Clean Line President Michael Skelly recently told a Tulsa World reporter that his company is going through a federal permitting process for its Plains & Eastern Clean Line because the project wants to cross three states.  (watch the video)

There's no such thing as a "federal permitting process" for high-voltage electric transmission lines!

Skelly calls the U.S. Department of Energy the "permitting agency."  However, what he's referring to is Clean Line's application to have the U.S. DOE "participate" in its for-profit transmission venture undertaken outside the normal regional transmission planning process.

Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Third Party Finance, allows federal power marketing agencies to "participate" in transmission projects that are built within their territories.  As noted in the title of the statute, Sec. 1222 projects must be financed by third parties (in this case, Clean Line's private venture capitalists).  Section 1222 does not give U.S. DOE authority to PERMIT or site transmission projects.  It simply allows "participation."  In Clean Line's case, the company is only interested in DOE's "participation" in order to anoint itself with the power marketing agency's federal eminent domain authority to condemn and take right of way from private landowners.
DOE and Southwestern understand and agree that their ability to acquire through condemnation proceedings property necessary for the development,  construction and operation of the Project is one of the primary reasons for Clean Line’s interest in developing the Project with DOE and Southwestern and through the use of EPAct 2005 section 1222.
DOE and Southwestern agree that, if the Secretary of Energy ultimately decides upon the conclusion of such evaluation as DOE and Southwestern deem appropriate that (i) the Project complies with section 1222, and (ii) to participate in the Project’s development pursuant to section 1222, then, DOE and Southwestern will use their condemnation authority as may be necessary and appropriate for the timely, cost-effective and commercially reasonable development, construction and operation of the Project.
Section 1222 is not purposed to "permit" transmission lines when a state has denied a permit.
d) Relationship to other laws
Nothing in this section affects any requirement of--
(1) any Federal environmental law, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(2) any Federal or State law relating to the siting of energy facilities; or
(3) any existing authorizing statutes.
It simply allows DOE to "participate" in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining or owning transmission.  It permits DOE to assume liability for the actions of a third party in order to utilize federal power marketing authority for benefit of transmission that is not part of or necessary to their systems.
The Secretary, acting through WAPA or SWPA, or both, may design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining, or owning, a new electric power transmission facility and related facilities (“Project”) located within any State in which WAPA or SWPA operates if the Secretary, in consultation with the applicable Administrator, determines that the proposed Project--
(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;
(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
(B) efficient and reliable operation of the transmission grid;
(3) will be operated in conformance with prudent utility practice;
(4) will be operated by, or in conformance with the rules of, the appropriate (A) Transmission Organization, if any, or (B) if such an organization does not exist, 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.
There's simply nothing in Section 1222 that authorizes DOE to issue a "permit" for new transmission lines that have been denied by a state.  If a state created laws requiring merchant transmission projects to receive a permit from the state before beginning construction, Section 1222 is a worthless exercise in federal usurpation of state authority.  Transmission siting and permitting is state-jurisdictional.  The federal government has no authority to override state laws.

Clean Line is currently trying to get the DOE to agree to accept liability for its actions and "participate" in its project.  Before making a decision whether or not to "participate," DOE is undertaking an Environmental Impact Statement, which is required for any federal actions that affect the environment.  In the video, Skelly encourages people to "weigh in" during the Draft EIS comment window (ends March 19).  Skelly tells people to comment whether or not they like the project and where it should be routed.  This is wrong.  Comments should be directed around aspects of the draft EIS, which examines the environmental and social factors of the project.  There will be a separate 45-day comment period for the public to "weigh in" on the DOE's decision whether or not to "participate" in the project, which will begin AFTER the EIS is completed.  Skelly wants you to think that the EIS is your only avenue to comment on Section 1222.  It's not, but you should comment on it nonetheless by going to this link.

Skelly also goes on about state and local property taxes, claiming that localities will benefit to the tune of $20K per mile, or half a million bucks a year.  How did he do that math, considering each county has a different amount of proposed line mileage?  He also forgets to mention that Clean Line has pursued and received tax abatement in a number of states and localities for periods of up to ten years.   That will be 10 years of Clean Line using your local roads, infrastructure and services to construct and operate its project before you receive a dime of reimbursement for what it costs you to support it.

Skelly also tells the reporter that "the grid is maxed out" and Clean Line is "a vital piece of the puzzle to get wind online."  Not so.  The grid is not "maxed out."  It is a carefully planned machine that is operated by regional transmission organizations and balancing authorities.  These authorities undertake long-term planning that allows for needed expansion of our grid.  If wind farms, or other generators, submit requests to interconnect to the grid, they get placed in a queue that allows the authority to consider new generation and how transmission may be needed and planned to move the generation to where it is needed in within the region.

Clean Line has bypassed this process and is proposing its project without any recognized need for the transmission or generation it proposes to bring online.  Section 1222 requires that any project in which the DOE "participates" be consistent with, and not duplicative of, any regional plan.
IS CONSISTENT WITH:  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 fails this very important stipulation in Sec. 1222.  Needed transmission is already being undertaken by our regional authorities.  Clean Line is unnecessary duplication intended to stimulate construction of generation purposed only to export power between regions.  It also fails to present any evidence that there are buyers for this power in other regions.  It's just not true that new generation cannot be built without Clean Line providing a way to get it to "market," considering there is no identified market.  Clean Line is in a chicken/egg scenario, supposing if it builds its project that generation and customers will develop, however, Clean Line cannot build without generators and customers developing FIRST.  So, which came first?  Clean Line, or generators and customers?  We'll probably never find out because I don't think Clean Line is ever going to happen.

Skelly says that in order to utilize Clean Line's maximum capacity of 4,000 MW, 3,000 new wind turbines will have to be constructed near the project's Oklahoma converter station.  Each turbine requires 1/2 a square mile of land, so we're talking about covering 1,500 square miles of land with wind turbines.  That's roughly an area comparable to the entire State of Rhode Island.  Skelly also points out that his project will simply waste 5% of the energy it carries through line loss.  By comparison, a renewable generator sited near or at the electric load wastes little to none of the energy generated.  Taking huge tracts of land out of production to generate energy that is transported long distance to load is simply wasteful.

Skelly shares that he believes "energy is a big deal" and his long journey from idea to reality will be "worth it."  Classic words from a guy using someone else's money to dream the impossible dream.

 
 
Arkansas Congressman Steve Womack seems to be tired of being put off by the U.S. Department of Energy.  On Thursday, the Congressman sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Moniz, demanding a meeting to get the answers about Clean Line and Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act that he has been denied on two previous occasions.
Secretary Moniz:

I have now written you in August 2013 and September 2014 regarding the Department of
Energy's (DOE's) consideration for a partnership with Clean Line Energy Partners through the Plains & Eastern transmission line project and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to my questions.

Since the date of my previous inquiry, I understand that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been released for public comment, at which point, in accordance with your latest response to my office, "DOE will consider questions such as those raised in [my] letter."  Unfortunately, merely acknowledging this fact does not, in turn, answer the questions raised.

As you know, the path of the proposed transmission line runs directly through the Third District of Arkansas. Therefore, I am extremely concerned about Clean Line's authorization.  Respectfully, I am also very frustrated by one of your Department's disingenuous responses to my letters that identified "public interest" as one of the considerations given to the Clean Line
application.
There has been an astounding lack of assurance that my district - and the State of Arkansas- will have any interest in this project at all and no guarantee that Clean Line will supply power to my constituents and my state. I place further emphasis on this concern given the denial of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the initial application Clean Line had submitted to the Arkansas Public Service Commission.

Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has never been invoked for the approval of an
electric power transmission facility. In light of the uncertainty of this process and the Section
1222 application, in addition to a lack of assurance regarding the benefit for the state of Arkansas from such a transmission line, I must again ask the following:

• What guarantee might the citizens of the Third District be afforded when it comes to a
specific energy supply to our state rather than a highway for power to Tennessee?
How does the Department of Energy determine its authority for partnership with a private entity and the application of supposed rights to eminent domain?
• What factor does the denial of Clean Line as a public utility in the State of Arkansas play
in the final decision by the Department of Energy?

The DOE has been less than forthright in providing answers to the legitimate questions raised regarding Clean Line. Therefore, at this time, I would like to request a formal meeting with you to not only discuss these questions, but also the unacceptable responses that have been sent to both my office and stakeholders within the Third District. I look forward to your prompt reply.
Congress created Sec. 1222, Congress can take it away.

Something fishy is going on here...  maybe it's time to start an official investigation into the way DOE has been handling the Clean Line matter.  I'd start by asking them why the "Management Committee" as described in section 8a of Contract No. 1 between Clean Line Energy and the DOE, the Advance Funding and Development
Agreement Plains and Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project
, has not been meeting quarterly as stipulated in the agreement.
 
 
Coming across common themes over and over tells me something... maybe I should write about it?

I've seen a whole bunch lately about the politics of transmission line proposals, more precisely how politics affects the state public utility commission process.

This morning, I read something that pushed the issue into blog post status.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad has warned his state legislature not to interfere in the business of the Iowa Utilities Board.
Branstad, who appoints the members of the utilities board, warned against "political interference" into the administrative review process by which a pipeline carrying Bakken crude oil and a transmission line transporting wind-generated electricity could be approved.

"It would be mistake to get politics into this," Branstad said. "We should abide by the processes that have been put in place."
Maybe Branstad doesn't understand those "processes?"  Our government is separated into three branches:  The Executive Branch carries out existing laws and recommends (but does not alone create) new ones.  It administers our government.  The Legislative Branch makes laws, at the will of the people it represents.  The Judicial Branch interprets existing laws.  Branstad is a member of the executive branch.  The Iowa legislature is a member of the legislative branch.  The IUB is a member of the judicial branch, although unlike a regular court, a utility board can make up copious rules about how they're going to carry out the laws made by the legislative branch.  Trying to figure out which one is more powerful is an exercise in futility... and politics.

Branstad, as Governor, appoints the members of the IUB.  This is a political process.  A member of the executive branch will appoint those he believes will carry out his mission.  Once appointed, IUB members are supposed to serve independently as they interpret utility laws, however, a crafty governor can control this process by allowing appointments to expire while the incumbents continue to serve at the daily whim of the governor, who can remove the incumbent and replace him at any time.  I have no idea if this is the situation in Iowa, but I have seen just this situation perpetuate in several states.  When it happens, the judicial branch comes under the thumb of the executive branch and can be easily influenced to make certain decisions on a political basis in order to remain in place.

The legislature makes the laws that direct the actions of an independent, quasi-judicial utility board.  The judicial branch cannot create laws, but receives its marching orders from the legislative branch.  If the legislature is displeased by the actions of the Board, it can make new laws to shape the decisions of the Board.  In this way, the legislature can influence the judicial branch.  However, there's more protection on this side of the coin, because the legislative branch is operating at the will of the people, and must obtain consensus from many to create new laws.

I don't know why Branstad believes it's not already "political."  The state utility board process is about as political as it gets.  While he warns the legislature not to get involved in a situation he controls, what the legislature eventually does will be political.  It's all political!

So, if you want to influence your state utility board process, you must engage in politics.  You can talk to your legislators to gain their support to make new laws that guide the decisions the utility board makes.  You should probably talk to your governor about refraining from getting involved in the utility board processes.  Branstad has it completely backwards!

Politics is described as:
the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power:
Companies proposing new transmission projects hope to influence the judicial process as much as individuals or groups opposing the transmission project.  In order to do so, they push the legislative or executive branch to shape the judicial decision.  Despite plenty of denial, the judicial processes of a utility board are heavily influenced by politics.  It's the reason transmission developers spend so much lobbying your representatives to support their projects AGAINST YOUR WISHES!

Public opinion drives political decisions.  A legislator is carrying out the will of the people.  If enough people become involved in a utility board process, they can shape the process through their legislators, who may be more interested in their duty to the people than the free lunches and campaign contributions transmission corporations provide.  The bigger the public push back, the better your chances.

Transmission developers also court other groups and individuals to take a position supporting their proposal.  Sometimes a quid pro quo situation develops.  This happens because a utility board is unlikely to approve even the best project if it is under political fire not to do so, therefore the transmission developer needs allies to create, at least, an appearance of support.

So, can a large, loud uprising of the people affect the decision of a utility board?  You bet'cha!  But don't get confused by the difference between public opinion and public comment.

Public opinion is an aggregate of public comment.  The public comments citizens make to a utility board, in isolation, rarely drive the decision of the Board because they are typically not based on legal arguments about the laws the Board must follow in its findings.

Utility law guru Scott Hempling recently pondered the effectiveness of public comments in his monthly essay.  This month, he featured several questions that he will use as projects for his utility law students.  Here's one:
Engaging the public:  Candor requires an admission:  The lay citizenry's views do not count as "substantial evidence," required by courts to sustain agency orders.  Does that fact make public hearings (i.e., the non-technical hearings) shams?  If not, then what is the value of public participation?  What are ways to create that value, at reasonable cost?   Traditionally, agencies announced public hearings in the newspaper's "legal notices."  How useful is that approach today?  What are an agency's responsibilities to educate the public and seek its views?
The "substantial evidence" Hempling mentions must come through the legal process, either through an attorney or individuals acting pro se.  While a utility board's decision is politically-driven, it must back up its decision on a legal basis.  The utility provides its proposed legal basis for approval through the evidentiary hearing process.  Opposition must therefore provide its own legal basis for denial in this same venue.  The utility board, thus armed, can choose from whichever body of evidence it needs to to back up its decision (and hopefully make it stick.)  It's pretty hard to make a decision that's not legally sound stick through appeals.  It would be doubly-hard for a utility board to make a decision that denies evidence of future reliability issues coming from a supposedly independent third party, such as a regional transmission organization.  Therefore, a utility or RTO may choose to find new information upon which to withdraw its proposal, instead of forcing a utility board into a denial.  But, again, this is a political process that takes place that allows utilities to withdraw and save face (and money, but that's another story).

So while your own individual comment may not carry much legal weight, when combined with the comments of thousands of others, it is a very powerful, political tool!

If Branstad truly wants to keep "politics" out of utility board decisions in Iowa, he should start a little closer to home.  The legislature, as the body tasked with making laws, can make any laws it chooses, whether Branstad likes them or not.  Sure, he could veto a new law, but doing so to a new law widely supported by the people would come at his own political peril.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world;
indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead
 
 
Get out your hip-waders, folks, it's going to get pretty deep!

According to this article, in 2011 former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu appointed Lauren Azar to a position at the DOE in order to carry out the administration's political agenda. 
Chu's selection of Azar was largely seen as a sign of the Obama administration's intense interest in expanding the grid to support renewables and tackle climate change, sources said.
Azar got the finger pointed at her as the impetus for a controversial memo that urged federal power marketing agencies (PMAs) to use their authority to help get privately funded transmission projects built.
As laid out in the memo, she also championed Texas-based Clean Line Energy's application to partner with DOE through its never-before-used authority under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, which would allow a PMA with federal authority to site the line and overcome state opposition.
It's not about reliability or economics of the grid, it's about federal support for certain companies with personal ties to the DOE:
Jimmy Glotfelty, founder of Clean Line Energy Partners and a former senior electricity adviser for President George W. Bush, said Azar should be remembered for trying to build infrastructure and integrate renewables in a thoughtful and cooperative manner.

"The customers of PMAs are pretty protective, and if you ask a lot of people who have been in her shoes -- including myself -- it's not uncommon to get into debates with customers of PMAs," he said. "They're tough negotiators."
Clean Line, with its DOE-connected "vice president," became the only transmission company to take advantage of Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 during a very convenient RFP process run by the DOE in 2010.  But the pre-Azar DOE just wasn't aggressive enough:
Azar brought that same spirit to DOE. She helped bring together the "federal family" in 2011 -- nine agencies key to streamlining federal permitting of major new power lines that could have taken up to 15 years to garner approval (Greenwire, Oct. 5, 2011). DOE already had existing authority to do so under 216(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, language that allows the agency to coordinate federal and environmental reviews.

"DOE, until I got there, implemented [the rule] in somewhat of a tepid manner," she said. "I came in like gangbusters as I always do and not only helped to lead the rapid respond team for transmission but helped DOE draft some rules for 216(h), negotiate with the nine agencies."
Shortly after Azar was appointed, Clean Line submitted an "updated" application under Sec. 1222 in order to use the federal power marketing agencies to take land for its private gain and override state denials.
The Honorable Lauren Azar
Senior Advisor to the Secretary
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, D.C. 20585

August 17, 2011

Dear Lauren,

With development efforts well under way, the Plains & Eastern Clean Line is positioned to
help meet President Obama's call for 80% clean energy by 2035. The Plains & Eastern Clean Line will provide affordable, renewable power to millions of customers in the  southeastern United States. Regulatory and permitting approvals at the state and federal levels are the critical path items. Since submitting a proposal in July 2010, the Plains & Eastern Clean Line has made substantial development progress, strengthening the case for a partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE) and Southwestern under  Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The attached document provides an update on our efforts, including the widespread support the project has received from a diverse group of stakeholders. It also supplements the original application with respect to how the project is necessary to accommodate the increase in demand for transmission capacity and how the project is consistent with needs identified in transmission plans or otherwise by the appropriate transmission organization.
Projects like the Plains & Eastern Clean Line have the potential to return the United States to a global leadership position in clean energy. The private sector has the resources and the desire to invest in our aging infrastructure and we respectfully ask that the DOE exercise its authority to make it possible. We  appreciate the attention you are giving the Plains & Eastern Clean Line. We will be in Washington, DC regularly in the coming months and would like the opportunity to sit down with you and your team to review the project materials and respond to any  questions.
Magically, the DOE entered into an Advance Funding and Development Agreement with Clean Line in early 2012, despite the fact that Clean Line did NOT meet all the statutory criteria in Sec. 1222.  Sec. 1222 requires that a 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
Clean Line's projects are not a part of any transmission expansion plan, therefore they cannot be "consistent with" a plan that does not include them. 

Instead, the DOE relied on:
DOE has emphasized the need for additional high voltage transmission capacity to deliver renewable resources from transmission-constrained areas, stating in its "20% Wind Energy by 2030" Report that "If the considerable wind resources of the United States are to be utilized, a significant amount of new transmission will be required."
GRID2030 is probably the highlight of Clean Line "vice president" Glotfelty's career at the DOE.  And then Glotfelty leaves the DOE after setting the stage, and personally invests in Clean Line Energy Partners? 

Clean Line brags:

Jimmy worked for George W. Bush, for almost eight years, at both the gubernatorial and presidential levels. He led the Bush Administration’s efforts on electricity issues with Congress and the electric utility industry.  In this capacity, he founded Office of Electric Delivery and Energy Reliability at the Department of Energy (DOE) and served as its first Director.
Let's see... which office is undertaking DOE's consideration of Clean Line's application under Sec. 1222? 
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Section 1222 Program is administered by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE).
Wow!  What a coincidence!  A DOE appointee uses his office to set up a scheme whereby private investors can override state authority and regional transmission planning processes, and then leaves his position to personally invest in just such a scheme?  And the office he "founded" is now in a position to approve his financial scheme?

Something stinks here...

Maybe this guy should investigate and clear up the appearances of federal actions undertaken for private profit?

Whether the department will take the same approach under Chu's successor, MIT nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz, remains unclear.
I don't think that Moniz has a clue what his underlings are up to, but that's no excuse to let this federal land-taking scheme continue.

Clean Line's plans are a for-profit initiative masquerading as a political agenda.  And DOE's political agenda is favoring corporate interests over the interests of the citizens and consumers it is supposed to serve.  Let's clean the stink out of our federal Department of Energy!
 
 
I don't know about you, but I've had my fill of election season annoyances.  The commercials, phone calls, mailings, and facebook accusations can stop now.... I've already voted.

I hope you do a little research on the candidates before you vote!  Campaign finance reports are a good place to start:
Ohio-based FirstEnergy has been a busy little bee supporting certain candidates for state offices.  But some candidates didn't take FirstEnergy's dirty money.

In the 16th District Senate race, Senator John Unger hasn't received any FirstEnergy money.  However, his opponent, Larry Faircloth took $1000 from FirstEnergy's PAC.  Faircloth also took money from Roach Oil (that benefits from high eastern panhandle gas prices). Campaign finance aside, Faircloth is also responsible for the 35% hike in Berkeley Co. sewer fees.  Developer Faircloth filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate developer impact fees for increases to sewage capacity.  Due to loss of the impact fees, the sewer district had to file for an 11% rate increase.  Larry Faircloth's personal financial interests seem to trump the interests of the citizens he wants to represent.  I have reservations about whose interests Faircloth would serve if elected.

In the 67th District Delegate race, Delegate Stephen Skinner's campaign finance reports are FirstEnergy-free.  That's not too surprising, since Delegate Skinner has taken an active role in criticizing FirstEnergy's bungling of estimated bills and recent rate increase request.  His opponent, Pat Rucker, lists a $500 contribution from FirstEnergy PAC on her campaign finance report.  Which candidate do you think would do more to protect you from FirstEnergy's money-grubbing, shoddy business practices?  I didn't see Pat Rucker at the recent FirstEnergy rate increase hearings.  She must support the company's request for a 17.2% hike in your electric bill.

In the 66th District Delegate race, Mountain Party candidate Danny Lutz has received no funding from FirstEnergy.  However, his opponent, Frontier's representative Paul Espinosa seems to be pretty cozy with the FirstEnergy bigwigs in Akron.  In addition to the obligatory $1,000 donation from the FirstEnergy PAC, FirstEnergy's boy also got another $1,000 donation from FirstEnergy CEO Tony Alexander.  You'd think the Alexander family would have better things to do with their money than to toss it away on a West Virginia Delegate's race?

A vote for Unger, Skinner or Lutz is a vote AGAINST FirstEnergy!  Don't forget to make yours count!

 
 
Remember the letter to the TVA from Tennessee Congressmen Alexander and Fincher that asked some hard questions about Clean Line's Plains and Eastern Project?

The TVA has responded, and it's not looking good for Clean Line!  The letter, from TVA CEO William Johnson, is an exercise in reading between the lines, but here's my take on it, in a nutshell:

Clean Line is not economic for the TVA and presents reliability issues.
The answers to Alexander's and Fincher's questions are:
1. Does purchasing electricity from this distance increase security threats to TVA's
power supply? Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz has said we should
pay attention to generating more energy where we use it because of national
security risks.

The power grid is a complex, interconnected network of generating plants,
transmission lines, and distribution facilities. This system is designed with
redundancy and resiliency at its core to ensure a reliable electric power system.
Some increase in security risk is unavoidable as distance increases between
generation and point of use. The extra distance provides additional exposure for
natural or malicious events to force a transmission path out of service. The potential
for an interruption with long duration to power supply increases if full transmission network redundancy is not provided or as greater amounts of supply are obtained
from more remote sources. The Department of Defense has become aware of this
risk; it is implementing a program to make its major installations self-sustaining in
energy to mitigate the potential interruption from the grid.
Translation:  Yes.  The most reliable system is one where generation is located as close as possible to point of use.  Long transmission lines increase the opportunities for equipment failure, natural disaster, or terrorist activity.  Our military realizes this and has begun to island itself from the vagaries of our increasingly complex grid and long distance power shipments by building its own secure generation sources on site, which is known as distributed generation.
2. What is the cost of purchasing wind electricity compared to TVA generating or
purchasing other types of electricity generation?

TVA is studying the addition of new wind energy resources as part of the
development of its new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). This process provides
opportunity for public participation. When TVA evaluates the cost of wind energy,
we include the value of the energy itself, as well as the cost to transmit out-of-valley
wind energy to the Tennessee Valley. In addition, there are costs associated with
the intermittent nature of wind generation. Through the IRP, TVA will rigorously
compare wind energy purchases against other alternative sources of energy
(renewables, new and existing TVA generating assets, or purchased power) to
serve local power companies and directly-served customers in a cost-effective
manner.
In FY2013, TVA's average fuel rates by asset type were as follows: nuclear,
$6/MWh; coal, $32/MWh; and gas, $39/MWh. The TVA average system fuel cost,
which includes hydro (no fuel cost) and purchased power, was $24/MWh. By
comparison, off-system wind purchases were $80/MWh (including transmission).
The cost of both wind and solar have trended steadily down in recent years. Lazard
Freres and Company, LLC, a leading financial advisory firm, does a periodic study
on the costs of renewable energy. Its most recent report states that the cost to
generate wind with the Federal production tax credit (PTC) is as low as $23 MWh;
without the credit, the costs are as low as $45 MWh. (Note that these are
production costs that do not take into account the cost of delivery to or the impact on
the TV A system.)
Translation:  Wind is the most expensive resource in TVA's portfolio of resources.  Wind without the PTC (and there currently is no PTC) costs $45 MWh to produce.  In order to get remote wind into TVA's system, Clean Line will add transmission costs that the company previously pegged at $25 MWh, for a total of $70 MWh.  This is a figure very generous to Clean Line, because it doesn't include any of the additional costs Clean Line is going to have to cover to pay for any necessary upgrades to TVA's transmission system to handle the injection of its generation.  TVA's $80 MWh price for remote wind is probably pretty accurate.  In addition, TVA says there are additional indirect costs due to wind's intermittent nature that must be considered.  All of this number crunching will occur as part of TVA's Integrated Resource Plan, which is still in process.  A decision on Clean Line is still a long way off.
3. There is substantial opposition in Congress to the wind production tax credit. Will
TVA ratepayers be at risk of increased rates if the wind production tax credit is not
renewed?

TVA does not benefit directly from the PTC. As noted in the prior response, the
PTC has a material impact on the cost structure of wind developers and, in turn, the
price they can offer to TVA or other purchasers of the wind energy. Any TVA
purchase of wind energy would be under a long-term contract that would place risk
associated with the tax credit on the seller.
Translation:  That would be the wind farm's problem because any contract TVA would sign would be for a fixed price.  If a lack of tax incentives makes building new wind farms uneconomic, then they won't be built!
4. What is the reliability of purchasing wind power as compared to other types of
electricity generated by natural gas, nuclear, coal, or hydropower?

Because wind is an intermittent resource that lacks some of the dispatch capability
of other resources, it does not eliminate the need for base load or dispatchable
power plants like nuclear, natural gas, coal and hydropower. Adding intermittent
generation resources like wind can be challenging to manage, particularly as the
volume of generation from those sources increases. Wind patterns are fairly
predictable, but not entirely so; in addition, weather and other factors can affect
output. To maintain reliability, a wind energy purchaser must keep adequate
capacity and spinning reserves to cover the variability inherent to wind. Spinning
reserve is typically calculated as the amount of capacity available to cover the loss
of the largest generation source on the system. Utilities across the country have
been integrating more wind into their systems over the last several years, and TVA
already integrates 1,515 megawatts of off-system wind power. The industry has
growing experience with this issue, but it does make ensuring reliability more
complex.
Translation:  Because wind is intermittent, it's not reliable.  TVA would have to pay to have reserve generation available at all times to make up for wind's unreliability.  In other words, buying wind would do little to shut down existing fossil fuel plants.
5. TVA's peak power demands tend to be between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and wind
tends to mostly blow at night. How does wind power fit into TVA's overall demand
structure if the electricity isn't being produced when TVA needs it the most?

TVA analyzes historic and forecasted wind patterns to determine expected wind
deliveries at our system peak. Our forecasting and planning processes reflect
adjustment to wind generation at our summer peaks based on this analysis. Clean
Line has told us that a production profile provided by the independent meteorology
firm, 3Tier Oklahoma, shows that panhandle wind energy produces at about a 50
percent capacity factor between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., thus
contributing to meeting peak demand. TVA's current wind resources produced
about 25 percent average capacity factor over that peak period last summer, with
significant variation each day (between 5 and 65 percent capacity factor). TVA will
take the seasonal and time-of-day energy patterns of wind into account when
evaluating adding additional wind energy to its portfolio.
Translation:  Clean Line says its generation will be available 50% of the time, but reality and experience shows it will actually only be available 25% of the time, with extreme highs and lows.  When there are lows, the lights could go out if there isn't enough reserve generation ready to go (spinning).
6. At a roundtable in September 2013, hosted by Senators Corker and Alexander, you
said that TVA didn't need additional electricity generation capacity as the result of
reduced electricity demand. Has this projection changed?

Electricity demand is not expected to return to 2007 levels until the end of this
decade. We are projecting growth in demand of approximately 0.6 percent per year,
net of TVA's energy efficiency efforts. TVA believes that we have adequate
supplies to meet the near- to mid-term energy needs of the Valley reliably. Cleaner
energy sources, including nuclear, renewables, hydro and energy efficiency, provide
diversity within TVA's existing balanced energy portfolio. TVA is evaluating future
power needs and opportunities to meet them through the IRP. Wind and other
generating resources are regularly evaluated against existing or planned asset
additions to address changing conditions.
Translation:  Demand has tanked and is not expected to recover.
7. If the projection for TVA's electricity demand has changed since September 2013,
does it make more sense to purchase this wind power from Clean Line Energy
Partners, to build additional nuclear capacity, or to build additional natural gas or
coal capacity?

While demand over the next decade or so is predicted to be stable with low growth,
the TVA generation fleet is in transition. TVA has retired or will retire a substantial
portion of its coal fleet; we are committed to the completion of Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant Unit 2 and to a large new gas combined cycle plant in Paradise, Kentucky.
We have the potential to get incremental megawatts from the hydro system and a
significant amount from power uprates in the nuclear fleet. We have to either
retrofit, retire, or replace the Allen Plant in Memphis before 2019 under the terms of
an agreement with EPA and others. (Clean Line cannot supplant Allen because of
the need for a generation source physically located in that area to provide
transmission support that imported wind generation cannot provide.) In addition,
other market participants have approached TVA with expressions of interest to
provide electricity from gas, nuclear, wind and solar assets. TVA also factors in
energy efficiency and demand response programs into its resource decisions. The
recently announced draft 111 (d) rule from EPA, if enacted in its current form, will
also have a national impact on future decisions.
Clean Line will be evaluated in this context of low growth, transitioning fleet and
other options by application of the statutory mandate and guidance noted in the
preamble of this letter.
Translation:  In a word, no.  Clean Line isn't even a useful substitute for generation from coal plants that TVA is planning to close.  There are plenty of other resources available.

The rest of the questions deal with eminent domain questions, which TVA could have batted away entirely because TVA will not participate in those activities.  However, TVA answered each question with, "Clean Line said...." and repeated the same old carefully crafted lines about "voluntary acquisition," continued use of the properties for farming and ranching, and compensation in accordance with Clean Line's paid-for market value studies.  Read these answers using a falsetto voice for the things Clean Line said and you'll get a better appreciation for TVA's tongue-in-cheek repetition of Clean Line propaganda.

Bottom Line:  Clean Line needs to look elsewhere for customers for its Plains & Eastern payload.
 
 
After enough wrangling to make a cowboy cry, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee confirmed the nomination of Norman Bay as Chairman of FERC... as long as he keeps the training wheels on his regulatory tricycle for the next 9 months.

Bay can be a FERC Commissioner, as long as Acting Chairman Cheryl LaFleur gets to continue to "act" for the first 9 months of Bay's tenure.

RTO Insider has the best coverage of today's events here.

RTO Insider notes that our own Plastic Senator Joe Manchin sold out in a hurry.
Among those who had expressed concern over Bay’s limited energy policy experience was Manchin, who helped sink the bid of Obama’s previous nominee, former Colorado regulator Ron Binz.

That sparked a flurry of negotiations over the last several days among the White House, Murkowski and Energy committee Chair Mary Landrieu (D-La.), which resulted in the president’s concession not to appoint Bay chairman immediately.
Poor, old Plastic Joe.  Some days, he just can't seem to make up his mind.
 
 
It looks like the cat is out of the Clean Line Plains & Eastern bag.  Now these Texas snake oil salesmen and their filthy rich foreign investors will no longer be able to operate their scheme under the public radar without scrutiny.  A U.S. Senator and Representative from Tennessee have examined Clean Line's business plan and don't seem to like it.

The elected representatives are taking their responsibilities to provide oversight of federal action seriously.  The congressmen believe they should have a say in the matter because Clean Line's preferred customer for its Plains & Eastern line is federal power marketer Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 
Senator Alexander said, “It’s up to the TVA board to decide what kinds of electricity to generate and purchase. But it is the responsibility of members of Congress to provide oversight to TVA policies, and these questions are part of that oversight.”
The TVA recently extended a "Memorandum of Understanding" with Clean Line.  The MOU simply states that the TVA will study a possible interconnection with its system and consider Clean Line's idea in its integrated resource plan, due later this year.  It does not obligate TVA to buy power.  It's really a pretty worthless document -- lots of fluff and bluster about "clean" energy and absolutely no substance.  But, that was probably Clean Line's intent in the first place -- to give the impression that TVA was an eager customer, even though that's just not true.  It doesn't matter what the actual document does or says, it's all about appearances.  Clean Line has used it as something to drop into regulatory applications, public meetings and press releases.... "Clean Line's MOU with the TVA."  Oooooh!  Lots of acronyms, must be important... not.  It's exactly what it appears to be, there is no mystery.

It appears that no one has bothered to inform the representatives that Clean Line is also attempting to utilize Sec. 1222 of the federal 2005 Energy Policy Act to grant the company federal eminent domain power to condemn land for its 750-mile transmission line through Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee.  I think the representatives could be even more effective asking the U.S. Department of Energy questions about this federal process.  This is certainly within their jurisdiction.

But, for now, the reps have set their sights on asking the TVA the hard questions, such as:
1)      Does purchasing electricity from this distance increase security threats to the TVA’s power supply? Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz has said we should pay attention to generating more energy where we use it because of national security risks.

2)      What is the cost of purchasing wind electricity compared to TVA generating or purchasing other types of electricity generation?

3)      There is substantial opposition in Congress to the wind production tax credit. Will TVA ratepayers be at risk of increased rates if the wind production tax credit is not renewed?

4)      What is the reliability of purchasing wind power as compared to other types of electricity generated by natural gas, nuclear, coal, or hydropower?

5)      TVA’s peak power demands tend to be between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. and wind tends to mostly blow at night. How does wind power fit into TVA’s overall demand structure if the electricity isn’t being produced when TVA needs it the most?

6)      At a roundtable in September 2013, hosted by Senators Corker and Alexander, you said that TVA didn’t need additional electricity generation capacity as the result of reduced electricity demand. Has this projection changed?

7)      If the projection for TVA’s electricity demand has changed since September 2013, does it make more sense to purchase this wind power from Clean Line Energy Partners, to build additional nuclear capacity, or to build additional natural gas or coal capacity?

8)      Does Clean Line Energy Partners’ proposal require the use of eminent domain in order to acquire any right-of-way for this project? How many land owners or homeowners will be impacted by the use of eminent domain, what specific lands will be acquired and where are they located?

9)      Can you explain how Clean Line Energy Partners plans to compensate any landowners or homeowners who are affected by eminent domain?

10)  How will the price of compensation be determined? Does Clean Line Energy Partners have a specific formula when compensating for land purchased under the use of eminent domain?

11)  What funding stream will Clean Line Energy Partners use to compensate landowners and homeowners for the land purchased under eminent domain?
In response, Clean Line's spit-tastic president, Michael Skelly, tried some of his best arrogance to insist that his project was the best option for the TVA.  He even included some prices that are pure speculation.  Senator Alexander wasn't impressed.
"TVA should and will make a decision that is in its best interests, but we believe this would provide a clean, reliable and cost-competitive source of power that would not increase in price over the next 25 to 30 years," said Mike Skelly, founder and president of Clean Line Energy.

Clean Line estimates the wind power could be delivered to TVA for 4 cents to 6 cents per kilowatthour, which would make it generally competitive to other new sources of energy for TVA.

But Alexander questioned whether TVA needs more power with the slowdown in the growth of electricity demand. He also questioned whether wind would become more expensive if federal production credits given for new windmills are not extended.
It's about time someone with authority lets a little sunshine into Clean Line's uneconomic business plan.  There's been entirely too much secrecy and too many closed door meetings with the federal government over the past 5 years.  The representatives deserve the thanks of all affected landowners across three states who have been threatened by this company.  Please let them know what you think:

Senator Alexander


Representative Fincher


And be sure to connect with the grassroots group organizing against Clean Line in Arkansas -- Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line Energy.
 
 
Things are not going well for our friends at Clean Line Energy Partners.

Opposition to its Rock Island Clean Line, Grain Belt Express, and Plains & Eastern Clean Line projects continues to grow at explosive rates.  This isn't just a handful of NIMBYs in an isolated tool shed, but an active, educated, cohesive, movement numbering in the thousands and stretching across eight states (and beyond!)

Clean Line's biggest problem is its desire to wield the power granted to entities acting in the public interest by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
See where it says "public use?"  Clean Line is not a "public use."  It is a privately held investment vehicle that desires to build a for-profit project that has not been found necessary by any transmission planning entity acting under the auspices of our government.  Any yahoo can wake up in the morning and decide to build a transmission line, but the idea does not make it "needed."  Clean Line is a private entity who intends to sell transmission capacity to other private entities through privately negotiated contracts. 

Whether granted by a state, or by the federal government through Sec. 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, giving eminent domain authority to Clean Line is just wrong.  And the people will continue to loudly protest until the threat is removed.

Clean Line is failing in the all-important court of public opinion, which powers the legislative stance that drives approval or rejection of Clean Line's state regulatory applications.  Clean Line hates it when the voters connect with their elected representatives because Clean Line has spent lots of time and money wooing your legislators to support its project with inflated claims about jobs and economic development.  Clean Line has also been busy trying to slant the news coverage of its projects by meeting privately with editors and reporters in order to present them with a one-sided set of "facts" that support the project.  News sources practicing ethical journalism seem to be immune, but every once in a while Clean Line hits the mark with an editor motivated by politics or good ol' boy business glad handing.

Yesterday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted one such editorial, so full of political pandering that it probably didn't require the additional lies that it printed.  The Editorial Board went wandering off about repeal of state renewable portfolio standards, the Koch brothers, foreign oil, commercial hog farms, Keystone XL, and oil subsidies.  None of these topics have anything to do with Clean Line, but the paper tried to use these political topics to paint the opposition it knows nothing about as unacceptable and therefore not worthy of being heard.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also quotes Grain Belt Express project manager Mark Lawlor as claiming he has purchased all the land he needs in Kansas:
Mr. Lawlor has been through this before, in Kansas, where he says the company has completed buying the land it needs for that portion of the line.
This is an outright lie.  Did Lawlor really say that?  Or was that the editor's creation?  Clean Line better clear this up before it comes back to bite them in a future eminent domain condemnation proceeding.... because that's the only way Lawlor is going to get his hands on some of the land he needs in Kansas.

The editorial was so bad that it has inspired more than 80 comments, almost all of them from real people knowledgeable about transmission and opposed to Clean Line.  Go ahead, read the comments, and see the people educate Clean Line's sparse supporters in Missouri.

And if you think that editorial is bad, check out this article in the Cherokee Chronicle Times where reporter Loren G. Flaugh tosses journalistic ethics out the window to openly insult one of Clean Line's opponents in Iowa.  The reporter inserts personal opinion into the story, calling Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance board member Jerry Crew "befuddled," "mistaken," and says his group "doesn't understand" the project's business model.  And the reporter bases his inexpert understanding on talking points from Clean Line.  I wonder, would that hold up in court?

Crew wanted elected officials to tell him what was on the line when the wind doesn't blow.  No one could give him a correct or logical answer.  The reporter concludes that when the wind doesn't blow, the line will be de-energized.  I think the reporter is the one "befuddled" by Clean Line's bullsh*t.  If wind farms are contracted to purchase a certain amount of capacity on the line, and they aren't producing anything, they will most likely re-sell their capacity in the secondary market to try to recover some of their cost.  Who would buy it?  Any generator who wants to connect into the series of regional feeder lines supplying Rock Island Clean Line's starting point converter station, that's who.  And it could be ANY kind of generator -- coal, oil, gas, solar, wind.  Clean Line cannot guarantee that its line will be... "clean."

Jerry Crew is absolutely correct, and the reporter is misinformed.

My, my, my, how desperate Clean Line has become as it stoops to new lows in the media.  A viable project wouldn't require tossing journalistic ethics out the window.  Clean Line is more closely imitating the death throes of a bad project.  Surrender, Clean Line.
 
 
A "media tour" is a public relations tactic used to control the way the media frames a certain story so that only one point of view is presented, and differing viewpoints are not mentioned.  A media tour can take many forms, but one involves schlepping an executive or "expert" around to different reporters in a city or region for face-to-face meetings with news reporters/editors.  The idea is that a reporter will connect with the executive, and more sympathetic press will be created.

Media tours rely on the card stacking propaganda technique whereby only one side of an issue is presented to the audience.  Opposing viewpoints, or facts that don't support the proponent's argument, are omitted from the discussion.  Because the media tour provides a one-sided rendition of fact, the stories produced can often take the form of "puff pieces."  A puff piece is a distorted story that only presents a glowing review of the proponent's product.  In contrast, a balanced article examines both sides of an issue and the reporter talks with leaders on both sides to present their views.

Because it was getting absolutely pummeled in the Missouri media by a fresh-faced amateur, Clean Line's Grain Belt Express project has concocted a new media plan.  The first item appears to be a media tour starring Clean Line president Michael Skelly.  This guy rarely shows up in the localities affected by his planned projects, and when he does he's always described as incredibly arrogant and out-of-touch with local sentiment, priorities and values.  Therefore, to drag him through a media tour in Mayberry, Missouri, informs that Clean Line is in real trouble in the all-so-important court of public opinion.

So, how did it go?  I think this reporter was wise to him.
Mr. Skelly’s visit comes amid an upsurge in opposition to the project.
And the true nature of that opposition is reported:
Opponents recently have banded together in a bid to thwart Grain Belt Express, with some sessions held in Buchanan and Clinton counties. They contend landowners are being coerced into signing easement agreements.
So Skelly starts telling some unbelievable whoppers:
However, Clean Line believes it is gaining more supporters rather than detractors and say the process in Kansas already has erased doubts.

“We’re having those conversations in Missouri,” Mr. Skelly said. “We’re out there having negotiations with landowners ... We find out that people get more comfortable with it.”
Check out the comment from an actual Kansas landowner at the bottom of the article:
I can tell you how negotiations with landowners in eastern Kansas is going. They're telling Skelly where he can put his power line, to put it mildly. The vast majority of landowners in eastern Kansas have resolved to not even negotiate with Clean Line until they get regulatory approval in Missouri and Illinois. The routing approval handed down by the KCC last fall was contingent upon them gaining regulatory approval in these two states. Why would anyone want to sign an easement agreement with a company that will more than likely sell the easement pre-construction to a foreign interest like National Grid, and not even be around when and if construction ever begins.
Erasing doubts.  Right, Mikey. 

But Mikey's media tour to "defend his project" got completely upstaged by the opposition when the Missouri Farm Bureau put out a release about its intention to intervene in the Grain Belt Express case at the Missouri PSC at the same time.  The Farm Bureau opposes the use of eminent domain for this project.

In addition, the university that Clean Line schmoozed with promises of pizza parties in exchange for signatures on a petition supporting the project has taken the initiative to exercise their journalistic muscles with some balanced reporting.

And another opposition op-ed got published.

What was that you said, Mikey?  I can't hear youuuuuuu... and neither can anyone else you were trying to convince with that lame media tour.

I guess he will just have to concentrate on the other tactic Clean Line has recently re-deployed, the "community roundtable" and "governmental and environmental organization" private meetings that attempt to inspire advocacy in unaffected and uninterested populations.

But, don't worry, citizens of Missouri, there are some public meetings where your participation and opinion are valued.


Meanwhile, another Grain Belt Express spokesman recently buggered things up further by cluelessly insulting Missouri lawmakers by stating that they are merely "dabbling
in legislation" that affects his project and he's "paying attention" to their interference with his plans in their state. What an idiot!!!

It's not going to work.  Give up, Clean Line.  You've been bested in Missouri and there is no recovery from public knowledge of your true intentions.