A lowly reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is beginning to suspect that not all transmission proposals are created equally because of the distinctly different way the Missouri Public Service Commission has treated applications for two separate proposals.

In PSC sees Ameren, Grain Belt transmission lines differently, the reporter has discovered a difference between what he dubs "traditional" utility projects and "non-traditional" utility projects.  But, apparently, that's as far as his curiosity extends, implying that the decisional factor for the PSC is rooted on the "traditional" appearance of the utility applying for the project.

But who are the "promoters?"  That's the key.  In the case of the Mark Twain project, the "promoter" is the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, a federally regulated transmission grid planner/operator.  MISO says that line is "necessary."  MISO, as its name implies, is independent of any pecuniary interest in projects it evaluates and orders to be built.  MISO has a huge wealth of expertise in determining "necessary" transmission projects.  A state PSC is unlikely to substitute its own, or intervenor parties', expertise for that of MISO.  MISO's heavy-hitter witnesses will generally prevail when technical expertise is weighed. 

The "promoter" of Grain Belt Express is a company with a pecuniary interest in building the project.  Grain Belt Express did not participate in the MISO planning process to independently determine if its project is "necessary."  GBE's bought and paid for witnesses say what they're paid to say and are given equal weight to any intervenor-funded witnesses by a PSC.  No independent party tasked with planning the transmission grid has found GBE to be "necessary."

Therefore it shouldn't be puzzling or surprising that:

A "traditional" RTO-sponsored project must provide benefits to the ratepayers in the region who pay for it.  In contrast, a "non-traditional," or merchant, project may not provide any benefits to the local region, especially when its stated purpose is to export electricity to other regions.  While regional electric customers must financially support new transmission from which they benefit, they do not have to financially support transmission intended for the benefit of other regions.  While ratepayers must pay for regionally-approved projects that are built, a merchant project does not have any captive ratepayers to finance its project.  Financing a merchant project is voluntary, and in the case of GBE, it presumes its volunteers will come from other regions far, far from Missouri.  But GBE does not yet have any volunteer customers.  Anywhere.

There is little a PSC can do to force a merchant project to alter its plans to create a more beneficial project, or to look at other solutions to the merchant's stated problem, such as building renewables in other regions the merchant intends to serve.  A merchant project is "take it or leave it," and the MO PSC chose to leave it.  Conversely, an RTO will look at multiple solutions to an identified problem to come up with the best solution, and then has the muscle to make the best solution happen.

Regionally approved projects are weighed against other alternatives by the RTO and found to be the most efficient and cost effective solution to a recognized reliability, economic, or public policy problem.  In contrast, GBE has proposed no alternatives to its own project, and there is no recognized regional problem the project attempts to solve.

This is how our "traditional" transmission planning/approval system works.  The regional planning/operator system is ruled by existing federal laws and regulations.  Under this traditional system, any person can propose a transmission project to a state PSC without going through the "traditional" process, but only if they accept all market risk and pay for it themselves.  So the "traditional" system also covers merchant transmission, like GBE.  What is new, or "non-traditional" is a brand new attempt by the U.S. Department of Energy to use a loophole in an old law to override state authority over transmission permitting and siting.  This new "non-traditional" method of using political clout to build transmission despite state objection has never been used before and will be tested in the courts.  "Non-traditional" has little legal basis, while "traditional" has existed for years and has the support of a whole library of precedent.

The MO PSC found GBE's claims that it would provide benefit to Missouri ratepayers unfounded, and when compared with burden on Missouri landowners, GBE did not pass muster.  Lawlor's claims that GBE will prove benefits in a second attempt are all wet.  Without an independent RTO order that a transmission project provides benefits to a region, convincing regulators there is a benefit is an exercise in futility.  In addition, his threats that Missouri must approve GBE so as not to lose its "authority" are nothing but a lame attempt at coercion.  Lawlor played that card the last time... and lost. 

GBE has successfully clouded the issue of "need" for a transmission project.  Everyone should understand what the MO PSC understands... "need" is determined by a RTO.  GBE has no RTO-backing.

Odd little bit of filler in a NW Arkansas newspaper this week.  Bloomberg's In East, power costs fall, bills rise, tells Arkansans about utility hijinks in another part of the country.  But these hijinks aren't local only to the east, they're as old as the utility business itself.

When regulation or markets find savings for ratepayers, utilities raise rates elsewhere to make up for it. Utilities, for the most part, are afraid of change.  They refuse to make themselves relevant in a brave, new consumer-driven world.  Instead of offering products and services that consumers actually want, utilities continue to force consumers to accept the products and services the utility wants to provide.  At some point, utilities are going to make themselves irrelevant, because a consumer-driven world is here and it's not going away.

Ohio's utility tedious twins, American Electric Power and FirstEnergy, epitomize utility hijinks to ward off this brave, new world.  While being all for deregulation of generation in Ohio when it was profitable, FirstEnergy has changed its tune and wants its generation to be regulated again.  In West Virginia, FirstEnergy "sold" generators owned by its competitive affiliate to its distribution affiliate.  The problem?

Suddenly, competitive plants that were making a profit for the utility were not longer profitable.  PJM's "market" had worked so well that older plants that are more expensive to run (such as antique coal plants) were no longer profitable.  In a market situation, these plants would close and be replaced by cheaper alternatives, such as natural gas plants.  Instead of changing though, the tedious twins sought out ways to make consumers pick up the costs of their plants so they could remain open and "competitive" in PJM's "markets."

After stashing their West Virginia plants in the state's regulated system, the twins came up with an idea to thwart Ohio's supposedly "competitive" generation system by selling the plants' generation into the state's regulated distribution system.  The companies concocted power purchase agreements, whereby all regulated distribution system customers would make up any market shortfalls by purchasing the "competitive" generation at the company's cost.  In turn, the company would sell the generation into PJM's "market" and leave consumers with any balance the "market" didn't cover.  That's the definition of anti-competitive.  No other generators in Ohio have the option of having regulated distribution customers pick up the cost of anti-competitive plants.  If other plants aren't profitable, they close.  That's how the "market" works.

But these utility schemes aren't long term commitments, no matter what the utility promises to score regulatory approval.  The minute these schemes aren't profitable, the utility will propose a new scheme to make sure the profits continue.  Does anyone actually believe that AEP and FirstEnergy will honor these PPAs in later years if they actually do begin to pay consumer returns at the expense of the company?  Hell no.  If that ever happens, the utility will find a way to get out of them and return them to a "competitive" business model.  The utility never loses in our current regulatory system.  The consumers are the perpetual losers.

Another utility scheme is to make up for losses on the competitive generation side by increasing profits on the regulated business side.  Regulated transmission pays great returns and can earn additional financial incentives through federally regulated rates.  It's not like we "need" a whole bunch of new transmission, it's that utilities need a way to make money.  All of a sudden the transmission system, long neglected, has become rickety and failing and must be replaced.  Serendipity!  If a utility can earn double-digit returns building or rebuilding its transmission, then that's what they do.  Utilities with stated rates are paid a set amount for maintenance of their transmission assets.  But what happens if they don't spend all that money?  It's added to share holder dividends.  So, if a utility is hurting and looking for ways to increase share holder returns, the first thing they may do is cut maintenance spending.  A look at any utility's quarterly calls with investors demonstrates that cuts to maintenance happen all the time in order to boost share holder dividends.  But what happens to the transmission assets that aren't maintained?  They become rickety and begin to fail.  Serendipity!  At that time, the utility determines that the transmission line needs to be completely rebuilt and earns a double-digit return on its "investment."

The transmission investment smorgasbord is why rates have increased, despite falling generation prices:

Consumer advocates say this scheme isn't "fair" to consumers.  But no end to the transmission feeding frenzy is in sight.  While utilities spend their cash on profitable transmission investments, less profitable investments in the distribution system suffer.  When state-regulated distribution investments pay an equal or better return than federally-regulated transmission investments, perhaps we'd see some attention paid to our rickety and failing distribution system.

Here's the lesson:  The utility always wins because regulators have been conditioned to care about the utility's well-being over that of the consumer.  After all, the utility is a constant in the regulatory realm, while consumers rarely show up.  Only when regulators force better solutions will consumers benefit.  Perhaps that's when utilities will realize they need to make themselves relevant to consumers by offering products and services consumers want, instead of force-feeding them the products and services the utility wants to offer.

Bob Stevenson's search for Clean Line warts has come to an end.  And not a single wart was found!

In Bob's first weekly Clean Line column, he promised, "to shar[e] all we know about the company, the offer, the risks and rewards, warts and all."  Except in the seven weeks since, he hasn't shared one wart.  Not one.  In Bob's view, Clean Line has no warts.  Week after week, Bob sang Clean Line's praises. 

Bob thinks that his columns helped Hannibal "form an educated opinion."  But I think Bob is the one who got the education here.  Last week, Bob got publicly educated by Missouri electric cooperatives, who corrected some misinformation in one of his columns.  And every week, Hannibal ratepayers educated him about other misinformation.  Bob got educated about regional transmission organizations, electric resource planning, renewable energy certificates, Hannibal's laws about procurement, what was actually in Clean Line's presentation to the City, the MO PSC Order Denying Clean Line a Certificate, Clean Line's business plan, and other topics.  Good times!  So, let's put this baby to bed for now, because these glowing Clean Line sales pitches are getting tiring.

Bob shares that "sometime in the next few weeks we expect to see a more definitive offer from Clean Line with or without other Municipal electric cities."  And this will be made public, Bob?  Or will you simply start the circus over from the beginning?  Let's hope Bob will use his new education to make impartial decisions in the best interests of Hannibal's electric ratepayers.

Bob says, "I have tried to dispel the notion the Clean Line project is dependent on our approval or partnership."  Whose notion is that, Bob?  I've never heard that notion.  Clean Line wants to use Hannibal as "a good witness" in a possible future PSC case.  Does Bob think his testimony will make or break it for Clean Line?  He certainly can't have the notion that Hannibal's puny 25 MW purchase of Clean Line's 4,000 MW capacity will make or break the company's success, can he?  That might just overestimate Hannibal's importance as the attractive Clean Line capital of the free world.

Your opinion about the terrible things that may happen if the Federal government got involved in Grain Belt Express is misinformed.  What makes you think Federal involvement would "leave Hannibal out of the deal entirely?"  This demonstrates how little Bob knows about the Clean Line projects, but yet he is quick to offer his misinformed opinion.

Bob wants you to answer some questions, such as:  "Are the possible savings on our bills worth the possible ill feelings from our neighbors?"  What possible savings?  Remember, Bob, Clean Line's presentation didn't show any savings over other wind options.  Your reason for steadfast allegiance to one company, a company that may not be there when you need a wind resource in the future, is a secret everyone would like to see revealed at this point.  I guess Bob has one more deep, dark secret after all.

All too often our elected representatives head off to our state capitol, where they're surrounded by paid corporate lobbyists every day, and they forget all about us.

Not so in Iowa and Missouri, where legislators are working hard to protect the interests of the ones who elected them.

A bipartisan Iowa House yesterday passed HF 2448, an act relating to the construction, erection, maintenance and operation, or sale of specified electric transmission lines.  The bill:

The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate. 

The bill's sponsor, Representative Bobby Kaufmann, said, “Every day I, in this body, am going to be loyal to the landowners rather than the pocketbooks of the Rock Island Clean Line.”

Opponents of the bill said it wasn't "fair" to Texas-based Rock Island Clean Line.

Kaufmann said Rock Island Clean Line developers have kept property owners hanging for too long.

“Whose fairness right are we going to choose: property owners or an out-of-state corporation?” Kaufmann asked.

Read more about the remarkable grassroots efforts in Iowa on the website of the Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance.

And in Missouri, a House committee hearing was held on HB 2418, a bill modifying provisions related to eminent domain power of utilities.  The bill adds the following provisions:

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised for any electric transmission line project if any of the following apply:
(1) Such project is proposed and built outside a regulated regional transmission planning process;
(2) Such project is not eligible for recovery of costs under a regional transmission operator or independent system operator tariff for transmission service it provides;
(3) Such project is constructed entirely with private funds and users of the line pay for the transmission line;
(4) Such project primarily involves construction of a high-voltage direct current transmission line.
5. Subsection 4 of this section shall not apply to a transmission line, wire, or cable that primarily provides electricity through alternating current and is used by:
(1) Rate-regulated electric utilities, municipal electric utilities, or rural electric cooperatives; or
(2) Electric transmission owners to provide electric service, for compensation, to the public or any entity described under subdivision (1) of this subsection.

Read more about this legislation here.

Block GBE Missouri reports that the hearing went well, with six witnesses testifying in favor of the bill.

Now that's representation of the people!

The honeymoon is over!

Senator John Boozeman has announced an investigation:

Boozeman also reiterated his intention to pass legislation to limit the DOE's authority on Section 1222:

Senator Boozeman has pledged to take measures to stop DOE's overreach.

It's not a done deal.  Read more here!

The U.S. DOE claimed in a press release

And if you believe that ruse, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

The reality is that the DOE is planning to coerce landowners to sign survey and easement agreements under threat of condemnation and taking of their land by the Federal government.  It's all there in the "Participation Agreement" signed by the DOE and Clean Line.  Every affected landowner should take a look.  No landowners were party to the "lengthy negotiations" that took place at the DOE to "build in protections for landowners," so you may question whether anything in this agreement actually protects your interests.  DOE doesn't even know what your interests are!

Earlier this week, Clean Line stated that it wanted to "share its revenues" with landowners.

Bridge.  Brooklyn.  You know what Clean Line is willing to do?  Exactly what is in the Participation Agreement, and nothing more.  Nothing at all.  Clean Line will do the minimum required under the agreement and then turn the remainder over the the DOE for condemnation.  And there is no "share in the wealth" provisions for landowners in the Participation Agreement.

The Participation Agreement states,

And then just steps from the starting gate, Clean Line engages in a lie by telling landowners that they will "share in the revenues earned by the project," when this is not part of the Participation Agreement's "protections" for landowners.  What is coercion?

It's perfectly okay with the DOE if Clean Line lies to landowners in order to get their foot in the door, but threats of condemnation are out of line.  Remember this!

Don't be afraid of scary words like "condemnation," or "eminent domain."  The DOE doesn't want to engage in it anymore than you do.  It's costly and time consuming.  Once, a government wanted to take my land to build a gated community and high-end shops.  They offered a pittance.  I refused.  The closer and closer we got to a condemnation hearing, the higher the offers from the government became.  The offer made to my attorney, literally on the steps of the court house just before the condemnation hearing, was six times the original offer.  I'm not an attorney, and none of this is intended as legal advice.  It's just a sharing my own personal experiences, and it's been my experience that the first landowners to sign get the least amount of money.  There's always more money available and a "final offer" is often not final.  I received much more than the other landowners because I was the last one to sign, not the first one. 

Get yourself a competent, local attorney.  Beware large out-of-state "eminent domain specialists" whose payday is dependent upon you signing an agreement with the company.  You'd get better advice from an attorney who is billing you by the hour.  His payday isn't dependent upon you signing an easement agreement.

So, what's in the Participation Agreement "protecting" landowners from Clean Line's easement acquisition actions? 

First of all, Clean Line needs to "locate the landowner."  They can do so by "using a private investigator to conduct a search for such Landowner, inquiries with
relatives, neighbors or other individuals that could reasonably be likely to know the location of
such Landowner."  This is "protection?"  Sounds like intimidation to me.

Next, Clean Line is supposed to give the landowner an "initial notice and landowner materials," consisting of:

Landowners are "protected" by being offered a legal document written by Clean Line, in its own best interest, that they are encouraged to sign without legal representation of their own.  When you sell real estate in an open market, both parties are represented at settlement by their own legal counsel.  Nobody ever sells their property to a stranger who comes knocking on their door with a prepared legal document.  So, why should you?  Land agent promises mean nothing unless they are written into the signed legal document, before you sign.  Everything you will receive must be set out in the easement agreement, in writing.  You'd be much better off with an easement agreement written by your own counsel, instead of accepting Clean Line's terms.  Clean Line is writing these agreements in their own interest, not yours.  Not all desired terms of easement agreements revolve around money.  In fact, money should be the least of your worries when you are legally bound to a transmission company for decades.  Read the paper linked here to find important provisions to include in your own easement agreement. 

Although samples of many of the documents are included as attachments to the Participation Agreement, the easement agreement is not one of them.  What's in the easement agreement that can't stand public scrutiny?  Doesn't sound like a "protection" for landowners to keep the easement agreement hidden until presented to the landowner in person by Clean Line, and urging him to sign immediately, without advice of counsel.

A "payment calculation sheet" prepared by Clean Line's property value appraisers "protects" you from receiving an offer below market value.  The payment calculation sheet becomes part of your easement agreement, once you sign.  Whatever is on this paper is a legal part of your easement agreement.  Clean Line's "market values" are determined by a company located in another state that uses prior sales in your county to calculate a value for your particular property.  It's all very high level, and prior sales can be cherry picked to come up with the value the company wants to assign to your property.  No appraiser may visit your property to discover its unique features.  Clean Line, at its own discretion, may deem your parcel a "waiver parcel," meaning it will refuse to have your property individually appraised before determining a value.  Even if Clean Line offers to have your property appraised, the appraisal shall be performed by Clean Line's contracted appraiser.  This appraiser performs all Clean Line's appraisals in your area under a contract.  You are not allowed to have your own appraisal performed by an appraiser of your choosing.  Or, better yet, to have the value determined by averaging the values determined by three appraisals -- one performed by Clean Line's appraiser, one performed by the landowner's appraiser, and one performed by an appraiser agreed to by both parties.  This may be small "protection" but it is the kind of value determination required by a state PSC approval of a transmission line.  DOE's "protections" don't even go that far.  And, one more thing about appraisals... if Clean Line doesn't like the appraisal its contractor produces, it can act as follows:
(a) The Appraisal will be sent back to the original Appraiser for revisions based on the appraisal review and then resubmitted through the review process as outlined
above; or
(b) A meeting will be held between the Appraiser and Review Appraiser to gather more facts regarding the subject parcel to formalize a joint appraisal analysis.

Clean Line's contracted appraiser had better toe the "clean" line or risk having their arm twisted.  But you can trust this appraiser because it's one of DOE's "protections" for landowners!

A sample of the Payment (or Easement) Calculation Sheet is included as an appendix to the Participation Agreement.  As you can see from this sample, your total easement consideration (payment) consists of the value of your land.  There's no line item for "revenue sharing," structure payments, damages or anything else.  It's a straight up calculation of the value of your acreage.  Also take note that this is more aptly considered an Option for easement, because you're not getting your payment all at once.  You'll get 30% of the agreed value when you sign.  You'll get the balance when they show up with the bulldozer.  If that doesn't happen before December 31, 2017, then Clean Line can pay you another 10% of the agreed price to extend the contract for another year.  If the bulldozer still hasn't shown up by December 31, 2018, then Clean Line will dispense another 10%.  At this point, you'll have 50% of the agreed upon value in your pocket.  And guess what?  Clean Line can back out of this easement agreement at any time it likes by failing to pay you the additional amounts.  You can never back out of this easement agreement.  It's permanent.  And remember, any percentage of value payments made along the way are deducted from the final amount you will receive.  They are NOT in addition to the value determined. 

Although the Participation Agreement requires Clean Line to pay for:  (iii) any damage to any crops, timber, livestock, structures or improvements of the Landowner that are reasonably likely to arise as a result of the conveyance of the applicable Project Real Estate Right and the Project...
There's no line item for this on the Payment Calculation Sheet.  How is the landowner "protected" here?  Is the landowner supposed to hope that Clean Line pays whatever they request after the damages have occurred?  Or does the landowner have to go through the courts to be reimbursed if they don't agree with Clean Line's assessment of the damages?  Determine damages, and a method for fairly assessing their cost, in advance and add it to your Payment Calculation Sheet and/or easement agreement.  Don't get stuck taking a pittance from Clean Line, or spending years in court, for the damages it caused.

And now let's talk about Clean Line's "Code of Conduct" for acquisition of your real estate.  As I've written before, this "code" was plagiarized from another transmission project where land agents actually did the things set out as prohibited by the "code."  These prohibited actions are standard operating procedures for land agents.  They actually happened.  The problem with this "code," is that there is no enforcement mechanism.  There are no penalties for violation.  There are no "code police" to call when a violation occurs.  Is DOE going to enforce this "code?"  There's nothing in the Participation Agreement about enforcement of this "code" or how a landowner shall report infractions.  This "code" doesn't protect landowners.  It's only so much window dressing.  Landowners should document all contact with land agents.  Record all meetings and telephone conversations with land agents.  If a land agent is abiding by the code, they should have no problem with you recording the meeting.  If they object, however, you can decide if their intentions are genuine, and whether to meet with them at all. 

Regarding "Construction Questionnaire" or "Survey Permission" forms -- you don't have to fill these out or sign them.  Clean Line has no authority to make you do so.  You participate in these activities of your own free will in order to help Clean Line with engineering of its transmission line.  A survey could damage your property.  There is no compensation offered by the company in exchange for allowing a survey.  In fact, the "Survey Permission" and "Construction Questionnaire" forms are not included as examples in the Participation Agreement.  Who knows what's in them, or whether there is adequate protection for the landowner?  Have your own counsel review them, if you're considering signing them.

Another point in the Participation Agreement... at the landowner's request, Clean Line must "submit" to "binding arbitration" if the landowner and Clean Line cannot agree to a price.  Arbitration is a quasi-legal process intended to settle disputes through the decision of an impartial third party.  Binding arbitration means you give up your right to disagree with the decision made.  You don't have to submit to arbitration.  If you do, you give up your rights to have the form of your easement agreement and the value you receive for your land reviewed by a court.  Arbitration is a cheaper process that strips you of your due process rights.  I would much rather have my issues decided by a court, where I may appeal a verdict I didn't agree with.  Arbitration is giving up your legal rights.

In addition, the Participation Agreement stipulates:

Of course, the "script" is not included in the Participation Agreement, so nobody knows what's in it.  Ask to see a copy of the approved "script" before talking to a land agent.  And, just like the "code," there's no enforcement mechanism or penalty for failing to abide by this stipulation.

The Participation Agreement also provides a mechanism whereby Clean Line "assigns" acquiring a particular easement to DOE.  That's because Clean Line does not have the ability to condemn any property and take it by eminent domain.  Only the DOE can do this.  Don't be afraid of any threats from Clean Line that their offer is "final" and if you don't accept it they will turn your case over to DOE.  Once DOE gets your case from Clean Line, it, too, must attempt to engage and negotiate with you before condemning the property.  Only DOE can proceed with condemnation.

Do yourself a favor and read the Participation Agreement in its entirety.  It's long, but not nearly as long as "perpetuity" will be if you sign something that doesn't protect your interests.  The DOE isn't looking out for you here, they only negotiated with Clean Line to come up with this agreement.  Protect yourself.

While Clean Line Energy Partners and the U.S. Department of Energy enjoy their little honeymoon of politically-motivated transmission line goodness before the reality of legal challenges begins, things have become what I can only characterize as... quite insane.

Environmental geeks and freaks think Clean Line is just the beginning of a new politically-motivated transmission grid, where lines are added based on lobbying, back room deals, kickbacks, and the politics of the moment in Washington, DC.  Except they're toying with the world's largest machine... the engineering wonder that keeps the lights on.

The idea that gigantic transmission projects that have nothing to do with a coordinated plan can be politically forced into operation completely upends the current regulatory system in its entirety.  It discourages coordinated planning and membership in regional transmission organizations, usurps traditional state siting and permitting authority, and obviates regulatory authority.

Why waste time at RTOs or regulatory agencies, when you can use politics to get your transmission project built?  If you can dream it up, and find some investors to finance its initial development, why bother with lengthy and risky regulatory and regional planning processes?  The more lines built outside the planning process, the less likely transmission developers will be to participate in the RTO process.  If the political decisions of a federal agency, made behind closed doors without any due process, are the new norm, we're in big, big trouble.

Because this guy thinks we should be like China now, and just start building with no concern for planning, regulation, or due process.  Of course, he also thinks the sun and wind are "concentrated" in sparsely populated areas.  That's the most ridiculous bunch of malarkey I've ever heard.  The wind blows and the sun shines everywhere.  In fact, the wind blows harder and for more sustained periods offshore than it does in the Midwest.  Why don't we start building transmission to harvest that?  Because it upsets the politics in Washington, DC and other east coast cities, where the energy hogs don't want to look at any new infrastructure clogging up their sea views.

And he uses a map for a "national transmission overlay" that was originally proposed by coal-lovin' American Electric Power 10 years ago as a "wind integration" idea.  Except when AEP's map is superimposed over a map of U.S. coal deposits, it sure looks like their "wind integration" grid was intended to move coal-fired power around.  How else do you explain the complete lack of new lines "integrating wind" into the Southeast and New England.  Don't they love "wind," too?

So, yes, let's be like China and just start building an uncoordinated, politically-motivated grid and run roughshod over our people and regulatory system.  Let's get rid of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, regional transmission operators, state public service commissions, and due process for affected citizens and have our grid "managed" by politics at the DOE.  Because making a rather insane "ugly compromise" like that is supposed to be necessary to save the planet.  Screw the people who gotta live there.

Hannibal BPW General Manager Bob Stevenson thinks

No, Bob, what I think is that you're a shameless shill for Clean Line Energy Partners and I wonder what you're getting out of it, on a personal level.  No reading between the lines required!  I read between the lines to try to decipher your grammatically tired columns.  And that makes me tired.  But, hey, what would Tuesday be without an advertisement for Clean Line penned by Bob?  Productive, that's what.

This week's column purports that Clean Line is the only way for Hannibal to reach economical wind markets.  Really?  Based on what?  Bob doesn't say.  It's a fantastical statement without any facts to back it up.  I don't believe it.

Bob shares that he will be changing Hannibal's purchasing strategy in June, 2017.  Is that when the open and competitive purchasing process ends and the sole source back room deals begin?  Like most municipalities, Hannibal has codified purchasing requirements.  I guess Bob is going to change the City Code?  Good luck, there, tiger!

What's the problem with soliciting bids for wind energy and paying the transmission costs on the existing system?  Could it reveal that economical wind energy could reach Hannibal without a Clean Line?  You could even sign a PPA for that wind, just to keep your prices "stable" over the long term.  Because stable prices, even those that become way too high when compared to market prices, sort of like Prairie State, are best, right?  You'll never know the possibilities of what energy is available until you openly solicit bids! 

Instead, Bob prefers to operate in a much smaller world where the all the energy available can only be delivered by a Clean Line.  That's simply ridiculous, Bob!  And it's not true.

And then Bob starts waxing Sibylline about a future where all businesses in the world relocate to Hannibal because only it has green energy delivered by a Clean Line.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free, Bob?  Sure, businesses like to pretend they are powered by green energy.  But that's all they do... pretend!  They don't have to move to Hannibal to pretend they're powered by green energy  They simply buy renewable energy credits (RECs) and carry on at their preferred location.  Having energy delivered by a Clean Line isn't a draw for businesses to relocate to Hannibal.  Buying junk RECs from renewable energy projects in another state or region allows a business to claim it's powered by green energy, at little cost.  It's a heck of a lot cheaper than relocating the physical business to Hannibal. 

Hannibal could become known for something alright... for buying capacity on a transmission line to nowhere at great expense to its ratepayers.

Have you ever tried your hand at fan fiction, Bob?

I can't take it anymore.  I'm gonna snap and start throwing water on a media that's all wet to begin with.  I've never seen so many lies, half-truths, and simply manufactured "facts" as those in the many stories that got generated over Easter weekend about DOE taking a kickback from Clean Line in exchange for agreeing to participate in its project.

Any entity that releases important information mid-day on Good Friday is up to no good.  It's a cowardly and underhanded way to release bad news that you don't want the media to see.  But see it they did.  And since Moniz was probably busy stuffing his piehole with farm-fresh Easter goodies, nobody was available to answer questions from the media.  So the media made crap up.

The DOE ought to be as ashamed of itself for its cowardly media release as it apparently is of its decision to "participate" in the Clean Line project.  But now that we all know how ashamed they are, and terrified of the truth getting out, we'll be sure to spread the word.  ;-)

Here are some of the worst lies that showed up in the media:

I'm going to paraphrase the rest of the glittering generalities that were common to a lot of the 60+ recent articles on this debacle.  I just don't have time or space to call out each instance, and it wouldn't be fair to point the finger at just one media outlet for parroting lies that were repeated by many when their origin is unclear.

What a bunch of poppycock DOE, Clean Line and the media created here.  It's nothing but glittering generalities and lies designed to make project opposition melt away.  That won't happen.  It's going to be a rough ride, but there's too much at stake to turn around now.  Godspeed, Arkansas and Oklahoma.  You can win this!

Think your home is your castle?  Not anymore, if the Federal government can make money selling it to a private investor.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy sold its authority to condemn land to private investors in exchange for two percent of the investors' profit from using the condemned land.

That's right... the U.S. DOE will receive 2% of the revenues collected by Clean Line at the end of each fiscal quarter, once the transmission line starts delivering electricity.  DOE says it will use its new windfall "to offset costs associated with federal hydropower infrastructure or for any other authorized purpose."  So, at best, this payola will be used to lower rates for customers of federal hydropower marketers.  At worst, it will be used "for any other authorized purpose."  Of course, this isn't defined. So ol' Beethoven could "authorize" the purchase of a private island for him and his renewable energy investor buddies.  Anything goes, right, Ernie?

I don't think that was the intent of Congress in allowing a brainless piece of lobbyist mischief to become part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.  Section 1222 doesn't contemplate the Federal government making money off transmission projects it "participates" in or "owns."  Nor does it authorize the Secretary to determine how his boodle is spent.  Not anywhere.

Everybody is making money off the Clean Line scheme.  Clean Line's investors, Clean Line's executives (personally invested in the project), legislators Clean Line has "donated" to, vendors who want to supply goods and services, local governments being paid off at the rate of $7500/transmission mile, wind companies, landowners who lease their land for wind farm royalties, Federal hydropower ratepayers, environmental groups, unions, economic development hacks, and even the Federal government.  It's all profit and no sacrifice from these entities.  Everyone's got their finger into the money pie, and it costs them nothing. These are the supposed "public benefits."

And these are the sacrifices that must be made so that "the public" can benefit.  The landowner whose property is along the transmission line route is forced to sacrifice his private property to enable this money-fest for the benefit of others without any skin in the game.  He pays dearly.  The landowner can be found at the bottom of this greed pile on.  The landowner isn't part of any "share in the wealth" plan.  The landowner is involuntarily forced to make a sacrifice by having his property condemned by the Federal government so that others can profit from its use.  In exchange, the landowner is handed a one time pittance that attempts to compensate him for the current value of his property taken.  A landowner's potential for future profit related to his property?  The Federal government doesn't recognize that in its rush to provide for the future profits of energy speculators, union workers, suppliers, etc.

If my property was subject to such a taking, I'd add the following clause to any easement or survey permission presented to me, in addition to any "fair market value" or one-time structure payments:

The Secretary of Energy has sold you out in exchange for quarterly dividends from Clean Line Energy Partners.  Ernie would have a really hard time telling you that you're not also eligible to receive 2% of the revenues, since you're actually making an involuntary sacrifice to enable this profit-making scheme.  Fair is fair, right?