easement.  If Clean Line is going to be met with a brick wall in either case, why bother with two different hearings?  That doesn't serve administrative efficiency.

And this about sums up Clean Line's little pity party:

Well, if Clean Line wants to waste the time and resources of the people of Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana, as well as regulatory boards in all these states, adjudicating and opposing its unneeded, speculative projects, I'd say Dr. Karma is making a long overdue house call to Clean Line headquarters!
Give up, Clean Line.  You've been completely outsmarted by the people of Iowa!

See the following newslinks about Clean Line's public meetings in Iowa this week:

Clean Line's Beth Conley tells a BIG LIE in this story:
Landowners Skeptical of Wind Energy Transmission Line
"...other states to the east that have little wind power potential but a strong demand for clean, reliable energy."  First of all, we have a better wind power resource 12 miles off the Atlantic coast, and furthermore, we are not "demanding" this project.

Clean Line Opponents Speak Out

Crowds Grow at Clean Line Public Meetings

Proposed Power Line Leaves Farmers Concerned
The faces and snarky comments from the anchor and reporter in this story are worth watching!

Details on Transmission Line Aired Out

Proposed Power Line Project Sparks Controversy in Northeast Iowa

Property owners sound off on Clean Line plan

Grain Belt Express opponent Amy Harvey lives in the tiny town of Polo, Missouri.  I'm sure it was mere coincidence that Grain Belt Express recently opened an "office" in Polo for the purposes of doing business with all the landowners who are beating a path to Grain Belt's door to sign over their property early and cheaply.

Amy is Polo's version of Bree Van De Kamp, so it was inevitable that she would take the initiative to be a good neighbor and welcome Grain Belt Express to Polo.

She baked them some delicious, organic BANANA muffins,

and she made them an artsy "Welcome!" card

and she paid a visit to GBE's "office."

Unfortunately, the only one home at Grain Belt Express was intern Cari, who was killing time waiting for some emails of support from local government officials to show up. 

Cari relished the delicious muffins and wanted to know what was in them.  Happiness, Cari, just pure happiness!

I can't wait to see what Amy cooks up next...

The good folks of Illinois put one of our successful PATH opposition tactics to work against Clean Line Energy Partners in their state.  Landowners in the path of the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL) project have sent written notice to the company that they do not wish to be contacted by land agents or other company representatives unless and until the company is issued a CPCN by the Illinois Commerce Commission.

The Illinoisans made one small modification though, they did not limit contact by U.S. Mail.  After all, power company propaganda makes a great, free lining for the chicken house or pig pen.

And, because it is the only avenue left to the company after failed appearances at recent public comment hearings, they have been sending mail to affected landowners.  One recent, pointless letter from Clean Line's Hans Detweiler

served as cover for a company FAQ.  The FAQ attempted to respond to recent information about the project posted on the BlockRICL website and Facebook page, but I think a lot of RICL's information is misleading or just plain wrong.  Here's where I think RICL got it wrong:

Rock Island Clean Line Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the Rock Island  Clean Line?

A: The Rock Island Clean Line will be part of the nation's critical infrastructure that will help power our homes, communities, and the clean energy economy. The project will consist of an approximately 500-mile, overhead, direct current (DC) transmission line. The line will be capable of transmitting up to 3,500 megawatts of new renewable  energy from northwest Iowa and the surrounding region  to communities in Illinois  and in states farther east. The project will deliver enough clean, renewable energy to meet the needs of over  1.4 million American  homes.

The Rock Island Clean Line is not part of any national infrastructure plan and need for it is not critical.  RICL is intended to transport electricity generated in western Iowa to eastern Illinois, where it will be connected with the PJM Interconnection system to be sold to consumers in east coast states.  RICL will not power homes in the communities being asked to sacrifice to host the transmission line.  The economic benefits of RICL will flow into the pockets of Texas-based Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC, not into the pockets of the landowners hosting the project.

Although the line will be capable of transmitting up to 3,500 megawatts of energy, it only has firm transmission injection rights to deliver 700 MW of energy into PJM.  RICL may never deliver its claimed capacity upon which it calculated supposed “benefits” of the project. (Rebuttal Testimony of Steven Naumann, ComEd, ICC Docket No. 12-0560).

RICL makes much of the claim that its project will deliver renewable electricity to “states farther east,” however RICL has no customers, and has not produced any commitments or desire for its product from “states farther east.”  In fact, eleven east coast governors have written to congress, ten of them twice, stating that importing renewables from other states via long distance transmission lines would hamper renewable energy and economic development in their own states.  The “states farther east” do not want or need what RICL is selling.

Q:What will the project cost be  and  how will the Rock Island  Clean Line  be funded?

A: The Rock Island Clean Line is estimated to cost approximately $2 billion. Clean Line Energy intends to fund the development costs of the project and will sell transmission capacity to renewable energy generators  or to the buyers of the clean energy being delivered on the line.  Clean Line is not seeking any federal or state funding.

RICL has also shown its intention to ask for regional cost allocation for its transmission project.  RICL has proposed in filings with PJM and FERC that its project could be considered a reliability or market efficiency project under PJM’s planning process and that the company may bid the project in future transmission opportunity windows.  If RICL is successful in having all or part of its project regionally allocated, all PJM ratepayers could be ordered to fund the project, including those in Illinois.  If ordered to be built for reliability or economic reasons by PJM, RICL would be eligible to apply for federal transmission incentives, including return on equity adders and guaranteed recovery in the event of project abandonment.  The financing and cost of RICL is not certain.

Q:Will  Illinois ratepayers have to pay for the transmission line?  Will rates go up because of the Rock Island Clean Line?

A: No. There is currently no method for Rock Island Clean Line to charge Illinois ratepayers for the cost to build  the Rock Island Clean Line. If any such way were to be developed in the future, Rock Island Clean Line has agreed to re-apply  to the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) for  permission in a new proceeding to do so.

If RICL were to “develop” a way to charge Illinois ratepayers for its project in the future, that way would be through regional cost allocation via the PJM tariff.  The Illinois Commerce Commission has no authority to deny PJM’s assignment of cost responsibility for a project, and therefore its “permission” is not necessary.

There are three potential sources of money to fund transmission lines: government money, ratepayer money  ("cost allocation"), or private money  (merchant projects).  The Rock Island Clean Line is not using government, or taxpayer, funds.  There are no government subsidies available for transmission lines. The Rock Island Clean Line is not using ratepayer money.  There is no mechanism to allocate the costs for a project like Rock Island to ratepayers. Rock Island is utilizing a merchant model (private money) whereby only those wind energy developers or utilities that use the line will pay for it.

For now.

The Rock Island Clean Line will decrease wholesale electricity prices for Illinois consumers. In fact, the project will reduce wholesale electricity prices in Illinois by $320 million in its first year of operation, with additional savings in later years. Because electricity in Illinois is deregulated, per the law of supply and demand, Illinois residents and businesses can benefit from reduced electricity costs because the Rock Island Clean Line will significantly increase the amount of electricity supplied to Illinois.

RICL has failed to produce any reports or studies to back up its claim that it will reduce prices by $320 million.  Until RICL backs this up with figures, it’s pure fiction.  Any “savings” would be temporary as markets stabilize.  In addition, if RICL opens new supply lines for electricity into PJM, it could cause prices to rise over the long term as cheaper electricity flows to pricier PJM markets.

Q: Can I grow crops or build anything under the transmission line?

Transmission lines can prevent aerial spraying and irrigation, and construction can damage drainage tile and compact soil.  Transmission lines can also interfere with GPS equipment.  So, the answer is that you can try, but you probably won’t be very successful without extra cost and effort.

A: Clean Line will acquire easements, but the land will  still belong to the landowners and can be utilized for  activities  such as farming, grazing cattle, and other activities  that do not interfere with the operation of the line.  Farming of row crops can continue under the lines. There will be sufficient clearance under the transmission line to grow full-height crops, not including tree crops, and to operate standard farm equipment. Clean Line Energy must comply  with the  National  Electric Safety Code and  North American  Electric Reliability Corporation Standards to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the transmission line.

Landowners will still own the land, including the burden of paying property tax on the portion containing RICL’s transmission line.

Clean Line estimates that the right-of-way needed for the Rock Island Clean  Line to  meet operating standards will be between 145 to  200 feet  wide; however, the  line will directly impact  much less land than  that.   Property taken out of production by the transmission line foundations will typically comprise less than 1% of the easement property.

Written by Texas wind speculators, not farmers.  Read with skepticism.

Q: Will landowners be compensated if the transmission line is on their property?

A: Yes. Clean Line Energy is committed to compensating landowners fairly.  There are three primary components to landowner compensation: an easement payment, structure payments, and payments for damages. The total amount of compensation for landowners who  have structures on their  property will be more  than 100% of fair market value of the easement area.

The easement payment  is based on the  area  of the easement, calculated  in acres,  and the fair market value of the  land within the  easement. Fair market value is determined through  a market study of recent sales in the county.   Clean  Line will pay 90% of fair market  value of the  easement area.

How will “fair market value” be determined?  Most likely by an out-of-state appraiser who will never visit your property but will research land sales in your county and calculate an “average” of selected land sale prices to apply to your unique land.

Structure compensation is calculated based on the type of structure and the number of structures. The landowner may choose to receive either a one-time payment or a series of annual payments. Annual payments will be made as long as a structure is on the easement. The annual payments range from  $500 to $1,500 per structure or  the one-time payment ranges from  $6,000  to $18,000 per structure.  Depending on the land, and other engineering conditions, we expect 4-6 structures per mile.  Other payments may be made for damages in certain circumstances such as crop  damage, soil damage,  irrigation  or drainage  interference.

Who determines “damages” and their value to the landowner?  Do not sign any agreements with RICL without first consulting an attorney and tax advisor of your own choosing.  You do not have to accept what RICL is prepared to offer.  You may write your own compensation contract, or simply hold out and watch RICL’s offers rise the closer you get to an eminent domain condemnation proceeding.  Eminent domain is an expensive, time-consuming process RICL doesn’t want to engage in.  The landowner holds all the cards in negotiation!

Q:  How will Clean Line address impacts of construction to farmland?

A: Rock Island will work  to prevent and repair agricultural  impacts associated with the construction process.  Rock Island will work with  landowners to identify drainage  tile locations prior  to construction and minimize impacts  to such tile.  For damages  that  cannot be avoided,  Rock Island will decompact soil, repair  or  replace field tile, and take other steps as needed.  Rock Island will compensate landowners for  damages incurred as a result  of construction or  maintenance on their  property.  Rock Island has also committed to  pay for crop damages due to  construction and crop damages  that  may occur  due to maintenance associated with the  transmission line.

Rock Island Clean  Line has an Agricultural  Impact Mitigation Agreement with the  Illinois Department of Agriculture that  discusses  these  measures. This agreement details the extensive efforts  Clean  Line will make to  mitigate impacts  to agriculture.  The Agreement is incorporated as a part  of the easement  agreement Rock Island Clean  Line will  present to landowners.

Unless all these promises are put in writing within the four corners of your signed and recorded contract with RICL, they are nothing but empty promises.  In addition, which party will determine damages and define the effectiveness of repairs?  Don’t trust your land to empty promises by out-of-state limited liability corporations!

Q: Will Illinois benefit from construction jobs and tax revenues from the Rock Island Clean  Line?

A: Illinois will benefit from the  Rock Island Clean Line in several ways. The  line will be a $600 million investment in Illinois providing local jobs and tax revenues  and bringing  a new low-cost clean energy resource into  Illinois.

Rock Island is committed to using qualified  local and regional contractors whenever practical to construct and maintain the transmjssion line.   Examples of local jobs resulting from the construction of the line include  surveying, silt fence construction and pouring concrete. Rock Island has selected Kiewit Power to provide construction management services for  the project.  Kiewit cannot and will  not  perform the construction of the 500 mile line on its own.   Kiewit has substantial expertise with using local labor  and local services  to assist with the construction of major  infrastructure projects. Kiewit also has significant  experience working with landowners to minimize the impacts of construction to existing land use and to return land to pre-construction condition. Rock Island is dedicated to preserving the productivity of farmland. Kiewit's like-minded commitment to these goals is one of the reasons we've selected  them  for  this project.  Rock Island Clean Line has also committed to using multi-craft union  labor.

Ask if RICL or Kiewit have signed any legal contracts to use local/union labor.  We are not aware of any.  It would be prohibitively expensive for RICL or its contractor to have to negotiate with surveyors, concrete companies and silt fence installers in every town along its 500-mile length.  Expect that these services will be subcontracted to another entity that may or may not employ local labor for very short term projects.  RICL is committed to constructing its project as cheaply as possible, and that includes the price of labor.

While RICL may pay a minimal amount of property taxes on its infrastructure in your county, it will have a greater impact by devaluing properties to result in a lower assessed value that translates to a lower tax base to support the same level of county services.

Q: Will Rock Island use  eminent domain?

A: Rock Island intends  to reach fair and reasonable  voluntary agreements  to acquire easements from landowners, allowing plenty  of time  for  discussion.   Rock Island has not applied for  eminent domain  from the Illinois  Commerce Commission at this point and does not  intend to do so unless and until all reasonable, voluntary efforts at easement acquisition are exhausted.

RICL will not “apply for eminent domain” from the Illinois Commerce Commission.  The ICC is not a court that can condemn property and take it through eminent domain.  Only a court and jury of your peers in your own county can determine the amount of compensation you will receive in an eminent domain taking. 

RICL claiming it does not intend to “apply” for eminent domain unless you refuse its offers is not giving the landowner a choice of whether to sell, it is a threat to agree, or else.

Rock Island has applied for  a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the  Illinois Commerce Commission to operate as a public  utility in Illinois.  This is a requirement under  Illinois law in order to construct and operate a transmission line in the state of Illinois. It is also necessary to have a CPCN prior to seeking eminent domain; however, as stated above, Rock Island does not  intend  to apply for  eminent domain  unless and until all reasonable, voluntary efforts at easement acquisition are exhausted.

A grant of CPCN and public utility status from the ICC is the power to take your property “for public use” through the courts by use of eminent domain.  No further action before the ICC by RICL would be necessary.

Q. Will Rock Island take farm land out of  production?

A: Rock Island will acquire  easements, but  the land along the route will still belong  to the landowners and can be utilized for farming, hunting, and other activities that do not interfere with the reliable  operation of the line.  Less than  1% of the easement area that Rock Island Clean Line is seeking will be permanently taken out  of agricultural production, due to the footprint of the transmission structures.

If a landowner grants an easement for the project, RICL will control the landowner’s use of the entire easement in perpetuity.

We have carefully developed a compensation package that  includes an easement payment and structure payment which, when combined, will compensate landowners at or  beyond 100% of fair market value of the  land that comprises the  easement area.

Q: Will  the Rock  Island  Clean Line transport wind  energy? Or will other fossil fuels be transmitted over the line?

A: The Rock Island Clean  Line starts in an area  of northwestern Iowa that  has some of the best wind energy  resources in the country. Wind  energy  is the energy  resource that makes economic sense  to  be developed and shipped  over  the  Rock Island Clean  Line.  There are other areas  around  the  country that  are  better suited  for the development of fossil fuel power  plants - areas  that would  not  require the developer to  pay the additional  expense for  transmission that  Clean  Line will charge  wind companies that choose to ship power  over our  line.

RICL is no different than “mine mouth” fossil fuel generation plants that burn fuel where it’s harvested and ship electricity via high voltage transmission lines to point of use.  This same centralized generation and transmission method has been in use for more than 100 years.  However, technologically advanced, small-scale, point of use generation, such as roof-top solar, is now revolutionizing the way we produce and use electricity and is seen by the utility industry as a “threat” to their longevity.  Clean Line is a dinosaur that may never be used.

Legally, transmission companies are  not allowed  by the  Federal  Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to  prohibit  certain  types of energy,  but as a practical  matter, wind energy  is the resource that  would  be economically advantaged  by a project like this.  It would  not make sense  to  build a fossil fuel power  plant a long distance  from a where the power  is needed, when  a developer could choose to  produce the electricity much closer to the energy  demand.

Fossil fuel generators have been building generation plants near fuel sources and shipping the electricity produced long distances to points of use for 100 years.  Clean Line would be no different.  If there is a cheaper way to produce electricity to be shipped via Clean Line, that is the kind of electricity that will flow across the lines.  It also does not make sense to produce electricity from wind in Iowa and ship it to the east coast, when the east coast has a better wind resource in the Atlantic, located just 12 miles from load centers!

Q: Did east coast governors write Congress a letter opposing the Rock  Island Clean Line?

A: No. In 2009, ten  eastern governors did write  a letter to  leaders  in Congress regarding renewable energy  development. The governors speak  to their support for  renewable energy and to their  opposition to  subsidies  for  transmission lines for  remote renewable resources.

That’s right!  And RICL is one of those remote renewable resources that depend on transmission lines that the governors opposed in their 2010 letter!  The letter opposed “..subsidizing distant terrestrial wind resources which would stifle economic recovery and growth in the East…” and perfectly describes RICL!  But there were actually TWO letters, one in 2009 and one in 2010.

The  proposal  referenced in their  letter for such subsidies was not  passed into  law. The letter is in fact fully supportive of projects like the Rock Island Clean  Line, as the  Rock Island Clean  Line is not  receiving any federal  subsidies.

In fact, the letters opposed projects like RICL. 

2009 letter  Read it for yourself.

2010 letter  Read it for yourself.

The governors' letter was written and sent  prior  to the  start of development of the  Rock Island Clean Line and does not  mention  the  Rock Island Clean  Line.  In the letter, the governors "support the development of wind resources for  the  United States  wherever they exist" and highlight their  desire for a level  playing field for  renewable energy development. The  Rock Island Clean  Line is consistent with that  level playing field for  which the governors advocate in their  letter.

RICL has taken great liberty with the above quote from the 2009 letter.  In its entirety, here’s what the quote said, which is the exact opposite of the meaning ascribed to it by RICL:

“Current legislative proposals focused on transmission, in contrast, would designate national corridors for transmission of electricity from the Midwest to the East Coast, with the costs for that transmission allocated to all customers. While we support the development of wind resources for the United States wherever they exist, this ratepayer-funded revenue guarantee for land-based wind and other generation resources in the Great Plains would have significant, negative consequences for our region: it would hinder our efforts to meet regional renewable energy goals with regional resources and would establish financial conditions in our electricity markets that would impede development of the vast wind resources onshore and just off our shores for decades to come.”

The truth is that “states farther east” do not want or need RICL.  If RICL is permitted by the ICC and built in Illinois, the landowners and ratepayers of Illinois may be stuck with an expensive, unneeded dinosaur!  Say no to RICL and its dishonest portrayal of facts.

Looks like one of those "what doesn't belong" puzzles, doesn't it?  Unfortunately, it's not.

This story comes from Gentry, Arkansas, home to the Wild Wilderness Drive Through Safari.  AEP's engineer drew a transmission line through a portion of the safari on his power line routing etch-a-sketch.  Perhaps the engineer didn't understand that a drive through safari means that there are wild animals roaming loose through the area?  Or maybe he just doesn't care.  After all, he's not the one who may be eaten by a lion while constructing this project.

The people of Gentry have taken up the fight to save or replace the portion of the safari that will be made useless by the new 345kV power line running through it.  See their website here.

AEP says they can't move the power line out of the park because the route has already been approved by the PSC.  Instead, they are dragging the safari owner (a former AEP employee who didn't initially object to the route for fear of retaliation) through expensive and contentious eminent domain proceedings that will exceed the cost to AEP of simply filing a revised route at the Arkansas Public Service Commission.  It's pure and classic utility behemoth stupidity, where the tail regularly wags the dog.

Instead, AEP is trying to fix things through intimidation and censorship.  Local media has been avoiding this story because they also fear retaliation from AEP.  Hey... AEP... censor this...  :-)

In addition to efforts to effect a media blackout, AEP has been cyber stalking the community members leading the movement to save Safari 4.  One of them recently found this notification when logging into her Linked In account.

There's no reason a "Manager of Public Relations and Communications" at AEP would be looking at this woman's profile, except for the fact that she started a petition to save the Safari.  Why, AEP, WHY?  Why are you cyber-creeping on this woman?  Planning to use her professional information for future intimidation?  Or is AEP's manager just some kind of random cyber-creep doing his dirty deeds on company time and with company equipment?

Can't you just see the inter-office memo that may have gone out last week?

To:            All AEP Transmission Employees
From:        Nick Akins, CEO
Subject:    Cyber-stalking Opponents of Our Projects

It has come to my attention that some of you have been gathering information for our AEP transmission project opponent dossiers while signed in to your personal Linked In accounts that bear your job title and AEP's logo.  Please be aware that your profile views show up on the opponents Linked In pages!  In the future, please make up a fake Linked In profile to use for AEP-authorized cyber-stalking.  I suggest using the name Neil Peart, drummer for the band Rush.  He's way, way cool and I want to be just like him when I grow up!

Remember:  Safety and Transparency First!

Embarrassed yet, AEP?

You should be.  What do you think the jury hearing the safari eminent domain case next week is going to think of your heavy-handed tactics?

The smartly renamed RTO Insider brings us word of a new feeding frenzy that has erupted at PJM: 

Ever seen one of those TV clips where sharks go berserk feeding on the incapacitated corpse of a helpless animal?  The similarities are stunning.  Transmission builders are hungry, hungry, hungry for new projects where they can plunk down their "transmission spend" and spin the Wheel of Regional Cost Allocation and Incentive Returns to win big!

RTO Insider provides a run down of the proposals and a link to the July 10 PJM TEAC slide deck with more details and maps of each proposal (beginning on page 61).  I'm loving the way that RTO Insider makes the job of babysitting PJM so much easier for me!  No more random, inconvenient urges to go wade through PJM's webmaze to see what's new, and then going through all the trouble of running my find through the geek translator.  RTO Insider does all that for you!  Go get yourself a subscription now... because if you don't, I may know something you don't.

According to the RTO Insider's proposal list, all the proposals for Artificial Island include new transmission lines of various sizes.

It's just colorful lines on a map right now, isn't it?  It looks like someone at PJM had fun with their mouse and an RGB color chart, drawing proposed transmission lines across Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey.

Reality Check:  Each one of those lines runs through hundreds or thousands of backyards.  Real people, real property, real lives.  Will PJM spend any time contemplating the people whose way of life they are blithely sacrificing for the needs of others?  Will PJM consider the likelihood of opposition, environmental considerations, land values, or the welfare of affected individuals when choosing the winning proposal?  Will PJM notify the affected communities that there is a problem that needs to be solved by building new transmission lines in their area?  Will PJM consult with the communities to allow those possibly affected by the new project to weigh in on the proposal that is selected?

Of course not!  What do you think this is, a transparent democracy?  PJM will make its selection based on cost, or engineering, or other considerations (like which transmission company schmoozes best).  And then the winning bidder will begin planning their project and greasing the proper palms, carefully keeping their plans under wraps until they are ready to pull the rip cord and hold their public "open houses."  At that point, the transmission owner tells the people that the mysterious, unseen, regional transmission authority has ordered the company to build this project across the peoples' land and that there's nothing the transmission owner or the people can do about it.  The transmission owner's hands are tied and the peoples' fate is sealed!  What a load of crap!

These front-loaded fait accompli approaches never work.  The people will always want to backtrack to where the decision to build the transmission line was made in the first place.  They want to determine for themselves that there truly is no other option.  Meanwhile, the transmission owner pours buckets of ratepayer cash into astroturf front groups, dishonest TV commercials, smarmy land agents, political palm greasing, and celebrity spokeswhores, trying to convince the people, and ultimately the state regulators, that the project really is needed. 

There's got to be a better way.

Good luck with that, PJM.

Residents of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey -- we'll get to know each other real soon, won't we?  *sigh*

The authority to site and permit high-voltage transmission lines has historically rested with the states.  However, the federal government has been trying to wrest this authority from the states for years.

The states consider local need and issues when evaluating a project.  Affected stakeholders are afforded due process to participate in the debate at the state level.  Occasionally, a state will deny an application for a transmission project that provides no benefit to the state.  The feds, and the investor owned utilities who relentlessly lobby them, want to remove consideration of new transmission projects to Washington, DC, where due process will be smothered by national policy goals. 

But it hasn't been smooth sailing for the feds.  Congress has repeatedly declined to federalize transmission permitting and siting, preferring to leave authority with the states.  But the feds and the utility lobbyists have found other ways to try to gain what they haven't been granted by Congress. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 hid a few little wormholes for the feds to override states and claim eminent domain to site transmission under certain conditions.  One was Section 1221, the creation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and backstop siting authority for FERC to site transmission in these corridors in the event a state failed to act.  That section has been neutralized by the courts.

But, a second federal eminent domain tool that has not yet attracted much attention is about to be deployed through Section 1222, Third-Party Finance, in order to execute one of the worse abuses of federal eminent domain authority in history.  Section 1222 provides:

WAPA and SWPA are federal power marketing agencies set up to sell and deliver hydropower across central, western and southern states.  WAPA and SWPA, as federal agencies, are endowed with federal eminent domain authority to take private property for use in their systems.  Doesn't sound so bad, does it?  However, Section 1222 allows the Secretary of Energy to utilize WAPA's & SWPA's eminent domain authority for benefit of third-party projects in the agencies' territories that are not connected or necessary to their systems.  And this is where the slippery slope starts, friends.  Congress tried to prevent this kind of bad behavior by including qualifying standards for third-party projects, such as being approved in a regional transmission plan or equivalent, which would prevent duplication of projects, and requiring a finding of increased demand necessitating such a project.  Congress also put a cap on the amount of money WAPA and SWPA could accept from third parties.

And Congress also stipulated that Section 1222 could not override existing state laws.

But, personal relationships between DOE personnel and leadership of a private, for-profit corporation made things just so cozy that an RFP for Sec. 1222 projects was issued in 2010 that coincided with the development of this company's long-haul HVDC projects. 

And the next thing you know, Clean Line Energy Partners became the first and only transmission developer to respond to DOE's RFP for third-party financed projects under Sec. 1222.  Clean Line submitted a voluminous application for its Plains & Eastern Clean Line merchant transmission project in July 2010.  In its application, Clean Line made it clear that its only interest in participating under Sec. 1222 was the ability to have SWPA condemn land for its project:

Clean Line Energy Partners is a privately held company owned by Michael Zilkha and ZAM Ventures that is proposing to build four HVDC merchant transmission projects originating in the midwest.  A merchant transmission project is a for-profit venture that is paid for entirely by its owner.  In exchange for investing billions, Clean Line's super-rich owners will earn a hefty return on their capital by selling transmission capacity on the transmission lines to both generators and load serving entities.  Merchant transmission projects are speculative ventures that are proposed and built outside the regulated regional transmission planning process.  Merchant lines proposed outside a planning process have not been determined to be needed by anyone other than their owners.  If a transmission project is needed for reliability, economic or public policy reasons, it is approved by and included in the plan of a regional transmission operator.  A merchant transmission project is the wildcatter of the transmission business.

Without Section 1222 and SWPA's ability to take land for Clean Line via eminent domain, the company would have to apply for and receive public utility status and the power to condemn private property for its private gain from each individual state that it crosses.  This could prove onerous to the super-rich and muck up or delay their profit.

In exchange for stealing private property from citizens to be used for a private company's gain, SWPA could be granted a certain amount of transmission capacity on Clean Line's project, however, SWPA isn't in the wind business.  But DOE can use authority it was granted under Sec. 1222 to pick winners and losers in the renewable energy business, and Clean Line's investors put together a team with strong DOE connections.  Coincidence?  Probably not.

So, does Clean Line's project meet the requirements of Sec. 1222?

(1)(A) is located in an area designated under section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 824p(a)] and will reduce congestion of electric transmission in interstate commerce; or
(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual or projected increase in demand for electric transmission capacity;

Sec. 216(a) has been nullified by the courts, so (A) isn't even an option.  Here's Clean Line's justification for qualifying for (B) from their application: 

"In addition to the general demand for more transmission oriented to renewables, there is and will be a specific demand for transmission to address the following concerns:
Additional Transmission is Needed to Develop Wind Resources in the Southwest Power Pool;
Additional Transmission is Needed to Relieve Congestion in Western SPP;
Additional Export Capability is Needed from SPP; and
Additional Transmission is Needed to Import Power in the Southeast.
The Plains & Eastern Clean Line meets each of these needs."

No actual projected demand for the project from any official authority tasked with determining same was included.  The company points to bits and pieces of out-of-date studies that it feels justifies its desire to build this project, along with studies privately commissioned by the company.  I don't think this is the kind of "actual or projected increase in demand" that Congress had in mind.  It's pure posturing of the worst kind.

Other requirements stipulate that the project:

(2) is consistent with--
(A) transmission needs identified, in a transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate Transmission Organization (as defined in the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.]) if any, or approved regional reliability organization; and (5) will not duplicate the functions of existing transmission facilities or proposed facilities which are the subject of ongoing or approved siting and related permitting proceedings.

Clean Line's idea of compliance with this requirement?

"SPP repeatedly has identified the need to build additional transmission to fully develop wind potential in
the region and to export it to neighboring regions."  Right, but SPP did not identify Clean Line as the solution in its transmission expansion plan, or otherwise determine its project was needed.

Clean Line also relies on:

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is consistent with transmission needs identified in the Joint Coordinated
System Plan 2008 (JCSP). The JCSP was the first inter-regional transmission planning effort in the
Eastern Interconnection. The JCSP was a collaborative effort and involved most of the major
transmission operators in the Eastern Interconnection, including, MISO, SPP, PJM Interconnection, TVA,
Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and several key members of SERC."

And this 5 year old plan has been scrapped.  Also not what Congress had in mind for this requirement.

When DOE questioned Clean Line's eligibility under Sec. 1222, the company submitted an "updated application" that contained the same old lack of convincing evidence of qualification.

Nevertheless, DOE issued a letter entering into an agreement with Clean Line to move forward with the NEPA process.  DOE has not completely committed to the project yet, but if it does:

• Clean Line will agree that eminent domain authority would be used only as a last resort after negotiations in good faith have concluded with all affected landowners;
• Clean Line will agree that the Department will retain the option to select and oversee any land acquisition company required for the Project.

In that case, DOE needs to take a look at the complete and utter mess Clean Line has made out of the public information and land acquisition process.  Clean Line's idea of good faith negotiations with landowners, according to its updated application, put landowner notification last.  Clean Line makes much of meeting with "stakeholders" such as environmental organizations, state agencies, state legislators, members of the governors’ teams, and federal congressional delegations.  But only after all these entities, who are not personally affected and will not have to live with a Clean Line in their own backyard, have drunk the Clean Line Koolaid, does Clean Line consult with landowners:

"After the workshops, Clean Line will host public
open houses to gather feedback on the preferred and alternative routes from landowners and other
affected parties. These outreach efforts are designed to assure that relevant stakeholders have early and multiple opportunities to provide feedback..."  except for landowners.  Landowners are not considered "relevant stakeholders" by Clean Line.

DOE should think long and hard about making the federal government liable for the legal mistakes of a private company.  Just because the feds were successful in asserting federal eminent domain in another dissimilar situation, does not mean that helping the rich get even richer at the expense of the common man is a good idea.  How much money does Congress have budgeted for another federal court beatdown over eminent domain takings?

And DOE needs to take a good, hard, objective look at Clean Line's "qualifications" under Sec. 1222.  The company doesn't qualify without torturing the language in the statute, and a finding that it does qualify is also likely to lead to a separate, but equally vicious, court showdown.

Sometimes, it's just not worth the risk to help your "friends" by overstepping your legal authority and bending federal law.  Maybe the incoming Energy Secretary needs to do a little housekeeping before Congress does it for him, or he finds himself explaining DOE's taking of ordinary citizens' private property for use by super-rich investors.  Congress has resolutely rejected federal transmission siting authority over and over again and will likely continue to do so.

It seems that citizen opposition to its "Clean" Line projects is increasing!

"Clean" Line tried the "I elect transmission lines to public office" strategy by schmoozing and making empty promises to businesses, legislators, local governments and other groups long before the affected landowners who would have to sacrifice their land for this project got wind of it.

How effective was "Clean" Line's "community consultation" when the ones most affected by its projects were never consulted?

Approaching a community with a front-loaded fait accompli is a big, bad no-no.  Tsk, tsk, tsk, "Clean" Line!

Also, the political strategy playbook has been outed, studied and neutralized by transmission opponents.  How effective is a "playbook" when the other team has a copy, "Clean" Line?

Introducing -- Block Grain Belt Express!

Now affected communities in Kansas, Missouri and Illinois have their own sister group to the original Block Rock Island Clean Line.

Coming soon...  even more opposition!

Nobody needs or wants your "clean" projects, arrogant Texas and New York entrepreneurs.  Go wreck your own backyards in your own states.  Fail!