Over the years I've read one glowing blog after another, penned by environmental groups and "clean energy" focused pubs, singing the praises of the doomed Clean Line projects. Incumbent utilities, the fossil fuel industry, and mysterious "dark money" providers were blamed for getting in the way of "clean energy." Resistant landowners also took a clobbering, for being so "selfish" to not volunteer their land and desire to farm around new transmission lines. It was always someone else's fault that Clean Line was failing. But the song was always the same... we need big new transmission lines "for wind" in order to save the planet.
Recently, Clean Line has announced its ultimate failure (although it's actually been failing for years). The Clean Line projects are history. This fact seems to be just barely settling in when along comes another long-distance direct current transmission proposal, SOO Green Renewable Rail. You'd think these transmission ("for wind") lovers would be over the moon.
But they're not, if this article is any indication. While describing the project adequately, the author throws in certain unnecessary barbs that try to doom the project before it even gets started. Here's an example:
Recently, Clean Line has announced its ultimate failure (although it's actually been failing for years). The Clean Line projects are history. This fact seems to be just barely settling in when along comes another long-distance direct current transmission proposal, SOO Green Renewable Rail. You'd think these transmission ("for wind") lovers would be over the moon.
But they're not, if this article is any indication. While describing the project adequately, the author throws in certain unnecessary barbs that try to doom the project before it even gets started. Here's an example:
SOO Green could set a new paradigm for how to win approval for clean energy wires infrastructure...
Yay! Positive encouragement for a better future! Except that is followed by this:
...if it doesn't end up as another warning sign of how hard it can be.
Was that really necessary? I mean you all have been so busy heaping glowing compliments upon Clean Line, without those kind of barbs, and now when a project that could actually get done is on the horizon, you're a pessimistic Doubting Thomas.
Oh, so it's just one sorta off article, right? But then the armchair climate change warriors who spend way too much time reading and commenting on the ridiculous articles in this pub start up (and it's the same bunch every time). First they start talking about eminent domain and how good it is, how right, how just. A project that doesn't use eminent domain just can't be good. Then they start complaining about how expensive a buried project can be. We desperately need new transmission "for wind," but it has to be constructed the cheapest way possible, even if it poses a burden on landowners and gets held up and eventually cancelled by overwhelming community opposition? Is this really about "clean energy" at this point, or is it more about being "right" and powerful in an online forum and stomping on people you just don't like? You know what they say about people who spend inordinate amounts of time in online communities...
And now let's move onto the suspicious. Just about every single article about SOO Green Renewable Rail out of Iowa and Illinois mentioned the Rock Island Clean Line and its failure. The comparison, as inapt as it truly is, gets made for the reader. Considering the overwhelming opposition in these states that killed RICL dead, dead, deader than dead, how can these folks help but be suspicious of SOO Green? Some grabbed their torches and pitchforks and issued the battle cry, but aren't quite sure where the battle ground is.
If it's just like RICL, contentious permitting processes at state regulatory boards are on the horizon, and affected landowners want to participate. Except those processes won't happen. No eminent domain. Let's repeat that... NO EMINENT DOMAIN. Construction on existing rail rights of way. No private land may be taken against the owner's will. If the project isn't harming anyone's property, what case would they make against it? One person stated that there is no "need" for such a project. I'm pretty sure "need" isn't a factor here. As a merchant transmission owner, the only examination of "need" comes from customers. If customers sign contracts to buy service, then it's "needed." Why would any state regulator need to examine "need" if jurisdictional ratepayers aren't paying for it, and there is no request for eminent domain authority? I just can't see any logical case against SOO Green, except that folks don't like transmission and think there are other solutions. I tend to agree with them, for the most part, but if a transmission project that doesn't demand any sacrifice of others gets built underground on existing rights of way, won't that become a feather in the cap of transmission opponents on future overhead, eminent domain, projects? If SOO Green proves that transmission really can be constructed underground on existing rights of way, what is the excuse for any future project that wants to do it the old fashioned way?
And I suppose it doesn't help that many of the Midwestern news articles were packed with the same old, tired Clean Line glitter, such as overinflated promises of jobs (600!), generalities about how "hungry" the east coast is for power (hint: it's not, it's doing just fine building its own renewables, such as offshore wind), and overblown claims about how SOO Green is "for wind." The suspicious have heard all this dreck before, and they didn't believe it the first time. Recycling Clean Line talking points bolsters the comparison to Clean Line and can only make things harder down the road. Let's hope SOO Green can just be itself -- a revolutionary idea that can change the way transmission is built in this country. Applying a tired transmission line narrative to a fresh new idea is sort of disappointing, and it's fueling existing suspicion.
Perhaps it was too much too soon for many of the naysayers and the suspicious. Maybe they just need a little time to noodle it out. SOO Green has a hard road ahead convincing these folks that they don't have ulterior motives, and that they can get the job done. I'm willing to give SOO Green a chance, how about you?
Oh, so it's just one sorta off article, right? But then the armchair climate change warriors who spend way too much time reading and commenting on the ridiculous articles in this pub start up (and it's the same bunch every time). First they start talking about eminent domain and how good it is, how right, how just. A project that doesn't use eminent domain just can't be good. Then they start complaining about how expensive a buried project can be. We desperately need new transmission "for wind," but it has to be constructed the cheapest way possible, even if it poses a burden on landowners and gets held up and eventually cancelled by overwhelming community opposition? Is this really about "clean energy" at this point, or is it more about being "right" and powerful in an online forum and stomping on people you just don't like? You know what they say about people who spend inordinate amounts of time in online communities...
And now let's move onto the suspicious. Just about every single article about SOO Green Renewable Rail out of Iowa and Illinois mentioned the Rock Island Clean Line and its failure. The comparison, as inapt as it truly is, gets made for the reader. Considering the overwhelming opposition in these states that killed RICL dead, dead, deader than dead, how can these folks help but be suspicious of SOO Green? Some grabbed their torches and pitchforks and issued the battle cry, but aren't quite sure where the battle ground is.
If it's just like RICL, contentious permitting processes at state regulatory boards are on the horizon, and affected landowners want to participate. Except those processes won't happen. No eminent domain. Let's repeat that... NO EMINENT DOMAIN. Construction on existing rail rights of way. No private land may be taken against the owner's will. If the project isn't harming anyone's property, what case would they make against it? One person stated that there is no "need" for such a project. I'm pretty sure "need" isn't a factor here. As a merchant transmission owner, the only examination of "need" comes from customers. If customers sign contracts to buy service, then it's "needed." Why would any state regulator need to examine "need" if jurisdictional ratepayers aren't paying for it, and there is no request for eminent domain authority? I just can't see any logical case against SOO Green, except that folks don't like transmission and think there are other solutions. I tend to agree with them, for the most part, but if a transmission project that doesn't demand any sacrifice of others gets built underground on existing rights of way, won't that become a feather in the cap of transmission opponents on future overhead, eminent domain, projects? If SOO Green proves that transmission really can be constructed underground on existing rights of way, what is the excuse for any future project that wants to do it the old fashioned way?
And I suppose it doesn't help that many of the Midwestern news articles were packed with the same old, tired Clean Line glitter, such as overinflated promises of jobs (600!), generalities about how "hungry" the east coast is for power (hint: it's not, it's doing just fine building its own renewables, such as offshore wind), and overblown claims about how SOO Green is "for wind." The suspicious have heard all this dreck before, and they didn't believe it the first time. Recycling Clean Line talking points bolsters the comparison to Clean Line and can only make things harder down the road. Let's hope SOO Green can just be itself -- a revolutionary idea that can change the way transmission is built in this country. Applying a tired transmission line narrative to a fresh new idea is sort of disappointing, and it's fueling existing suspicion.
Perhaps it was too much too soon for many of the naysayers and the suspicious. Maybe they just need a little time to noodle it out. SOO Green has a hard road ahead convincing these folks that they don't have ulterior motives, and that they can get the job done. I'm willing to give SOO Green a chance, how about you?
RSS Feed