One of the biggest questions plaguing Grain Belt Express opponents has at long last been answered... well, sorta, for now.

Who is supposed to pay for this $2 billion project?

By finally applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for authority to negotiate rates for transmission service with potential buyers and sellers of electricity, Grain Belt Express pretends that it intends to finance its own project.

Although, GBE has been telling other audiences that ratepayers in "states farther east" may be paying for its project:

Do you think maybe GBE isn't being completely honest with FERC?  I do wonder how a situation that may compromise GBE is is against the public interest, if all project risk is being absorbed by GBE as a merchant transmission project?

GBE has presented an altered version of reality to FERC:

I think I might know a few landowners who feel they have not been "closely worked with."  In fact, the affected landowners in Kansas were the LAST ones to find out about GBE's project.  Some of these landowners feel they were not properly notified under Kansas law, and even when they found out, they were denied effective participation in a matter that granted GBE the right to take their land by force.  GBE even admits that, according to their public outreach plan, landowners are the last to be notified, after environmental groups, business groups, elected officials, local governments, and potential suppliers.  It is only after Clean Line has drummed up support for its project by schmoozing and making dubious promises that it springs the project on affected landowners.  In this way, Clean Line hopes that landowner concerns will be smothered by the group of MIMPSYs it has created.

However, FERC has no jurisdiction to right any wrongs made in the state regulatory process because it has no authority over siting and permitting.  But, the dishonesty is galling.

GBE also tells FERC that it will shoulder all financial responsibility and risk for its project:

Well, not really.  GBE is passing some of its risk and cost associated with its project on to affected landowners and local governments who are expected to shoulder uncompensated project costs.  Such costs may include the expense of providing public safety services during construction and operation, use of roadways for construction and maintenance, reduction in tax base, lowered property values, interference with farming operations, health and safety risks of living and working in close proximity to the project, inverse condemnation takings, lowered farm operation income, and increased costs to farm around the project, and the list goes on.

GBE also mentions that there are other planned regional projects that will provide price competition.  These other projects that are ordered by RTOs are financed by, and guaranteed cost recovery from, ratepayers.  Ratepayers are assuming all risk of these other projects.  If GBE causes the competing projects to fail, ratepayers will end up financing the failed projects, for which they will never receive any benefit.

In addition, GBE is promising FERC that it will abide by the Commission's rules about honest and aboveboard negotiation with potential customers.  If landowners believe GBE has not been honest and aboveboard with them, how can FERC trust that GBE will keep promises made in this application?  Many believe that GBE has not developed a good reputation of honestly attempting to follow regulation in the public interest.  In fact, some believe that GBE's reputation is that of smart alec arrogance, always trying to manipulate regulation in order to advance its pecuniary goals.

For instance, after promising Kansas regulators 135 "operations" jobs in the state related to its project, GBE tells FERC the truth:

There is no RTO located in Kansas.

GBE also asks FERC for permission to use special selection criteria to evaluate offers.  Preference will be given to potential customers who are willing to make "deposits" and shoulder some of the cost burden.  In this way, GBE may be discriminating against customers who are not in a position to invest in its speculative project.  I'm not sure this is what FERC really had in mind as non-discriminatory.

Keep an eye on this one.  It's going to be interesting.

What happens when you combine clueless billionaires, former government officials and environmental warriors?

The Energy Future Coalition.

Whatever may once have been good about this organization has been thoroughly exterminated by greedy transmission speculators and arrogant clean energy maniacs (cleaniacs) on an unmindful mission to "save the world" in a big ol' hurry. 

To put it quite bluntly, the "big green" NGO "clean energy now" militancy is beginning to backfire and disenchant a growing section of middle America.  At a meeting last week, I mentioned that I was not going to renew my Sierra Club membership this year because I disagree with the direction the club's leadership has taken recently.  To my surprise, the sentiment went around the table, with several others volunteering that they had also cancelled their memberships, or were planning to do so.  In addition, many farmers (the original environmentalists!) have become repulsed at the "big green" push to accomplish hostile takeovers of their factories to re-purpose them to produce "clean energy," instead of food.  The environmental NGOs have gone too far and are actually fomenting a middle-America rebellion against clean energy.

In 2010, the EFC launched "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid" (ACEG) to ostensibly support their work on smart grid initiatives.  However, instead of encouraging "a modernized electrical grid that uses information and communications technology to gather and act on information, such as information about the behaviors of suppliers and consumers, in an automated fashion to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity," ACEG has turned into an organization that attempts to smother due process to enrich its "members."  And, along the way, no actual "Americans" were engaged.  ACEG is nothing but a front group for entities who stand to make enormous profits building unneeded high voltage transmission lines.

This article in Smart Grid News foreshadows the kind of jack-booted "clean energy" future in store for us if we don't rein in these avaricious fakes before they cause any more damage.

Cleaniacs are all about building new "dumb" transmission, and they are chafing at existing laws and due process afforded to citizens holding rights to land "clean energy" transmission developers covet for new rights-of-way.

Here are several lies these cleaniacs are spreading:

1.  "The grid was built first to connect power plants to cities, then to connect cities to each other, and more recently to join regions together."  While the first two connections are correct, the last one is false.  The more recent "connection" has been made to trade energy as a commodity over long distances.  It all started with Enron, and although Enron collapsed under the weight of its own treachery, energy trading still provides a fertile breeding ground for market manipulation that fills the coffers of energy traders who gleefully "lift the piss out of" energy prices consumers pay.

2.  "While part of this expansion is intended to reach out to remote areas with wind and solar resources, it is also necessary to connect everything to everything, to allow for the free flow of electrons, to minimize the variability of wind and solar power."  Connect everything to everything... so that when one small component fails the entire country pitches into darkness?  This isn't safe or reliable.

3.  "High-voltage transmission lines make the grid more efficient and reliable by alleviating congestion, promoting bulk-power competition, reducing generation costs, and allowing grid operators to balance supply and demand over larger regions."  Makes the grid more reliable by "allowing" grid operators to balance supply and demand over larger regions?  That's a complicated recipe for disaster!

The rise of distributed generation is treated like a mere speed bump. 

"The rapid advance of distributed generation is one wild card.  FERC Chair Jon Wellinghoff has noted that the rapid progress with rooftop solar could reduce the need for transmission to connect big renewables from remote regions.  'We need to build only the transmission that we need,' he told Public Utilities Fortnightly."

It gets a brief mention as only a "wild card," before the authors jump right back into the "benefits" of more transmission.

The cleaniacs claim the grid has been stymied by:

Boundaries: regions have to share the costs of new lines that cross their borders;
Benefits: regulators have to make sure payments for new transmission are “roughly commensurate” with the benefits, and paid by the beneficiary;
Siting: new lines must minimize environmental and cultural impacts, and provide fair compensation to landowners, yet the siting process is often inconsistent and uncoordinated;
Policy:  not all states plan their transmission around pro-renewable policies, though renewables are starting to be economic without policy.

But what they really mean is that transmission developer and supplier profits have been stymied by just and reasonable cost allocation, due process for affected landowners, and state authority.  These are things that should not and cannot be improved upon.  However, that doesn't stop the cleaniacs from making recommendations for the phantom "policy makers."  Who are these people?  Do they even exist at the level referred to in this article?  Or are they just more empty cleaniac platitudes?

• Policy makers must accurately assess the costs and benefits of transmission expansion, incorporating public policy goals, operational benefits, lower overall power sector costs, and economic development.  Why are there no "costs" on this list if we're assessing the costs and benefits?  Could it be that costs are not being accurately assessed?
  

• Planners should prioritize transmission lines that link balancing areas, so that we can connect strong renewable resources to loads, reduce the impacts of their variability, and integrate them seamlessly into the grid.  What if "planners" prioritized distributed generation, demand management and energy efficiency?  Aren't these cleaniac goals as well as building new transmission?
  

• Regions should harmonize grid operations and increase competition in electricity markets, to reduce costs and increase efficiency.  And keep those JP Morgan and Barclay's guys out of the food stamp line.
  

• Regulators should slash the timeline for planning, building, and siting transmission through better coordination, clear rules and expectations, and best practices in siting.  What's wrong with this timeline?  1)Plan a project; 2)build a project; 3)site a project.  Where does due process for affected citizens fit in that expedited timeline?  And here's another useless business buzzword "best practices in siting."  You mean these?
  

• We must make the most of existing lines and new ones once they are built, through energy efficiency, distributed generation, and technical fixes like dynamic line rating. This is probably the most ridiculous recommendation -- someone just had to insert "and new ones once they are built" into a sentence that only made sense without the addition.  Rebuilding existing lines should be the FIRST priority, not "building new ones."  How stupid would it be to build a new transmission line and then "make the most of it" by applying technical fixes?  These cleaniacs really aren't too smart, are they?
  

So, what do you get when you combine thousands of concerned landowners and ratepayers that oppose the out-of-control building of new transmission of dubious worth and motive?  Perhaps we'll soon find out...

I just had to click that link on my facebook feed yesterday.  After months of trying to ignore the PJM Market Monitor's State of the Market Reports because it's like being sucked into an alternative universe and it makes my brain hurt, I saw a link to this:

Okay, you got me, Carol.  I clicked.... and soon found myself poking through the entire multi-volume set and reaching for my Magic 8 Ball translator.

Here's where I went first:  Section 12, Planning

Blah, blah, generation queue, backbone transmission, blah, blah  *screech*

Well, hot damn!  Someone's been paying attention!  But wait... the following paragraph indicates that the MMU's "solution" may just tip the scales toward imported transmission:

Perhaps this plan is intended to clear the way for viable generation in the queue to come online, but maybe its actually clearing the way for merchant transmission from other regions, which acts as a generator at the interconnection point.

Big, mean frowny face!  And he's serious, after helping to kill new generation in Maryland and New Jersey?  So, let's go back to Carol's favorite quote:  "Markets do not automatically provide competitive and efficient outcomes."  That's right!  Because we need a "market monitor" to artificially adjust the markets to fit a pre-determined pecuniary outcome.

And the next little point to ponder comes here:  Section 8, Environmental and Renewables.

Most interesting are the graphs near the end showing real time wind and solar generation by month.  The graphs show that wind generation peaks late at night in winter months, when we don't need it.  Solar, on the other hand, peaks in the middle of the day during the hottest months of the year.

I'm not even going to bother to search for the MMU's recommendation on that because it probably urges us to build more transmission lines to import wind for summer peak, instead of what would be logically obvious to a normal person -- to take advantage of on-site solar resources to reduce peak usage.  How many roofs could we cover with solar panels for the cost of just one of these "clean" transmission line monsters?  And why are the people who are supposedly served by all this market monitoring mumbo-jumbo disenfranchised from having any say in their own energy future?

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

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

She baked them some delicious, organic BANANA muffins,

and she made them an artsy "Welcome!" card

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

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

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

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

In a not at all surprising move today, the Kansas Corporation Commission conditionally approved the 750-mile Grain Belt Express Transmission project.  The project, proposed to plow through and ruin 370 miles of prime farmland in the state, has been greased since becoming the pet of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback when first proposed.  Ol' Sam apparently believed all the pie-in-the-sky promises he was made by a couple of Texas speculators, who saw opportunity to profit off the backs of hard-working Kansans.  Sam and his KCC Commissioners are now trying to hide behind some plainly illogical and assuredly "cooked" job numbers as cover for their betrayal of the people of Kansas.

135 jobs to operate and maintain the 370-mile length of this line in Kansas?  Who are we kidding here?  This is a ridiculous claim!  Once built, the line will be operated by a handful of jobs at a control center outside Kansas, hundreds of miles away.  These operators are already controlling hundreds of transmission lines, addition of Grain Belt Express won't cause an appreciable increase in operations jobs.  Every 10 years or so, a tree company will be hired to clear the right-of-way to be in compliance with operation standards, maybe, if they can't get away with ignoring it any longer.  When the line fails or is taken down by a natural disaster, a handful of specialized workers will be imported to Kansas to make repairs as quickly as possible to get it back in service.  Where are the operation jobs, Sam?  Does Sam think that an "operator" will be standing by every 2.7 miles, manually squeezing electricity through this line?  Or maybe they'll just stand on the prairie, cheering the electricity along on its path to "states farther east?"  Ridiculous!  I guess Sam and the KCC have no common sense that would allow them to view the illogical nature of these unsubstantiated job claims.

And that's just the problem here, folks.  KCC's approval was based on the unsubstantiated claims of the applicant.  Unrealistic claims and biased "studies" are a part of every transmission line application.  The applicant attempts to show its project is needed and will provide some benefit.  However, in states with knowledgeable and professional regulators, the information provided with the application is subjected to some expert scrutiny to verify its truthfulness.  Professionally regulated states will hire their own subject matter experts to study the application and provide testimony.  In addition, in professionally regulated states, other parties to the case will hire their own experts to review the information and file testimony.  Only in this way are exaggerated and untruthful claims weeded out to allow the truth to emerge and be considered by the regulators making the decision.

But, the KCC relied completely on two members of its own staff to provide "expert" opinion on subjects ranging from health problems related to EMF exposure to the reasonableness of the route.  Both staff members are electrical engineers.  Their expertise is in electrical engineering, not health, routing, farming impacts, oil operations, jobs, PJM and MISO electricity markets, renewable portfolio standards of eastern states, or any of the other myriad topics upon which Tweedledum and Tweedledee provided "expert" verification of the applicant's claims.  In its Order approving the project, the KCC claims:

The KCC makes it sound like the opposing parties failed to do their part.  The truth of the matter is that the opposing parties were prohibited from entering any evidence or testimony into the record, and were also prohibited from cross-examining GBE's witnesses to test the veracity of the claims made.  This is how the KCC and GBE maintained complete control of an unverified, biased body of evidence upon which to base approval.  This was not due process, but a double time race to approval before the truth was exposed.

The KCC claims that it based its decision on the "necessity and reasonableness of the location of the proposed electric transmission line, taking into consideration the benefit to consumers in and outside Kansas as well as economic development benefits in Kansas."

Here's how KCC "considered" consumers inside and outside Kansas:

Ridiculous!  The data upon which the conclusions were based was wholly unverified, and the conclusions themselves were based on questionable assumptions.

The KCC even rolled over and failed to condition the permit in any effective way.  The staff had recommended that the permit be conditioned upon GBE obtaining approval to construct the project from the other three states in which it is sited.  GBE objected, claiming that "federal siting approvals" could be substituted for state permission.  The KCC rolled over and adopted this condition, clearing the way for GBE to thumb their noses at the other three states, instead of "considering consumers outside Kansas."  I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not looking for Kansas to protect my interests, no matter what state statutes they adopt.

The second recommended condition included a requirement that GBE remain a "merchant transmission project."  GBE objected, most likely because it is looking to submit its project for regional cost allocation (ratepayer funding) in PJM and/or MISO (neither of which include Kansas, which is located in SPP).  Once again, the KCC rolled over and worded the condition to simply prohibit recovery of project costs from Kansas ratepayers.

Approval of Grain Belt Express in Kansas is a travesty of justice.  The KCC will now become the laughing stock of other state regulators.  But the battle now shifts to other states with strong regulators, like Illinois and Missouri, who perform their jobs with a little more professionalism, and perhaps to a fateful battle at the Department of Energy, Congress and federal court over federal eminent domain taking of private property in order to facilitate the profits of a private entity.  We're only just getting started...

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

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

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

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

Rock Island Clean Line Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the Rock Island  Clean Line?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Will Rock Island use  eminent domain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, the letters opposed projects like RICL. 

2009 letter  Read it for yourself.

2010 letter  Read it for yourself.

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

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

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

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

Trick or treat, Jimmy!  Is that your Halloween costume?

Clean Line Energy Partners' Jimmy Glotfelty came to Mendota dressed as a "farmer" tonight!

Who dressed Jimmy tonight?  Stupid, stupid, stupid!

The "chore coat" is a political campaign tactic intended to disguise a privileged, super-rich candidate who has never done an honest day's work and make him appear to be "a regular working guy."  The tactic became mainstream when used by unsuccessful presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004.  Use of this political styling tactic has exploded recently, including use by Illinois gubernatorial hopeful Bruce Rauner.

Jimmy was seen in Mendota with Aaron Chambers, of the firm ThomsonWeir.  ThomsonWeir performs public relations services for their well-heeled corporate and political clients.  "We craft client-specific messages and tailor client communications outreach, whether through conventional news media or through new media tools, to engage and educate local audiences about client priorities." 

Aaron Chambers was found sitting alone way up high in the bleachers at Mendota High School, where he was furiously scribbling copious notes on every speaker who opposed RICL.  When one of his bleacher neighbors looked over his shoulder to see what he was writing, she saw him drawing diagrams that looked a lot like this:

Ah ha!  I think we've found the source of the "chore coat to make Jimmy more likable in Mendota" idea!

This really wasn't a good idea!  Why not just have Jimmy walk through the gym holding up a blinking neon sign that says "I think you all are STOO-PID!"?  Same effect.

I have to wonder... has Aaron watched the movie Promised Land recently?  In that movie, the carpetbagging corporate agents sent to a small town to purchase gas rights from unsuspecting "locals" make the farm store their first stop in town, where they load up on chore coats, boots, plaid shirts and khaki work pants in an attempt to "fit in." 

Do you think Jimmy or the other Clean Line executives pondered Aaron's advice before stopping by the farm supply store and picking up Jimmy's costume?  Did they really think this was a genius idea?  Or were the employees simply too afraid to speak up and tell Jimmy he was making a big, big mistake that would turn him into the laughing stock of rural Illinois?

This is what Jimmy normally looks like.  We think.  Of course, it's hard to tell who Jimmy REALLY is because he's always trying to be someone he's not.

Ha ha ha ha ha!  We're laughing with you, Jimmy, honest!

Pick up the phone.  Call toll free 1-877-579-6757 and tell Kansas Governor Sam Brownback that you do not want any of his Grain Belt Express wind here in "eastern states."  Do it now!

Why should you call Sam?  Because he supports construction of a 750-mile overhead high voltage electric transmission line across Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana intended to export wind-generated electricity from Kansas to "states farther east" and make those "states farther east" pay to construct and operate it.

None of these "states farther east" were consulted or asked if they wanted the electricity or the bill for this transmission line.  This project is pure speculation by a get-rich-quick company out of Texas, Clean Line Energy Partners.  Grain Belt Express wants to preclude the development of clean energy resources in "states farther east" and force you to buy imported "renewables" from Kansas.  This takes money out of your community and puts it in Sam's pocket!

Sam controls the Kansas Corporation Commission.  Kansans have been told "this is Sam's baby" and that it's a done deal.  The KCC staff has recommended that the Commissioners approve the project because they are considering the needs of "states farther east."  However, when citizens of those "states farther east" submitted comments to the KCC, the staff and Clean Line attorneys told the Commissioners to disregard those comments because they came from people who don't live in Kansas!

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is controlled by a handful of powerful economic interests in southwest Kansas who want to make money constructing thousands of wind turbines on their unproductive property, and Texas speculators who want to export their product across 750 miles of more productive land, and send the bill to "states farther east."

Tell Sam you don't want his hot air and that you're not paying for his pork barrel project!

Call 1-877-579-6757 or submit your comment online here.  Do it now!

Remember the Atlantic Wind Connection, the auspicious offshore wind backbone transmission project first unveiled in 2010?  At the time, AWC intended to build a $5B, 350-mile network of underwater cables to bring 6,000MW of offshore wind power to 1.9 million homes along the Atlantic seaboard.  This could be accomplished with very little new onshore transmission (and without time-consuming and costly opposition to same), therefore this project should be a quick and easy build, a win-win, an environmentalist's and landowner's dream, right?

Wrong.  AWC has faced hurdle after hurdle tossed in its path by regulators and competing transmission interests.  They're all crying boo hoo about how this is going to cost too much.  Instead, these same regulators have plunked down over 2 billion dollars on the unneeded Susquehanna Roseland transmission project in New Jersey, designed to increase the transfer of both nuclear and coal-fired electricity from the Ohio Valley to New Jersey's east coast.  We've also financed the more than a billion dollar TrAILCo transmission project, designed to do the same thing by importing western resources into the Washington, D.C. suburbs.  Most heinously, these same regulators and regional planners have also wasted approximately half a billion dollars of consumer cash on the failed PATH and MAPP transmission projects that were never built (also designed to move power from west to east).  If we add all this up, we're probably in the ball park of what it would have cost to build AWC three years ago, instead of the failed Project Mountaineer.

And east coast regulators and the PJM cartel still struggle to waste consumer cash on generation subsidies, public policy requirements, market efficiency project windows, inter-regional import/export battles and other dumb ideas designed to maintain historical west to east power flows, all while shoving AWC under the bus again and again.  Why?  Is it because AWC would take market share from all these competing interests?  Or maybe AWC just isn't a member of the PJM good ol' boys club?  Or maybe it's both.

I came across a story the other day announcing that AWC is "shifting its goal to moving electricity across New Jersey instead of connecting offshore wind farms."

The new plan is called the New Jersey Power (or Energy?) Link and is a $1.8B project "[b]uried under the ocean floor and running the length of the coastline, the New Jersey Energy Link will bring power to shore at three locations serving southern, central and northern New Jersey. When complete, it will be capable of carrying 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind and conventional electricity generated in New Jersey – enough to power more than 1 million homes."

This new "focus" will reduce high energy prices in northern New Jersey by "...mov[ing] power from southern New Jersey to the northern part of the state where energy prices are higher."  It's no longer about offshore wind or renewables.  Seems like AWC has thrown in the towel on "saving the environment" for the time being, and who could blame them?  The big green groups who are busy sucking on the teats of midwest wind and transmission interests have made it clear that they're not interested in offshore wind.

Of course, this now means that AWC is going to be looking for regionally allocated, PJM-ordered, consumer financing for its project, instead of the merchant (self-funded) project it was originally intended to be. 

And what do the regulators say about that?

“For us, it’s generally about cost effectiveness,” said New Jersey Rate Counsel Director Stefanie Brand. “It’s hard for us to support a project like this” because there are less expensive options."

I'm starting to see why AWC might be just a little frustrated by now.

So now AWC will be built in phases over a ten year period.  Whatever works to get the job done, because the alternative is a whole bunch of new overland transmission.  On paper, some think overland transmission might be "cheaper."  I'm thinking not.  Building new land based transmission is becoming more expensive and time consuming every day, and time is money in the transmission development game. The price of building transmission is skyrocketing due to increased information dissemination and networked organization of opposition groups.  Transmission opposition has gotten much more sophisticated and is coming together nationwide.  Uninformed country bumpkin landowners who sell fast and cheap are a thing of the past.

AWC has changed its website and tactics.  It sort of looks like they copied our "friends" at Clean Line.  Check out the "Supply Chain" graphics here.  The handshake and pencil graphics look a lot like these, don't they?  There's also a whole bunch of jobs, jobs, jobs stuff and other claims of dubious merit that look pretty familiar.  However, AWC doesn't have "a bunch of ticked off farmers" barking at its heels and tossing banana peels in its path.  How much do you think opposition costs?  It's getting more and more expensive every day.

Every landowner between here and the midwest ought to be lining up to support AWC, instead of the snarl of expensive, uncoordinated "renewable" transmission lines from land based wind farms that's currently being proposed.  And every state government on the east coast needs to make a decision -- offshore wind and economic development at home, or sending your energy dollars out of state for imported and unreliable "renewable" energy?  Short term cost decisions may not be wise or sustainable over the long term. 

What we don't need, however, is AWC and a whole bunch of western "renewables," which is what we may get if AWC is used only as a new north-south transmission "superhighway" as currently proposed.  AWC claims it's not a "build it and they will come" project.  Right, fellas ;-)

Do you think Clean Line Energy Partners learned anything the last time they came to Mendota?  I hope so, because those Texans were like fish out of water.  Their over-the-top attempts to take over and control a public event that was intended for landowners affected by the company's project were not well-received.  In fact, they were downright destructive to Clean Line's public image.  It's impossible to get away with that kind of nonsense in "Mayberry," where everybody knows everybody else and many unnoticed eyes and ears are always collecting information.

Why is Clean Line so afraid to let affected landowners have their say?  It seems only fair that those asked to sacrifice for this company's project at least be allowed to speak publicly about their sacrifice, without restraint or interference from the company.

So, is Clean Line planning another round of underhanded shenanigans?  I hope not.  Any attempts to unfairly control the hearing will be exposed.  Clean Line should get over their idea that they're dealing with "a bunch of dumb farmers."

Here's a trio of tricks Clean Line should drop from its repertoire:

1.    Line jumping by signing up speakers who are not present.  Clean Line got publicly called out on this one last time, when its white-shirted schemers deployed individuals to sign the names of people who were not present to the speakers list, just to make sure they were "saved" a good spot in the line-up.  But that practice backfired... because of the aforementioned unseen eyes and ears.

See the woman in beige?  I have no idea what her name is, but I know it's not Theresa Hoover, Sales Manager of The Southwire Company.  But, there she is, in line right behind me to sign up to speak at the first Mendota hearing.  When this same woman was called to the microphone much earlier than me, I wondered if the hearing officer had somehow mixed up his list.  It all became clear when "Theresa Hoover" was called to speak after me, and no one responded.  Here's what happened next, according to the transcript:

Word is, there won't be a sign up at Monday's hearing.  I wonder if that is the ICC's way of preventing a repeat of this kind of bad behavior?

2.  The game of musical chairs intended to replace landowners in the auditorium with late-arrival, Clean Line-clad speakers in the lobby.

The ICC seems to have solved this by moving to a bigger room with adjustable seating.

3.    The "Supporter's Dinner" (because RICL only has ONE supporter, or because they don't know how to use apostrophes?)  Offers of free food and t-shirts, reimbursement for transportation costs, or just plain old offers to pay someone to speak on your behalf will be interpreted as paid-for, biased testimony and ARE NOT FAIR OR ACCEPTABLE.

I wonder how embarrassing it would be if a spy attended the "supporter's dinner" and then turned right around and testified all about Clean Line's "secret" shenanigans to drum up paid speakers on its behalf afterwards?  Just don't do it, Clean Line, and save yourself a whole lot of embarrassment, okay?

I do wonder why Clean Line cannot fairly rest upon the merits of its project, and finds it necessary to resort to tricks and deceitfulness in an attempt to hoodwink the ICC to approve of its project?  Maybe RICL isn't such a good project after all.  Think about it.