Category:

FERC Hearing Concludes

4/23/2015

Yesterday marked the official conclusion of the FERC hearing that's taken up so much of my time over the past month or so.

I'm sure numerous celebrations occurred.

Some were more fun

than others

For those who remarked that the second celebration didn't look like much fun, I offer that the beer was picked up off the table, the light turned out, and the room vacated. Instant fun!

Now, where did I leave my life? Anyone seen it?

First, I offer this article from WSJ* (I admit it, the world has been revolving even though I paid it little attention). It's finally been recognized that utilities may be investing in infrastructure as a cash cow. Ya think?

The way the regulated rate world works is that the more they invest, the more $$ they make. Although utilities have a built in O&M component in most stated rates, if they don't spend it all, they can use the money for something else, such as increasing shareholder dividends. And they did. But, as less power is sold, profits go down and the utility must turn to other profit centers, such as increased capital spending on long-neglected maintenance, or new transmission lines. And rates go up.

And they wonder why we drink...

*If you can't read the article, google the headline "Utilities' Profit Recipe: Spend More" and you should be able to access it directly.

1 Comment

Back to Gone

4/13/2015

1 Comment

Hi! You've reached StopPATHWV Blog. Your visit is important to me. I'm sorry I can't come to the website right now... et cetera.

I'm off again, this time until it's over (a week? two weeks?) I predict another 6 days. Too bad there's not some sort of football pool going on. I might actually make some money that way.

If you're in possession of a call-in phone number to listen in to the festivities live, enjoy it. Or just show up... it's a public hearing.

If not, transcripts have begun to be posted on the docket. Go here. Enter Docket No. ER09-1256 and list sub docket 002 in the correct fields. Read.

Meanwhile, remember to play fair and be nice, everyone! Sleep the sleep of the righteous. A guilty conscience can be like a lead weight attached to your ankle. Ain't nobody got time for that...

1 Comment

Can Colorado Utility Consumers Afford to be Unrepresented?

4/7/2015

2 Comments

Disturbing news out of Colorado this morning. The Denver Post reports that the legislature is playing games with funding of the Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) for the next 10 years. Without funding and authorization, the OCC will simply cease to exist under Colorado's "sunset" law.

A concerned legislator likened the refusal to deal with the re-funding of the OCC to "Washington, D.C.-style politics."

"If people disagree on the policy, the substance or the process, that's fair; that's what we're each here to do," Garcia said. "But what we're seeing here is Washington, D.C.-style politics where you put something off to the side, and the committee chair doesn't give it due regard until it's too late."

Why is consumer counsel so important? Because it is the utility consumer's only defense against high rates and utility policy that compromises their interest. Only the consumer counsel is looking out for residential and small business interests during utility rate cases. Without the OCC, residential consumers would have no choice but to represent themselves in every utility case before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Who can afford the time or expense of that? Nobody, therefore consumers would be unrepresented. It's just not true that outside consumer groups, contingency-based lawyers, or class-action lawsuits can take the place of an independent, governmental advocate that defends the interests of all residential and small business consumers.

According to a report prepared last fall, the OCC regularly saves this class of consumers between $40-50 million per year in increased rates. The cost of this representation is a mere $1.5M/year. The funding for the OCC comes from fees paid by regulated utilities, not out of the state's general fund. It costs consumers nothing, and it consistently saves them money. The report recommends continuing the OCC until 2026. However, the legislature is ignoring it, and without their nod, the OCC will sunset.

Don't let the Colorado legislature rob you of the representation that keeps your utility bill in check. Without the OCC, out-of-control rate increases could have you lamenting that "someone" should do something about that. The OCC is the consumer's "someone," even though most consumers don't even know they exist. Get educated and take an active role in the processes that control your utility costs -- support the re-funding of the Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel.

Halt The Power Lines makes it quick and easy to do your part! Visit them here to find out how to take action!

2 Comments

TVA's IRP: Reliability and Cost

4/7/2015

0 Comments

I had the pleasure last night of watching the Tennessee Valley Authority's public hearing of their 2015 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), along with some knowledgeable and committed Clean Line opponents from Arkansas. Well, okay, maybe watching wasn't exactly pleasant due to the incredibly SLOW "high speed" internet service I receive from Frontier that caused the streaming video to pause after every three words, but the company was outstanding!

The goal was to find out more about how TVA is looking at Clean Line through its IRP lens, and the likelihood that TVA may purchase the Plains & Eastern Clean Line's 3500MW payload. As my Magic 8 Ball is fond of saying, "Don't count on it."

Although viewing from afar, we could tell that the room smelled like pizza and ponies, and could predict with amazing accuracy what the next speaker in line was going to talk about just by viewing the lower half of their outfit, their shoes, and any props they were carrying as they waited their turn at the microphone. One college student's main goal seemed to be to mention Clean Line. He was rebuffed by TVA staff, who told him they didn't model any specific transaction, and proceeded to list the different wind resource possibilities that were modeled: 1) Wind in the TVA footprint; 2) Wind in the Midwest delivered via existing transmission; and 3) long-distance HVDC wind injection.

Hey, wait a tick, did he say Midwest wind delivered via existing transmission? So Clean Line is WRONG when it claims that existing transmission lines cannot deliver any new Midwest wind? Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise!

TVA's patient staff listened to a few pointless climate change speeches that went on way too long. If there was a point to them that actually related to any specific part of the IRP, I'm not sure what it was.

TVA explained that it had modeled the HVDC option at a 50% capacity factor, however HVDC could not be depended on to actually deliver, so therefore it was modeled differently at peak load times. That was sort of confusing, considering the clear and concise answers TVA provided to a similar question last June.

TVA analyzes historic and forecasted wind patterns to determine expected wind
deliveries at our system peak. Our forecasting and planning processes reflect
adjustment to wind generation at our summer peaks based on this analysis. Clean
Line has told us that a production profile provided by the independent meteorology
firm, 3Tier Oklahoma, shows that panhandle wind energy produces at about a 50
percent capacity factor between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., thus
contributing to meeting peak demand. TVA's current wind resources produced
about 25 percent average capacity factor over that peak period last summer, with
significant variation each day (between 5 and 65 percent capacity factor). TVA will
take the seasonal and time-of-day energy patterns of wind into account when
evaluating adding additional wind energy to its portfolio.

Because wind is an intermittent resource that lacks some of the dispatch capability
of other resources, it does not eliminate the need for base load or dispatchable
power plants like nuclear, natural gas, coal and hydropower. Adding intermittent
generation resources like wind can be challenging to manage, particularly as the
volume of generation from those sources increases. Wind patterns are fairly
predictable, but not entirely so; in addition, weather and other factors can affect
output. To maintain reliability, a wind energy purchaser must keep adequate
capacity and spinning reserves to cover the variability inherent to wind. Spinning
reserve is typically calculated as the amount of capacity available to cover the loss of the largest generation source on the system. Utilities across the country have
been integrating more wind into their systems over the last several years, and TVA
already integrates 1,515 megawatts of off-system wind power. The industry has
growing experience with this issue, but it does make ensuring reliability more
complex.

Experience requires a 25% capacity factor for wind, but TVA simply took Clean Line's word that it could reliably meet a 50% capacity factor? Or is 25% the peak load factor TVA used in its IRP? Message unclear, ask again later!

We were also told that calculating spinning reserve was an operational issue that would be undertaken outside the IRP, and the question about how much that would add to the cost of HVDC wind injection was avoided completely. So, I guess that question remains unanswered, except for the part of TVA's June 2014 letter that advised TVA would consider all costs in its IRP?

TVA is studying the addition of new wind energy resources as part of the
development of its new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). This process provides
opportunity for public participation. When TVA evaluates the cost of wind energy,
we include the value of the energy itself, as well as the cost to transmit out-of-valley
wind energy to the Tennessee Valley. In addition, there are costs associated with
the intermittent nature of wind generation. Through the IRP, TVA will rigorously compare wind energy purchases against other alternative sources of energy
(renewables, new and existing TVA generating assets, or purchased power) to serve local power companies and directly-served customers in a cost-effective manner.

Outlook uncertain? What? Funny when the written report provides more answers than direct questions to knowledgeable individuals. And the written IRP says that HVDC wind isn't an option until 2025. I'm thinking that Clean Line needs to look elsewhere for customers.

If you'd like to watch the video (and you live somewhere out in the sticks where you have "high speed" internet that actually allows you to watch video) you can check it out here.

0 Comments

Clean Line Causing American Rebellion

3/8/2015

3 Comments

Second big Sunday story to blog about today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's examination of Clean Line as "a new kind of transmission developer."

This "new kind" of transmission developer is attempting to build transmission based on a "merchant" model. Under this construct, the transmission developer shoulders all project risk. In traditional transmission development, a project is ordered to be built by a regional planning entity to meet some reliability, economic or public policy need. Because the project is undertaken to supposedly benefit regional ratepayers, a developer charges its project costs to ratepayers. Ratepayers absorb the risk of successful development. Clean Line's merchant projects chose not to proceed through this traditional process, therefore there is no determined need for its projects. They are proposed completely as a speculative, profit-making venture, supposing that if they build it, a need will develop. If Clean Line fails, its investors lose their investment. There's no ratepayer-guaranteed regulated return. Clean Line accepts all risk for its market-driven projects.

However, Clean Line has told state regulators that it may "have to" apply to regional planning authorities for cost allocation of its projects in the future. In fact, Clean Line has been busy behind the scenes in the past, trying to drum up support for cost allocation of its projects. Clean Line's "build it and they will come" strategy may also extend to getting its projects permitted, customers signed up, and then dumping the entire thing into the regional planning process as a needed "can't fail" project. Beware, the enemy is at the gate!

So, Clean Line must shoulder all market risk of its voluntarily-undertaken projects. However, Clean Line also wants state public service commissions and the U.S. DOE to grant it the power of eminent domain to take private property for use in its projects. Eminent domain authority provides compensation to property owners for their property taken for use in public projects. It also ensures that holdouts cannot derail a project, and that property is acquired at a reasonable price so public projects aren't burdened by the expensive land acquisition costs that a developer would be faced with if land acquisition wasn't forced on property owners. There's a huge disconnect here! If the privately-funded Clean Line is shouldering all market risk of its projects, that includes the cost of voluntary land acquisition. Further examination of Clean Line's business model notes that the rates it may charge customers include all project costs, plus profit. Cheaper land acquisition allows lower rates and/or higher profits -- Clean Line's choice. Assuming all market risk for its project should also include the financial risk of voluntary land acquisition.

Clean Line's request for eminent domain authority is the driving force behind the huge rebellion of landowners, citizens, and local governments in seven target states. Clean energy advocates and environmental organizations have unwisely chosen to involve themselves in the debate. The Post-Dispatch talked to a representative of one such group, the National Resources Defense Council, who showcased his disconnect with the grassroots opposition groups:

“Clean Line’s not asking everyone within the region to pay for the line,” Moore said. “That’s the piece that sometimes causes state utility commissioners to pause, because the commissioners haven’t seen this kind of truly competitive business plan before.”

“The more favorable decisions from commerce commissions, the more opposition will recede,” Moore said.

Clean Line's business plan isn't "competitive," it relies on a government-granted right to condemn and take property. If Clean Line's compensation package was so great, landowners would be falling all over themselves to sign on. Instead, the company is looking at condemnation rates north of 80%. 80% of needed land condemned through eminent domain! Never going to happen.

Moore is also completely WRONG in his contention that opposition will recede if public service commissions (or the U.S. DOE) make decisions favorable to the project. Perhaps Moore doesn't want to acknowledge that Clean Line's "approval" in Illinois for its RICL project was conditioned on land acquisition being voluntary. That's right... no eminent domain authority for Clean Line in Illinois. Why? Because those resistant 80% of targeted landowners number in the thousands and the political price would be too great. Decisions favorable to Clean Line's land grab will actually drive increased opposition and public revolt. The opposition numbers in the thousands and extends across seven midwest states (double in Illinois because it is a target of both the RICL and GBE projects). And it's increasing every day. Moore knows nothing about the Clean Line opposition and doesn't care to. He's just pontificating in a most revolting way. Maybe he should get to know an opponent or two before telling the media how they're going to react to PSC decisions?

Clean Line has no customers and is facing increased public and political opposition. It's the poster child for a "new kind" of transmission development failure.

3 Comments

Don't Waste Your Money on FirstEnergy Add Ons

3/2/2015

40 Comments

Have you been getting random mailers from "Potomac Edison," "Mon Power," or another FirstEnergy distribution affiliate trying to sell you an "Exterior Electrical Line Protection Plan from HomeServe?"

Just say no.

Go outside and look at your electric meter. You are responsible for some components of your electric service connection. The utility is responsible for the meter components and any underground service lines. You are responsible for maintaining the rest. Is your service drop overhead, or underground? Read the fine print:

The meter that measures the amount of electricity used, any underground service entrance conductor, and the meter base (materials only) are not covered under this plan, but are covered by your local FirstEnergy Company. Your local FirstEnergy Company will supply the materials to repair or replace the meter base...

So, what is covered? An overhead connection to your house (cost estimated at $200) and the labor to replace the company-supplied meter base (estimated to cost another $200), if they ever need to be replaced! So, how much will FirstEnergy's insurance cost you? $5.49/month. Forever. You'd be better off putting that $5.49 in a mason jar every month, on the off chance that you ever do need these unusual electrical repairs, so that you can hire a local electrician to fix them. FirstEnergy's literature claims that your homeowner's insurance won't cover these repairs. Know why? Because the cost of repairs is usually lower than your deductible!

Why would you want to give a bunch of money to the utility for "insurance" against an unusual problem that only costs a couple hundred bucks to fix? It doesn't say "stupid" on my forehead. Oh, but wait! If you sign up you will receive a "special" phone number to call to get your service. If you remember what you did with that phone number and the rest of your paperwork when you have an outdoor electrical line issue, then you could avoid the hassles of looking for an electrician in the yellow pages and "waiting" for service (because service dispatched through Akron, Ohio, is much quicker than calling an electrician in your own town).

Sounds like a scam to me!

So, I've been a Potomac Edison (or Allegheny Power, when that name suited them) customer for nearly 30 years. How come I'm just now being bombarded with these junk mailers? Because the West Virginia PSC recently sold me out to the company, going against the advice of its own Staff, the Consumer Advocate Division, and the findings of one of its own Administrative Law Judges.

Say what? Take a look at WV PSC Case No. 13-0021-E-PC (look up "Case Information" here). Two years ago, FirstEnergy asked the PSC for permission for its two West Virginia distribution companies (Potomac Edison and Mon Power) to market these useless "services" and products to their customers and to add the cost of any purchases to the customer's electric bill.

The Staff of the PSC and the Consumer Advocate objected to FirstEnergy's plan, which, in addition to the "Exterior Electrical Line Protection Plan," will soon be offering you:

1. Other Home Solutions maintenance and repair plans (i.e. insurance) for other appliances you own, your natural gas service lines and even your plumbing.

2. Surge suppression service (which they already separately offer as part of their regulated service activity in West Virginia).

3. Customer Electrical Services Program that allows your electric company to "arrange" electrical service work to be performed in your home. You still pay for all the work they do, your monthly fee just alleviates your "hassle" of finding your own electrician and negotiating a reasonable fee for service with him.

4. Online store - where you can buy all sorts of useless crap and energy-wasting space heaters, and pay for it all on your monthly electric bill.

A hearing was held, and the PSC's Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Commission prohibit this kind of promotion. However, FirstEnergy didn't like that decision, so they filed exceptions to the Judge's Order and the Commission disregarded it and made a new finding that FirstEnergy could continue to promote these useless "services."

Remember, none of these services are regulated, so if you have an issue with service or billing of these add-ons, the PSC can't help you. You're on your own to solve the problem with the company (and it's not even the utility you'll be fighting with, but some third-party "insurance company") or through the court system.

So, how much money does FirstEnergy make off these products? Is the company really that desperate that it needs to peddle space heaters and worthless "insurance" to its customers? It's not about the few pennies in kickbacks FirstEnergy receives from these third-party companies for selling you a "service," it's about the half a million bucks FirstEnergy was paid by one of these third-party companies for "licensing rights and utility bill access fees" to access Potomac Edison's or Mon Power's customer records and to have your utility bill you for their services. FirstEnergy is essentially selling an asset -- its customer base and monthly billing system -- to a private company that hopes to make money selling things to the customer base. There is a commercial value to a customer base of 500,000 customers. When the customer base is acquired through a regulated monopoly, should the utility be able to sell it for private profit? Your WV Public Service Commission says they can.

Tell your legislators to ask the PSC why they have allowed Potomac Edison and Mon Power to sell you out like that. And think twice about jacking up your monthly electric bills with "insurance" you'll probably never need and overpriced lightbulbs from FirstEnergy's online store.

And want to have some fun right now? All those junk mailers they're sending you have postage paid return envelopes to "Plan Administrator." The envelope instructs: "Include only your form and nothing else." If you don't sign up for the plan, you won't need a "form," so go ahead and stuff them with "nothing else" or whatever you want and return them. See how much scrap paper you can fit into the envelope! Or perhaps your child would like to draw a picture for "Plan Administrator?" Go ahead, have some fun!

And then, get serious. The fine print instructs:

If you would prefer not to receive these solicitation from HomeServe, please call 1-888-866-2127.

Tell them you don't want to receive any more offers for their services from Potomac Edison or Mon Power and see what happens. Of course, this won't stop the other offers from the other vendors mentioned above, but it's a start. I'd like to know who's really controlling the mailing list here -- is it FirstEnergy or is it HomeServe? Let me know what you are told in the comments section of this blog post...

40 Comments

It's an Arkansan Revolution!

2/19/2015

3 Comments

Thirty-seven dozen people showed up at the Fort Smith Convention Center in Fort Smith Arkansas last night to tell the U.S. Department of Energy what they think about the Plains & Eastern Clean Line. It was a madhouse (in a most literal sense!)

Arkansan Julie Morton summed it all up quite nicely:

“If you keep trampling on the rights of ‘we the people’ you may have another American Revolution on your hands!"

Clean Line's spokesman continued to blow smoke up everyone's ass by telling them that they shouldn't be concerned about possible health effects. I don't think anyone believed him, and judging from his body language, I'm not certain he even believed himself!

What is certain is that the people of Arkansas WILL NOT peaceably accept this transmission line.

It's time for DOE to fall on its sword and stop this travesty!

3 Comments

Illinois Landowners Alliance Appeals Rock Island Clean Line Decision

2/18/2015

1 Comment

The battle lines opposing Rock Island Clean Line (RICL) have now been elevated to the Illinois court system.

On February 17, the Illinois Landowners Alliance (ILA) filed an appeal of a November Order by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to Rock Island Clean Line, LLC, a subsidiary of Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC based in Houston, Texas.

The petition, filed in the Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa, Illinois, asks for review of the Commission’s November Order and its January denial of requests for rehearing.

The RICL project is a proposed, for-profit long haul high-voltage DC transmission line that is completely independent of any regional grid expansion studies or plans. As current laws are written for traditional utility projects, the Illinois Commerce Commission’s application of the existing laws, as applied to this novel case, is being challenged.

The Illinois Landowners Alliance (ILA) is a non-profit organization that represents more than half of the landowners on the proposed Illinois portion of the route.

While the Alliance agrees with the ICC findings that RICL failed to prove need and declined RICL’s petition for the certificate leading to eminent domain power, the lLA contends that RICL’s routing is based on a flawed study and that the ICC failed to consult with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. In addition, the ILA contends that RICL failed to prove that the project is necessary, and that they are capable of financing the proposed construction.

Curt Jacobs, an ILA board member, states, “Too many aspects of the ICC’s Final Order put landowner rights, livelihoods, and investments at risk. Whatever the outcome of RICL, it will set case law and precedent for future private companies hoping to grab rights to our private property.”

Block RICL spokesperson Mary Mauch said, “The fact that RICL is an empty shell company with no employees or assets of its own, and separated from the parent company and investors by levels of limited liability corporations, puts our landowners at great risk. RICL can’t prove they even have commitments for the necessary funds to construct the project, yet they refuse to give any financial assurances or a decommissioning plan.”

Meanwhile, Block RICL will continue to work with affected landowners to notify them of their rights in light of the ICC’s refusal to grant the power of eminent domain along with the CPCN.

The Appellate Court will review findings of fact and the ICC’s application of the law to the facts. Depending on how long the Appellate Court takes to issue a decision, the process could likely take 6 months or more.

Last week, RICL faced another major setback when the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) denied RICL’s motion to separate the eminent domain issue from the electric franchise application process.

The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance (PRIA), President Carolyn Sheridan, said, “Rock Island Clean Line easement acquisition effort has been underway for 18 months for the 375 Iowa miles of its proposed route, but RICL has less than 15% voluntary easements obtained from total parcels (1540) across the 16 impacted counties in Iowa. There is an unprecedented number (1248 and counting) of formal objections filed with the IUB against RICL proposed line.”

Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC is also facing significant hurdles on its other projects in Missouri and Arkansas. Last week, the Missouri Public Service Commission ordered the company to produce a long list of additional information for its Grain Belt Express permit application in that state.

The U.S. Department of Energy this week is holding public comment hearings on its Environmental Impact Statement for the Plains and Eastern Clean Line. Last week, the Arkansas legislature issued a letter to the DOE condemning the use of federal eminent domain for the project, and U.S. Senators Boozman and Cotton introduced legislation aimed at requiring approval of a state’s governor and utility board before federal eminent domain may be attempted.

For more information, visit: www.blockricl.com

1 Comment

FAQUE Friday!

2/16/2015

7 Comments

It's Fakey-Friday here at StopPATH Blog on this snowy Monday night. Yes, I know I have the day wrong, but what does that matter when it's all fake anyhow?

My non-friends at Clean Line Energy Partners have their own FAQ Fridays on their facebook page, and they actually have them on Friday, hooray! But there's a whole bunch of stuff about Clean Line's Facebook page that just seems... well, not quite right to me.

There are huge time gaps in Clean Line's timeline. No posts between June and November of 2013? No posts between January and October of 2014? Were those the periods when Clean Line shut down its facebook pages because real people kept showing up and asking real questions that Clean Line didn't want to answer? Go ahead, try to click on the post comments from 2013 or 2014 to find that many are hidden.

And here's a puzzler... somehow in the past couple of years, when Clean Line's facebook page was closed more than it was open, the company managed to pick up 3,773 "likes." Well, isn't that nice? Except Clean Line doesn't seem to have the engagement that would come from 3,773 people finding its posts in their daily feeds. The only comments on any recent posts have come from a couple of Block Clean Line group leaders and a handful of other opponents who haven't yet managed to violate Clean Line's social media rules:

Thank you for visiting the Grain Belt Express Clean Line page!
We created this forum for you, so go ahead and take the stage
Our goal is to inform you about our transmission line and Clean Line Energy
Once you learn about the many benefits, you’ll see the synergy
So what are you waiting for? please start to engage!

Oh wait…

While we love to hear your comments, we want you to be sure
The rules and guidelines below are required, so please maintain your composure
This page will be archived, so please show your respect
We all need to maintain professional etiquette
Thank you again for visiting our page—we will be in touch daily, we can ensure!

Oh my... gurgle, gag... I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Puh-leeze, Maya Angelou you're not. Lots of affected landowners have tried to "take the stage" over the past few months since Clean Line reopened its facebook page, but a hook has ceremoniously yanked each of them off stage, one by one, for daring to express their opinions, ask for more information, or question Clean Line's claims. A very small handful of folks have managed to persevere though... we'll call them the teflon troupe. Perhaps they were the least objectionable real people "friends" Clean Line could find? Because the only other engagement evident on Clean Line's page is a few post "likes" from employees, employee relatives and friends.

Where are all of the 3,773 people who "like" Clean Line Energy? How come they never stop by, call or write? They must be awfully busy.

Because I'm sure Clean Line wouldn't do anything so uncouth as to buy "likes" from fake people who don't really "like" them.

No, no, no. Clean Line takes private property rights very seriously and values one-on-one conversations with landowners to answer questions and address concerns... except when those one-on-one conversations actually occur via facebook. If you're an affected landowner who has had your comment or question deleted and lost your ability to post any more comments on Clean Line's facebook page, please sign the comments below. I promise you won't get deleted. And maybe Clean Line can stop by and read them whenever it gets an urge to value one-on-one conversations with landowners.

After all, Clean Line claims their project is being developed with EXTENSIVE participation from landowners (well, except for any actual participation, but they do intend to, like, participate with you, but you're just so hard to talk to, or angry, or misinformed, or something...).

And it's not just you landowners and stakeholders. Clean Line has even been working with Senator Boozman and Senator Cotton, apparently to craft some federal legislation that will return Arkansas' right to approve transmission lines to Arkansas. Thanks, Clean Line, that was really, really nice of you to help the good Senators get that legislation in the works!

Clean Line is also working with the Arkansas state leadership, apparently to craft a letter to DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz condemning the Clean Line project. Yay you, Clean Line!!!

So, when Clean Line says it's working with landowners I guess that means it will continue to kick itself in the rear end by holding its Facebook FAQ Fridays and pretending it has any friends that frequently ask it questions. Or at least questions it cares to repeat publicly...

7 Comments

Senators Introduce Legislation To Put The Brakes On Clean Line's Use of Federal Eminent Domain

2/12/2015

0 Comments

This just in...

Boozman, Cotton Introduce Bill Giving States Power to Reject Federal Electric Transmission Projects

U.S. Senators John Boozman (R-AR) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) today introduced legislation to restore the right of states to approve or disapprove of electric transmission projects before the federal government exercises its power to take private property.

The Assuring Private Property Rights Over Vast Access to Lands (APPROVAL) Act would require that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) receive the approval of both the governor and the public service commission of an affected state, before exercising the federal power of eminent domain to acquire property for Section 1222 transmission projects. For projects on tribal lands, DOE would have to receive the approval of the impacted tribal government.

“When a road, pipeline or power line is built the use of eminent domain is sadly unavoidable in some cases,” Boozman said. “However, this difficult decision should not be in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. If a project is not good for Arkansas, our governor or public service commission should have the power to say ‘no.’”

"Arkansans should have a say in any decision that affects our land,” Cotton said. “The APPROVAL act will rightly empower Arkansans and preserve the Founding Fathers vision of states’ rights."

In addition to allowing states the ability to reject the use of federal eminent domain for a project, the Boozman-Cotton legislation would ensure to the extent possible, that approved projects are placed on federal land rather than on private land. Specifically, for approved projects, DOE would be required (to the maximum extent possible) to site projects on existing rights-of-way and federal land managed by: (1) the Bureau of Land Management, (2) the U.S. Forest Service, (3) the Bureau of Reclamation, and (4) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The decision to permit electric transmission projects has long been the responsibility of the individual state. As noted in a 2011 report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, “The location and permitting of facilities used to transmit electricity to residential and commercial customers have been the province of the states (with limited exceptions) for virtually the entire history of the electricity industry.” The report says that state and local governments are “well positioned” to understand the concerns of the area and the factors for making a decision on these projects.

DOE is currently seeking public comments on one proposed Section 1222 project: the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project, a high voltage direct current electric transmission system and associated facilities, which (if approved) would cross Arkansas. Interested citizens may provide comments through March 19, 2015, to DOE, either online at: http://www.plainsandeasterneis.com/nepa-process/public-involvement.html; by mail addressed to: Plains & Eastern EIS, 216 16th Street, Suite 1500, Denver, Colorado 80202; via email addressed to [email protected]; or by fax to (303) 295–2818.

The APPROVAL Act has been referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for further review.

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

FERC Hearing Concludes

Back to Gone

Can Colorado Utility Consumers Afford to be Unrepresented?

TVA's IRP: Reliability and Cost

Clean Line Causing American Rebellion

Don't Waste Your Money on FirstEnergy Add Ons

It's an Arkansan Revolution!

Illinois Landowners Alliance Appeals Rock Island Clean Line Decision

FAQUE Friday!

Senators Introduce Legislation To Put The Brakes On Clean Line's Use of Federal Eminent Domain

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog