If Clean Line was a game of poker, the players would have found out today that a "signaled" denial from the PSC trumps a "pocket" approval from the legislature in Missouri.

In a 3-2 discussion and vote, the Missouri Public Service Commission DENIED Clean Line's application for its Grain Belt Express project this morning!
Some commissioners expressed concern Tuesday that it would be a more expensive form of energy. Commissioner Bill Kenney, who said he plans to vote against construction, cast doubts on the economic impact it would have in the state.

“I do not see the benefit to Missourians,” Kenney said.

A tremendous outpouring of citizen opposition, and coordinated, smart public pressure wins this one for Missouri!  Based on the Commissioner's comments at the agenda session this morning, the thousands of people who submitted comments to the PSC's website, and testified at the public hearings, definitely played a part in the outcome.  The opposition was richly rewarded for their hard work.
“We’re thrilled,” said Jennifer Gatrel, who heads the group Block Grain Belt Express. “We think this is a great win for representative democracy, grass-roots activism and landowner rights.”
And what did Clean Line do?  It threatened Missouri with Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act.  Clean Line has already tried to deploy Section 1222 on its Plains & Eastern project.  Section 1222 requires a multi-year environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will be wildly expensive for the company.  Do you suppose the investors have an appetite for that while the company is currently getting fierce opposition from business interests, congressmen, state legislatures, Southwestern Power Authority customers, the Cherokee Nation, and the Oklahoma Attorney General?  Nobody likes this project unless it stands to profit from it in some way, or has been duped to think that Section 1222 is about "clean energy," instead of eminent domain.  The Section 1222 review isn't going so well.  Maybe the investors should close the checkbook until after they see what happens with Plains & Eastern before investing in a 1222 process for Grain Belt?  Why put all your investment eggs in the same flimsy basket?  It's time to put Grain Belt on a shelf for now, right next to the Rock Island project.
If the PSC does reject the project, Lawlor said Clean Line won’t give up. It could pursue federal eminent domain authority through the Energy Department, an approach it is pursuing in Arkansas after the state declined to approve another of its routes.
And then Lawlor starts whining like a little boy whose lollipop just got stolen:
The issue is bigger than Missouri or the Grain Belt project in particular, said Mark Lawlor, Clean Line’s director of development. The country is trying to figure out how to reduce carbon pollution linked to climate change under new federal regulations, which many say will require a large buildout of transmission infrastructure.

“How do we get stuff built?” Lawlor said. “If the ‘no’ was because people didn’t like it, landowners didn’t like it, then how are we going to build transmission? It kind of goes beyond this one project.”

“These projects are too valuable and too much in demand (to walk away from),” Lawlor said. “We remain confident in their value and we’ll look at everything we can.”
Oh for goodness sake, dry your eyes and get over yourself!  Clean Line is not the only, and certainly not the smartest or quickest, way to reduce carbon pollution.  Energy efficiency costs nothing and requires no new rights of way.  Try it, Waldo!

"We" don't get stuff built.... Clean Line is not part of the "we" of real transmission developers.  Clean Line wanted no part of the regional planning process the rest of the industry participates in, remember?  You're not going to be building anything, Mark Lawlor... because the landowners said "no."  It's just that simple!  I guess you should have spent more time trying to develop relationships with landowners, and less time schmoozing it up with the legislature, right?

But it does go "beyond this one project."  Clean Line has awoken the sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve.  Grassroots opposition has perfected the art of stopping useless transmission projects like Clean Line, and as we move forward more transmission projects are going to fail. 

There's no demand for Clean Line's projects.  No utilities have expressed interest in buying imported wind (because that 50mw from the Texas co-op can only be considered a joke).


Clean Line isn't very valuable though.  I wouldn't give a tinker's damn for it.  Unfortunately, Clean Line has pissed away around $140M of its super-rich investors' money on it.  No wonder Lawlor can't walk away.  He's tied to this wheel-less wagon and being whipped like a rented mule.

CONGRATULATIONS, MISSOURI!

Job well done!
 
 
A long time ago, when I held the purse strings of a certain corporation, I used to have a sign  on my office wall.  It said:
Lack of planning on your part
does not constitute an emergency on my part.
I'd point to it with regularity when various co-workers would show up with requests to issue checks outside the normal, weekly, computerized process (yes, friends, they had did have computers back in the dinosaur days!).  The rules were that I would run checks once a week.  If someone needed a check issued, they had plenty of time to get their invoices or requests in before the deadline.  Invariably, some sales-critter would show up after the deadline with some payment request that absolutely, positively HAD TO be done right now.  *point to sign*  Bite me.

I have little sympathy for people or companies who fail to plan according to existing rules.

Clean Line thought it was so cool that it was certain to overcome any obstacles that the existing rules could throw in its path.  The naysayers brought up any number of problems with Clean Line's business plan, including the fact that utilities are unlikely to stick their neck out to contract with non-existent generators using a non-existent transmission line.  No customers, no construction loan for the transmission project.  It's not rocket science here.  Clean Line should have listened to what the transmission industry was trying to tell them.  Smug is sometimes really hard of hearing.

And here we are.  Those existing rules that Clean Line thought would be easily scaled have turned out to be not only higher hurdles than originally thought, in most cases they are simply insurmountable.

Clean Line didn't plan according to the rules, so now they want to pull their projects out of the toilet by changing the rules.  Whether it's federal eminent domain authority (after state authority failed), or the regional transmission planning process that doesn't fit Clean Line's business plan, Clean Line thinks that the rules should be changed to accommodate their business plans.

Bite me.


Been wondering why we haven't been joined by any Clean Line opposition groups from southwestern states?  Because Clean Line didn't bother to check the CAISO rules before dreaming up a transmission line from New Mexico to California.  Seriously, who does that?

And who sends off letters to the editor calling for a complete reform of CAISO when they don't even have their basic facts straight?  Love the editorial question mark here...

As California moves beyond its 33 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard goal [?--Ed.] and strives for deeper reductions in harmful emissions...
Meanwhile, back at Clean Line headquarters....
 
 
Looks like Clean Line Energy Partners has given up hope of getting the state utility commission approvals it needs to build its Rock Island Clean Line, Grain Belt Express Clean Line and Plains & Eastern Clean Line.

And why do you suppose Clean Line no longer cares whether or not your state utility commissions find that the Clean Line projects are "needed" and beneficial to the citizens of each state?

Because Clean Line has now decided that it MUST have federal eminent domain authority to site its projects.  No more making nice with the states, Clean Line wants the federal government to condemn your property so that Clean Line can commandeer it to host its massive transmission line.

Just last week, Clean Line Energy Partners Vice President Hans Detweiler submitted a Congressional lobbying registration form to lobby on behalf of Clean Line.

Detweiler's specific lobbying issues, according to the registration:
Federal legislation related to the use of federal eminent domain for energy delivery
Hans, you really are an
Nice touch about the "foreign entity" that owns more than 20% of the registrant, you know, National Grid.  How can they pretend that Clean Line is about increasing America's energy independence?  It's actually about sending America's energy dollars overseas to foreign investors!
Seems like our widdle Hansy-poo hasn't heard that S1017 is much too controversial to stand a chance of being included in Murkowski's omnibus energy bill.  But maybe he can pull some pork, along with a couple Senatorial legs, at the next Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting?  Maybe a bouncy house?  Pony rides?  Balloon animals?

However, sandwiches and cheap amusements are going to be quickly forgotten in the face of the combined outrage of voters and state officials if the feds show up to take private property for a foreign corporation's profit.  Bundy Ranch, on steroids.

Proceed to your battle stations, Mayberry!
 
 
I've been trying to keep my nose to the ol' grindstone and ignore the calliope music coming from PJM's "Annual Meeting" in Atlantic City.  But it's really hard to ignore it when a clown scampers across your computer screen before you've even had your morning coffee.

I started my day today with the latest issue of RTO Insider.  I figured it went well with coffee and would be a pleasant way to wake up before going back to work on something that matters.  I love RTO Insider almost as much as chocolate donuts!

Oooops!
Bowring, Gates’ Consultant Spar over PJM Traders’ Obligations on Loopholes

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. — To shake or not to shake the Money Tree?

That was the question Independent Market Monitor Joe Bowring posed during his Year in Review presentation at PJM’s Annual Meeting last week, setting off a lively debate with one of the consultants that Richard and Kevin Gates, enlisted in their high profile defense against market manipulation allegations.

“If the rules are imperfect, is it OK to do anything not explicitly prohibited?” Bowring asked.

He quickly provided his own answer. “It is not permissible,” he said, citing what he called the “duty” of market participants to inform RTO officials and federal regulators of such “money trees.”
Is this rule supposed to apply equally to every entity FERC regulates?  Doesn't Bowring realize that utilities routinely exploit "unclear" rules in order to pocket a little extra scratch?  If regulated utilities had a duty to report all their "misinterpretation" money trees to FERC, we're going to need a couple more hotlines.  Of course, if the utilities are so busy self-reporting all their shakes (or kicks, flicks, and karate chops) of the "money tree," they might not have time to "accidentally" misinterpret any rules that result in a profit for their shareholders, would they?  Or will they simply have to hire new monkeys to shake the tree, while the old monkeys watch and phone in a report to FERC's hotline?

Utilities large and small routinely interpret FERC rules in incorrect and bizarre ways in order to squeak some additional profit from them.  Except FERC never fines its utility pets $30M when they get caught breaking the rules.  It's all giggle, giggle, hush, hush, slap my wrist, I promise to be good if you overlook this little "misunderstanding."  FERC needs to tighten that shit up and adopt Bowring's "Money Tree Methodology" for everyone!

I do so admire Bowring's enthusiasm.  You go, sport!  I hear there's going to be a vacant spot on the Commission soon!  Maybe you should be Chairman?

What do you suppose caused Bowring's money tree epiphany?  Do you suppose he participated in the "Spa Toccare"* leisure activity in order to relax and clear his mind before giving his report to the membership?
Whatever you do, don't click on the clown picture above.
No, don't do it!

Well, that would explain things then.  Thanks a lot, Joe, for making me snort with laughter before the coffee was even ready to drink.

*Dedicated to undoing the effects of your day, Spa Toccare offers relaxing treatments guaranteed to exhilarate. Here, tensions melt, knots disappear, skin glistens and eyes sparkle. A new you emerges just in time to wave bye-bye to your worldly cares.
 
 
Some people will do anything for a little grant money!

Despite being soundly (and loudly!) rejected by groups representing the interests of thousands of landowners impacted by proposed transmission projects across the Midwest last year, the Center for Rural Affairs is back with another report that it claims will "creat[e] procedural and cost efficiencies, as well as promot[e] due process rights."

CFRA does not represent landowners, and has made absolutely no attempt to involve landowners in any of its reports.  There are plenty of active transmission opposition landowner groups, however CFRA created another report recommending what it sees as "good" for landowners in complete isolation.  It's silly, it's uninformed, it's not good for landowners.  It's simply the environmental 1% telling the rest of America what to do and how to sacrifice their property to the Gods of Big Green.

The newest report was written by a young law student on a fellowship who has probably never owned property and recommends that landowners be subject to a new form of forced pooling, the "Transmission Corridor District."  Under the concept of forced pooling, landowners can be forced to give up certain rights to their land if their neighbors want to sell.  That's right... under the TCD, you can be forced into a group of landowners whose only purpose is to sell transmission rights of way across their land (and yours).  You may not "opt out" of this forced pool -- either cooperate or you're getting their version of "fair market value" for your property.  It's a fait accompli that you will sell your land for a proposed transmission project.

It also suggests that state PSCs take on the responsibility of assembling and administrating these districts.  Tell me, who is going to pay for that?  And what changes need to be made to the laws of each state to make it happen?  And then there's this:
Landowners, a developer, or a governmental entity could initiate a TCD proceeding. The initiating party approaches the planning agency to determine if the transmission line promotes reliability, economic development, or public policy (e.g., a renewable energy portfolio standard). In this initial  discussion with the planning agency, the initiating entity proposes a study area for the transmission corridor to the planning agency. Alternatively, the planning agency could determine that there is a need for a transmission project and initiate the TCD proceeding on its own.
For TCD proceedings, the planning agency would likely be a public utility commission (PUC). This is necessary because the placement and construction of power lines is almost always under the purview of the states, which then designate siting and approval responsibilities to the PUC or state  equivalent. Alternatively, the planning agency could be a federal or regional entity to promote interstate development.
Upon approval from the planning agency, the initiating party and planning agency work together to educate the potentially affected
members of the public about the benefits and negative effects of the proposed project.
Planning agency, eh?  Who do you think "plans" transmission projects?  It's not the state PUCs.  It's a regional transmission organization, or other utility-run group.   What do a group of landowners know about planning transmission?  Where are they supposed to get the "plan" they initially bring to "the planning agency?"  Transmission projects are born at "the planning agency," not from landowners who want to make some money selling transmission rights-of-way that don't coincide with a project that "the planning agency" determines is needed for reliability, economic or public policy purposes.  Alternatively, CFRA thinks "the planning agency" could initiate and administer the TCD proceeding.  Again... who's going to pay for this, and what authority does "the planning agency" have to force landowners into groups, or pools?  There's no logic here.

Each transmission project is geographically unique.  Who does CFRA think is going to bid on these constructed land corridors when only one transmission developer is interested in the area for a specific project?  One bidder does not create a fair market.


Further demonstration of the author's complete misunderstanding of transmission planning:
Additionally, FERC Orders 890 and 1000 encourage robust public participation. The orders accomplish this by requiring transmission planners to seek comment from customers and stakeholders in regional planning. Though the orders are silent in the context of assembling land for specific transmission lines, the wisdom of the orders should be applied to individual projects.
What?  CFRA thinks that regional planning "stakeholders" include the public?  While "the public" is certainly welcome at any planning meeting, "the public" doesn't have a vote when it comes to selecting plans.  That's not what FERC meant, silly!  Like FERC is going to issue orders based on the mistaken interpretation of its policies by some law student?  Get real, CFRA!

He also makes the accusation that "the current eminent domain framework seems to violate Order 1000."  Hahahahaaa!

CFRA's report also recommends that interstate cooperation create uniform state siting and condemnation laws... and herd cats.  It also contends that forced pooling of landowners ameliorates opposition, and saves time and money.  If CFRA thinks there's a problem with transmission opposition from landowners now, it ain't seen nothing yet!  The surest way to delay something is to add additional layers of administrative process and a new legal framework that hasn't been tested in the courts.  The report also recommends a robust public participation process just like the one transmission developers have been using for years, like it's some novel idea.  Maybe the author needs to step inside a real transmission project, instead of an artificial, self-aggrandizing, media version of "public participation."  Landowners are not satisfied with this model and it does not ameliorate opposition.  It actually creates opposition by helping landowners to meet and organize.

In conclusion, CFRA's latest "report" is a worthless piece of busy work that does nothing to help get transmission built.  You can't quell opposition unless you talk to them, sweet cheeks!  (I can call you sweet cheeks, right Brandon?  I mean I've probably got condiments in the back of the fridge that are older than you.)
 
 
Journalists are trained to be independent reporters of the facts.  The readers are supposed to take those facts and form their own opinion.  But what happens when a "journalist" tries to spin her opinion as "news?"

"Clean Line receives pocket approval from legislature."
On the heels of lawmakers voting to reject a House bill designed to stop the Grain Belt Express Clean Line project, Michael Skelly, President of Clean Line Energy, visited a Ralls County site of a Grain Belt Express Clean Line’s delivery station, a $100 million facility that proponents say will allow Missourians to receive low-cost, clean power from the Grain Belt Express Clean Line.

The Grain Belt Express Clean Line is a proposed electric power line that will deliver competitively-priced renewable energy to Missouri. The House Energy and Environment Committee voted down House Bill 1027, which would modify provisions relating to eminent domain powers of utilities, on April 28. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, who represents Monroe, Lincoln, Pike, and Ralls Counties.
“With the vote this morning, Missouri lawmakers have demonstrated that they stand behind market based solutions to bring low-cost, renewable energy to the state,” said Mark Lawlor, Director of Development for Clean Line Energy. “The Grain Belt Express Clean Line will deliver enough low-cost clean power to Missouri through a direct connection to the electric grid to power 200,000 Missouri homes. We look forward to continuing to work with landowners and community members to develop the project in Missouri in a collaborative way. This project is very important to Missouri’s energy future.”

At the hearing on the bill, supporters spoke of the benefits that the Grain Belt Express Clean Line project would bring to the state and asked legislators to block HB 1027.
According to the Legislative Drafter's Deskbook:  A Practical Guide, a "pocket approval" happens when the President does not sign a bill, but fails to return it to the legislature within 10 days.  In that case, it becomes law through "pocket approval."

Is that what this reporter meant?  That HB 1027 became law because the President failed to return it to the House?  Or is this reporter just desperate to include the words "approval" and "Grain Belt Express" in a headline?

There was no "approval" for Grain Belt Express in Missouri.  The legislature does not have authority to "approve" a transmission project.  "Approval" can only come from the Missouri Public Service Commission, and the Staff of the MO PSC just last week reaffirmed their recommendation that the PSC DENY APPROVAL for Grain Belt Express.

This headline is simply the reporter's opinionated fantasy.  The only thing that actually happened at the legislature is that Clean Line's expensive lobbyists managed to twist enough arms to prevent legislation supported by the people from passing.  Big deal... there's always next year!

The reporter conveniently skips over the fact that GBE won't provide ANY energy to Missouri that is not purchased by an actual utility that serves electric load in the state.
  Evidence at the PSC indicates that there are no utilities stepping up to purchase electricity from GBE's Missouri converter station.

The article also claims:  "Grain Belt Express project moves process forward, receiving public support."

Moves forward?  Forward to where?  GBE is still stuck in the Molasses Swamp waiting for a decision on its application from the MO PSC.  It's not going anywhere.
And where's the proof that GBE has any "public support?"  The evidence at hand indicates that GBE is receiving record public opposition.  This is backed up by the fact that when "Mike" Skelly called a recent press conference at a field in Ralls County, the only "supporters" who showed up were brought in by GBE from many miles away.  On the same day, the Ralls County Commission re-iterated its opposition to GBE, no matter how much of a company man their assessor wants to be in the media.

Here's Block GBE MO's press release that reflects what REALLY happened:
Two Counties Clarify Opposition to Grain Belt:  Chariton and Ralls Legalize Letters of Rescission
Texas based Clean Line Energy, that hopes to build a 750 mile high voltage-transmission line across the state, just hit another snag. Five out of eight counties crossed have now officially rescinded permission for Grain Belt Express to access their county. In Missouri, each county and the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) must grant permission to erect any towers.
The staff of the Missouri PSC recommended denying Grain Belt last fall. They stated “Grain Belt Express has not shown it is needed, economically feasible, or promotes the public interest in Missouri”. They also stated, “Section 229.100 RS Mo precludes Grain Belt from building its proposed line without first obtaining the consent of the County Commission in each of the eight counties in northern Missouri where the line would be located.”
Grain Belt questioned the validity of the rescission letters from two counties that were written in the summer of 2014. They stated that Chariton County’s letter had not specifically withdrawn section 229.100 authority or permission to build.
They also stated that Ralls County had said they would consider granting franchise only after the commission approved Grain Belt. Because the county must give permission for the PSC to grant a certificate it created a chicken and egg situation. Grain Belt asked for the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity first and promises to get the consent of each of the counties afterwards.
In response, both Chariton and Ralls County submitted new letters to the PSC to reiterate that Grain Belt does not have permission to build transmission lines in their county.
Ralls County’s new letter reads, in part, “Accordingly, if our grant of authority of August 23rd, 2012 to Grain Belt Express was valid, the County Commission does hereby rescind and revoke any authority granted that date to Grain Belt Express."
Wiley Hibbard, Presiding Commissioner of Ralls County stated, “I, as well as the other two Commissioners in Ralls County, felt it was important that we should restate our opposition to GBE's application to the PSC.
"By pure coincidence, we chose to send our letter to the PSC on the same day GBE held a press conference in Ralls County. It is my understanding that no landowners from Ralls County attended. GBE had to bring a person in from a county many miles away to speak to the press. This will show Grain Belt and the PSC that landowner's rights are very important to the citizens of Ralls County.”
Jennifer Gatrel of Block Grain Belt Express Missouri stated, “We are delighted that five out of eight counties have withdrawn their permission. We are very hopeful that the Missouri PSC will quickly deny Grain Belt and allow landowners to resume our lives."
A reporter who purposely misstates the facts to promote a corporate agenda does so at the peril of her own reputation.

What crap!
 
 
Remember when Change.org was all about the "little people" effecting change for the better?  Yeah, scratch that.  Now its being used as just another corporate toy where those with lots of money can promote their own corporate petitions to push products that stand to make the rich even richer.

So, now Change.org allows corporate accounts to create corporate petitions intended to influence the decisions of public officials from which the corporation can profit?  That sounds suspiciously like LOBBYING to me...  What do you call it when a corporation asks its employees, and their mommies, and little sisters, to pretend they're some sort of "grassroots" supporter in favor of the corporation's for-profit proposal?

I think I shall call it... stupidity.

Clean Line is not an advocacy "organization" allowed to create and promote petitions under Change.org's rules.  It's a for-profit limited liability corporation.
  Shame on you, Clean Line!

How desperate is Clean Line, anyhow?  How much trouble are they in on their Plains & Eastern transmission line's request to use the authority of the federal government to condemn and take land from thousands of "little people" across Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee?

Do you think the decision of Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, will hinge on Clean Line's petition signatures?  I certainly hope not.
  That would be absurd. 
 
 
Brace yourselves, Americans, Congress is tinkering with energy policy again!  No good can come of this.  And some idiot has introduced a whole new Sec. 216 (16 U.S.C. 824p) aka Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that's even worse than its first iteration.

The original, Section 1221, designated the Secretary of Energy to conduct an electric transmission "congestion study" and designate "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" (NIETCs) every three years.  Transmission proposed in these designated corridors
was subject to "backstop" permitting by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the event a state withheld approval of an application for a permit for more than one year, or lacked the authority to permit the project.

Section 1221 was promptly deconstructed in two federal courts.  When FERC proposed that "withholding approval" included a denial, and that meant it could override a state's denial of an application, the 4th Circuit determined that "withheld approval"
excludes a state's denial of an application, preserving state authority.  In addition, the 9th Circuit determined that DOE did not properly "consult with states" before designating NIETCs, and therefore it vacated the corridors DOE had set in 2009.

Last year, DOE made a half-hearted attempt to produce the 2012 "congestion study," but was resoundingly smacked down by a whole bunch of comments, and hasn't done a thing since.


In practice, Section 1221 has been an abject failure
.

However, the new Section 216, carried to Congress by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), attempts to fix all that by giving FERC authority to overrule a state denial of a transmission permit and use federal eminent domain authority to take private property.  It also tosses NIETCs out the window as a means to identify worthy transmission projects and replaces them with an RTO/ISO finding that the project is "needed."


Good news:  The new Sec. 216 does not apply to Clean Line in its current form.

Bad news:  The new Sec. 216 will encourage a whole bunch of new transmission projects of questionable necessity, and landowners along existing corridors and/or those owning "open farmland" are always the first targets identified on the ol' transmission routing Etch-A-Sketch.


So, let's look at what the new Sec. 216 says:

(B) FEDERAL AUTHORITY.—The Commission may authorize, in accordance with subsection (d), construction of a high-priority regional transmission project that the Commission finds to be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity and in accordance with this section if--

“(i) a State--

“(I) fails to approve construction and authorize routing of a high-priority regional transmission project not later than 1 year after the date the applicant submits a completed application for authorization to the State;

“(II) rejects or denies the application for a high-priority regional transmission project;

“(III) authorizes the high-priority regional transmission project subject to conditions that unreasonably interfere with the development of a high-priority regional transmission project contrary to the purposes of this section; or

“(IV) does not have authority to approve the siting of the high-priority regional transmission project; or

“(ii) the developer seeking a certificate for construction under subsection (d) does not qualify to apply for State authorization to construct a high-priority regional transmission project because the developer does not serve end-users in the State.
So, FERC can "authorize" a transmission project if a state denies an application or conditions approval in a way the transmission developer doesn't like.  That's not "backstop" or secondary authority, it's usurping state authority in its entirety.  A state must approve, or else.  So, why even bother with the fan dance of state applications at all?  That's just a big waste of time and money.

Tell ya what... if FERC ends up with authority to overrule state transmission permitting decisions, there's going to be a lot more "turn-offs" for Commissioner Norman Bay, because the protestors will have moved "from pipelines to Order 1000."  *Insert laughter here*


Second problem - how these "special" high-priority regional transmission projects are determined:
(1) HIGH-PRIORITY REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PROJECT.—The term ‘high-priority regional transmission project’ means an overhead, submarine, or underground transmission facility, including conductors or cables, towers, manhole duct systems, reactors, capacitors, circuit breakers, static VAR compensators, static synchronous compensators, power converters, transformers, synchronous condensers, braking resistors, and any ancillary facilities and equipment necessary for the proper operation of the facility, that is selected in a regional transmission plan for the purposes of cost allocation under Order Number 1000 of the Commission (or any successor order), including an interregional project selected under that plan.
That's it -- mere selection of and inclusion in a regional transmission plan makes a project "high-priority."  Ummm... does Heinrich know that RTOs include hundreds of projects in their regional plans each year?  "High-priority" over what?  Transmission projects that aren't in a regional plan?  Those are few and far between because they're nearly impossible to build (ain't that right, Clean Line?)  So, every project is going to be a "high-priority" project in this brave, new world?

It's quite obvious that S.1017 intends to "fix" everything that went wrong with the original Sec. 216, including the flawed NIETCs and the ability of a state to deny an application for a transmission project that did not serve its citizens.  But, let's ask ourselves, does it really need fixing?  State approvals aren't the problem with new transmission, it's federal approvals and studies that muck up and delay transmission plans.  In addition, Congress has resolutely refused to make electric transmission siting and permitting a federal responsibility, and will most likely continue to do so.

There seemed to be little love for controversial legislation like S.1017 at Thursday's Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing.  But, you know how Congress is... they get up to all sorts of hijinks if you don't keep your eye on them, so this bears a bit of babysitting.

One more thing before I wrap this up... where did this legislation come from?

The original Sec. 216 got its purpose from:
(4) In determining whether to designate a national interest electric transmission corridor under paragraph (2), the Secretary may consider whether--
(A) the economic vitality and development of the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack of adequate or reasonably priced electricity;
(B)
(i) economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited sources of energy; and
(ii) a diversification of supply is warranted;
(C) the energy independence of the United States would be served by the designation;
(D) the designation would be in the interest of national energy policy; and
(E) the designation would enhance national defense and homeland security.
Nothing in there about renewable energy, right?

Now take a look at the purpose of the new Sec. 216:
(a) Policy.—It is the policy of the United States that the national interstate transmission system should be guided by the goal of maximizing the net benefits of the electricity system, taking into consideration--

“(1) support for the development of new, cleaner power generation capacity, including renewable energy generation located distant from load centers;

“(2) opportunities for reduced emissions from regional power production;

“(3) transmission needs driven by public policy requirements established by State or Federal laws (including regulations);


“(4) cost savings resulting from--

“(A) reduced transmission congestion;

“(B) enhanced opportunities for intraregional and interregional electricity trades;

“(C) reduced line losses;

“(D) generation resource-sharing; and

“(E) enhanced fuel diversity;

“(5) reliability benefits, including satisfying reliability standards and guidelines for resource adequacy and system security;

“(6) diversification of risk relating to events affecting fuel supply or generating resources in a particular region;

“(7) the enhancement of competition in electricity markets and mitigation of market power;

“(8) the ability to collocate facilities on existing rights-of-way;

“(9) competing land use priorities, including land protected under Federal or State law;

“(10) the requirements of section 217(b)(4); and

“(11) the contribution of demand side management (including energy efficiency and demand response), energy storage, distributed generation resources, and smart grid investments.
Oh well, lookie there, big wind is reason #1, 2 & 3 for this new legislation.  This isn't about what's good for the people or the environment.  True democratic energy is relegated to reason #11, just an afterthought.  This legislation is designed to line the pockets of big wind and their big transmission developers, and appears to have been written by the funders of their big front group, "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid."  There are no real "Americans" participating in this farce -- it's nothing but a trade group masquerading as a grassroots movement.  Tawdry and unconvincing, but it appears Heinrich was eager to be their legislative minion.  ALEC ain't got nothing on these big green shysters.
 
 
Let's get the profitable infrastructure project party started!
A landowner from southeast Iowa today said he has recorded proof a land agent for the proposed Bakken Pipeline offered to get him an 18-year-old prostitute if he’d grant access rights to his property so the pipeline may pass through.

Hughie Tweedy of Montrose said he recorded two of his conversations with the land agent.
“On these recordings you will hear evidence of my senior pipeline representative offering me not once, not twice, but three times the sexual services of a woman,” Tweedy said, “the last time being a $1200 teenage prostitute.”


“If anybody knows of anyone who’s been dealt with unfairly,” Boeyink says, “get the names to me and we will deal with it swiftly.”
I'm thinking Boeyink didn't move too "swiftly."  Or maybe he's been a whirling dervish but simply can't keep up with the unsavory activities of his hired land agents.

Whether it's offering ponies and prostitutes to landowners in exchange for easements, or pizza parties and puppy chow to college students in exchange for signatures on petitions of support, buying public support for infrastructure projects is big business! 

And who do you think is first in line for the free cheese?
“If an old junkyard dog like me was offered the sexual services of little girls to get my hackles down, I wonder what was offered to the powerbrokers of this state to gain their support for silence,” Tweedy said. “Shame, shame, shame.”
Can't add anything to that wisdom.
 
 
While up to my elbows in dirt yesterday, I got a little buzz on my phone telling me that PJM had awarded the Artificial Island project to... LS Power.  I laughed -- loud and hard.  If you laugh in the garden, and nobody is around to hear it, did you really laugh?  Or do your neighbors simply think that you've finally gone off the rails?

PJM's Artificial Island project window has been fraught with problems from the get-go.  The RTO initially awarded the project to one of its favored incumbents, but was set upon by other competitors who made a convincing case that the process was not competitive.

PJM hired some wacky "constructability" study to try to prove that its selection was based on the ease with which the project could be constructed.  That was a big waste of money.  The study failed to note the single, most-important reason projects get delayed -- public opposition!  Opposition is directly related to routing and the physical impact of the project, and the way its public relations are handled -- the worse the transmission developer does
at this, the bigger the resultant opposition.  That's a big, big factor in "constructability."

PJM got schooled on what "constructability" really means.

And the project PJM ultimately selected makes an underground crossing of the Delaware River
and avoids protected wildlife refuges.  Lesson learned, PJM?

Here's your "constructability" checklist, for future reference:

1.  Does this project make use of existing infrastructure that could be upgraded or rebuilt to lessen impact of a new right-of-way?
2.   Can this project be buried along existing or new rights-of-way?
3.  Can this project be avoided entirely with non-transmission alternatives?
4.  What alternatives are there to the project that you can share with the public?

If these things are truly considered, you could avoid the worst part of public opposition and win the "constructability" war.

It's also of note that LS Power proposed a cost cap for its project.  LS Power now has a firm budget for its project.  If it exceeds budget, it's going to have to justify why and beg on bended knee to recover its overruns.  A cost cap also acts as a performance standard.  If LS Power doesn't perform to get this project built on time and within budget
, it does so at its own peril.

Let's hope the cost cap is also a lesson well-learned by PJM.  It's what Congress intended when creating financial incentives for transmission
, and cost caps effectively end the "the more we spend, the more we make" attitude so pervasive in the transmission industry today, to the benefit of electric ratepayers.

Progress?