StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Full Steam Ahead for the Clean Line Crazy Train

8/16/2016

8 Comments

 
So, this happened yesterday.
Two groups representing landowners are suing to block an electric transmission line planned for delivering wind-generated power across Arkansas from Oklahoma to Tennessee.

The federal lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Jonesboro by Golden Bridge LLC and Downwind LLC, the two landowner organizations, will test the legality of a decision by the U.S. Department of Energy to aid construction of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line through provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The landowner groups are represented by Christopher L. Travis and Jordan P. Wimpy, both of the Gill Ragon Owen firm in Little Rock. The complaint lists as defendants the Energy Department and Ernest Moniz, the U.S. secretary of energy, as well as the Southwestern Power Administration and its administrator, Scott Carpenter.

The lawsuit questions the Energy Department's authority to approve the construction of one of the nation's largest electric lines without seeking state-level review. It also challenges its power to exercise the federal right of eminent domain to condemn and acquire private property under the Energy Policy Act. Landowners, it says, should have played a bigger role in the Energy Department's review of the project, which is being carried out by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston.

You can read the lawsuit here.
In response, Clean Line says:
CLEAN LINE OFFICIALS SAY ‘FULL STEAM AHEAD’

Late Monday evening, Clean Line officials said they had not seen the legal complaint against the DOE regarding their project and would not be able to provide specific comment. However, a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project and anticipates making more than $30 million in payments to Arkansas landowners for easements and upfront transmission structure payments.

In addition, Clean Line will pay Arkansas counties that host the electric transmission project a total of approximately $140 million in voluntary payments over the first 40 years of operation, which will support local schools, fire departments and other community services.

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit and that we must push through gridlock to move the country forward. Unfortunately,
it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects,” said Mario Hurtado, Clean Line’s executive vice president of development. “In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”

Hurtado, who recently told Talk Business & Politics that the multibillion dollar project is expected to get underway in early 2017, added: “The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is the largest clean energy transmission project in America and is moving full steam ahead.”
"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project," said Mario Hurtado, executive vice president for development.
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role

Mental wounds still screaming
Driving me insane
I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train
I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train

I know that things are going wrong for me
You gotta listen to my words, yeah, yeah

Full steam ahead?  Did you call up Ernie on your special "Coordination Committee" Hotline last night to get that comment approved, Mario?  Because Clean Line can't drive this train all by itself.
DOE executed the Participation Agreement, which creates a "Coordination Committee," which "shall be composed of two (2) representatives from Holdings and two (2)
representatives from DOE." One of Holdings' representatives is the chair of the Coordination Committee. Unless Clean Line has defaulted, the Coordination Committee requires a representative of both Holding and DOE to have a quorum. The Coordination Committee can only make "public announcements relating to DOE's involvement in the Project" if such public disclosure is approved by "one (1)
representative of each of Holdings and DOE on the Coordination Committee.
"
But Mario made a comment anyhow, so let's see what desperation looks like.

"...a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project..."

Since the complaint specifically states that DOE "violated Plaintiffs' and the public's due process rights," are you saying that your investors $100 million is more important than due process rights?  It sure sounds like it.  In fact, it sounds like you think rich people are more entitled to get a return on their investment than regular people are to the right to due process under the law.  That's pretty disgusting.  And un-American.

Your blather about jobs and taxes also doesn't dispense with the people's right to due process.  Are you saying that you can break the law as long as you create a few jobs and pay some taxes?  And another thing... jobs and taxes are not a basis for eminent domain.  If that were the case, I'm sure YOUR house would provide more jobs and pay more taxes if it were a Walmart.  How would you like that, Mario?

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit..."  What?  What infrastructure deficit?  I haven't seen any identified infrastructure deficit that requires thousands of miles of HVDC transmission to be solved.  Sounds like you're making crap up.  In fact, plenty of infrastructure is being built.  It's just not infrastructure that puts a buck in Mario's pocket.  Clean Line is not the be all and end all for keeping the lights on.  It's not part of any grid plan.

"...it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects..."  No, it's just common to see them filed against destructive and unnecessary projects.  A legal complaint does not make an infrastructure project "important" any more than being charged with a crime makes the crime "important."  I guess Mario thinks this legal complaint makes him and his project "important."  *sigh*

“In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”  Clean Line isn't "modernizing the grid."  Clean Line is creating a separate grid operated solely for corporate profit  that only serves people who can afford to pay for it.  As well, Clean Line cannot guarantee "low cost energy."  Clean Line has no role in the price of energy that could be transmitted over its line, and none of the proposed generators currently exist.  You cannot price a commodity that doesn't exist and that you do not control.  Enhance our energy security?  What kind of jargon is that?  Did Mario think that sounded good?  How would a 700 mile transmission line "enhance energy security?"  The most secure energy system is one where generation and load are located at the same place.  A transmission line adds insecurity to that system because it's just one more piece that may fail.

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project..."  Oh, puhleeze.  If you say that enough times, will you start to believe it?  Jobs, consumer prices, and the environment is not an excuse to do away with due process.

It's not a political or policy argument at this point.  Judges don't make policy.  They interpret the law.

So, do enjoy your ride on the crazy train, Mario.  While it lasts.
8 Comments

How To Violate Your "Code of Conduct" Before You Even Begin

7/29/2016

0 Comments

 
If this were a guide published today, it might be written by Clean Line Energy Partners.

Today, the company engineered a press release that says "TRC Supports Clean Line Energy."  Who is TRC?  Is TRC an elected official?  Is TRC a regulator?  Is TRC a transmission customer?  Is TRC's "support" of Clean Line relevant to Clean Line's regulatory approval, or even the approval of the landowners whose property the project wants to cross?

The answer is none of the above.  TRC is Clean Line's newest contractor.  In exchange for $12M, TRC says it will, "provide land acquisition services, survey permissions and overall project management for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line transmission project."  Of course TRC "supports" Clean Line.... it stands to pocket $12M for its efforts to coerce landowners to sign survey permissions and easement agreements.  Does TRC's "support" for Clean Line necessitate YOUR support?  Of course not, that's ridiculous!

Clean Line has been resoundingly rebuffed by landowners across its route.  So, what's the new plan?  Employment of propaganda devices such as testimonial, card stacking, and bandwagon.  Oh, whoop-de-doo, Clean Line!

TRC thinks you care if it makes the following statement:
The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is one of the largest clean energy infrastructure projects in the country. It will provide a pathway for 4,000 megawatts of low-cost wind power to be delivered from Oklahoma to the Mid-South and Southeast. The agreement between Clean Line Energy and TRC, which has a major office located in Tulsa, furthers Clean Line's commitment to working with local suppliers.
"Clean Line Energy's mission of building modern energy infrastructure closely aligns with our own core values of sustainability, including our commitment to grow our clean energy services year over year," said Chris Vincze, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "The 700-mile transmission line will improve the U.S. electric grid, support economic development and job growth, and make safe, reliable and lower-cost power available to consumers.
Wait a minute... is TRC acquiring survey permissions and easement agreements, or is it leading a cheerleading squad?  How much arrogance does it take to believe that some company's belief in a project has relevance to your personal decisions regarding your land?

And we're just getting started here...
TRC will provide program management, acquisition of environmental and cultural survey consents, and acquisition support. It also will be communicating with landowners across the route to educate them about the benefits of the project.
What?  "Educating landowners about the benefits of the project?"  What does that have to do with acquiring easements and survey permissions?  Sounds like some kind of brain-washing attempt to coerce landowners to sign on the dotted line.  Does Clean Line really believe that the only barrier to land acquisition and survey permission is "education" of landowners?  News Flash!  The landowners are already "educated," which is why they have been rejecting all Clean Line's attempts, not only at acquiring permission, but at any contact with the company at all.  The landowners got "educated" years ago by opponents of the Clean Line projects.  They know everything they need to know to tell Clean Line to go away.  Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority.  The most Clean Line can do is annoy landowners with their "offers."  Clean Line cannot make any legal filing to condemn and take property.  Instead, Clean Line must turn over acquisition of any property it cannot obtain to the U.S. Department of Energy.  The DOE may then reattempt permissions, but only after Clean Line has reached certain milestones with its project.  First, Clean Line must find customers for its transmission capacity.  It has not made any customers public.  It also must receive financing to construct its entire project.  It has not made any financing public.  It's going to be a long time before the DOE comes calling with more offers for landowners, and only DOE has the authority to condemn and take property through the courts.  Meanwhile, landowners can tell Clean Line and TRC to go take their Vulcan mind-meld tricks for a flying leap off the nearest cliff, mountain, hill, rock, or pebble.

What's in it for the landowner to sign permissions now?  Nothing.  Big goose egg.  Zero.  What's in it for the landowner to sign an easement agreement now?  A payment of a small percentage of the easement's value.  That's right... Clean Line wants you to sign over your property rights today in exchange for a portion of their monetary value.  You give Clean Line permission to use your property today, but they're not going to pay you in full for that permission for up to four years.  Landowners would essentially be allowing Clean Line to buy their property rights on the installment plan.  Doesn't sound like much "benefit" to the landowner. 

And let's talk about Clean Line's "self-policed" Code of Conduct.  This document is nothing but window dressing.  Since Clean Line is the only party enforcing this worthless document, it can do whatever it wants.

Behold:
Do not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend supports or opposes the Project.

Do not suggest that any person should be ashamed of or embarrassed by his or her opposition to the Project or that such opposition is inappropriate.

Do not argue with property owners about the merits of the Project.


All things that Clean Line and its contractors, such as TRC, cannot do.

But yet, TRC has taken to the media to support the project, and has stated that it intends to "educate landowners about the benefits of the project."  That sounds suspiciously like a violation of the Code of Conduct, doesn't it?  After all, if a landowner is already educated about the project, any statement by TRC about the project's benefits is by default argumentative.  Any statements by TRC that "[t]he 700-mile transmission line will improve the U.S. electric grid, support economic development and job growth, and make safe, reliable and lower-cost power available to consumers," are designed to make the resistant landowner ashamed or embarrassed by his or her opposition to the project and insinuate that such opposition is inappropriate.  And it's argumentative.

These people are a day late and a dollar short.  The majority of affected landowners are already "educated" about the project and have found that it doesn't provide any "benefits" for them. 

You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer.  Or a Mayberrian.
0 Comments

Transmission Line "Open Houses" Cause Project Opposition Infernos

7/22/2016

2 Comments

 
The transmission project "Open House" is a public relations ploy designed to indoctrinate an unsuspecting public with transmission company talking points while simultaneously dividing and conquering a community.

This tactic is so old, I don't even know (or much care) where it originated.  All that matters is that it has become an industry "best practice" that needs serious reform.  Transmission companies who utilize "Open House" format are doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot right out of the starting gate.

The idea behind presenting a project to a community via an "Open House" format is to neutralize the combined energy of an angry crowd, such as would occur if the company presented its project to all attendees at the same time in a town hall format.  By keeping attendees separate, the company believes it is keeping the public from sharing information and validating their ideas with others who share the same unfavorable opinion about the information presented.  An assembled crowd listening to the same information from one speaker would feed off the energy of just a few naysayers until everyone is on the same opposition bandwagon.

But "Open House" meetings simply delay the inevitable.  Unless companies meet with community residents separately, multiple attendees will talk with each other and share opinions.  People band together at times of crisis, and transmission company "Open Houses" are a fertile enabler of impromptu discussions and exchanges of information by community members.  The commiseration of strangers will spill out of the "Open House" venue and continue long after the transmission company employees take off their little name tags and pack up their display posters.  The transmission company "Open House" is the birthplace of transmission project opposition groups.

In the past, each community opposition group had to reinvent the wheel and it took them longer to cause transmission project approval headaches.  Today however, the internet exponentially expands quick access to resources and information used to spray gasoline on an opposition bonfire while anger is fresh.  It's an opposition inferno!

Is there a way to change that outcome?  Sure.  But it's not about meeting format.  It's about how company information is presented.  Current "best practice" intends to lead attendees through a maze of "information stations" where company representatives explain electric energy, environmental protection, the transmission grid, transmission grid planning, need for new transmission lines, and the appearance and function of new lines.  Then the attendee is dumped out into an "information station" where they can look at maps to find out how close their property is to the proposed transmission line.  That's all the attendee cares about, everything else learned at the early stations is completely forgotten when they come to the realization that the project is going to directly affect them.  Then the transmission company hands them a "comment card" and the idea that their opinion matters in the ultimate transmission route.  Attendees are conditioned to frame their comment around pushing the line off their own property and onto that of their neighbor.  That only works for a few minutes while the attendee is earnestly at work trying to avoid the transmission line.  Comment card deposited, the attendee leaves the venue, where others have gathered on sidewalks and in parking lots to discuss the project and resolve to fight it.  Opposition is born.

I came across a news photo recently depicting a transmission company employee talking to attendees at a Southern Cross transmission project "Open House."  It's classic.  Every news story about a transmission line "Open House" includes the obligatory photo of attendees speaking with company employees.  I've seen this photo thousands of times, only the faces change.

Look at this photo.  The body language tells the story.
Nervous transmission company employee tries to explain himself to angry attendees.  Look at the three attendees.  Two have their arms folded across their chest.  That's a defensive posture that indicates they clearly aren't even listening to transmission guy any longer and certainly are long past being receptive to his information.  The attendee in the middle has his hands firmly planted in his pockets, which is also a semi-defensive move that signals insecurity, mistrust and a reluctance to listen.  All three attendees have the same expression on their face.  It's the expression of someone who clearly doesn't believe the person speaking.  You can bet that those three will be talking with each other as soon as transmission guy moves away to talk with other attendees.

But wait... is transmission guy also in the process of shoving his hands in his pockets?  Ahh... insecurity!  And why not?  Who wouldn't be insecure facing down these three?

So, what's the problem?  Transmission guy is presenting them with a fait accompli.  He (and his company and possibly a regional transmission organization) have already made the decision to build a transmission project.  Now, maybe the project is a necessary response to a problem that must be solved.  But nobody likes hearing the solution to a problem, without first considering the problem.

A better approach is not to attempt behavior control of a community to go along with a pre-determined solution, but to involve the community in crafting the solution to a problem that affects them.  Presenting the problem to the community and soliciting possible solutions within a range of possibilities, and being open to new possibilities, creates a whole different dynamic.  It causes attendees to listen to the problem, the possible solutions, and to become involved in solving the problem.  When communities are involved in crafting the solution, they cooperatively "buy in" to the ultimate solution.  Now the solution may not be the company's desired transmission project, so the company needs to demonstrate flexibility in the selected solution.  As long as it gets the job done, right?

But wait... a solution that's not the company's solution might not make the most money for the company.  Look at yourselves, transmission companies, you want to be public utilities, but yet you believe that also gives you the right to make the most money possible from the public you serve.  It doesn't.

Stasis or momentum?  The choice is yours!
2 Comments

Can You Trust the Government, Missouri?

6/30/2016

7 Comments

 
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon announced yesterday that he had negotiated "landowner protections" with a Texas-based company on behalf of Missourians affected by its for-profit transmission project.
Picture
Except none of the affected landowners participated in the Governor's negotiations with the company.  In fact, the landowners were not consulted in any way.  Nor were they even notified about these "protections," except to read it in their morning newspapers.  You'd think that if the "protections" were for benefit of landowners, that they would reflect actual landowner concerns, right?

Something stinks here...

Governor Nixon's "protections" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  They don't protect you.  Let's take a look:
Specifically, Clean Line has agreed to:

Offer the option of binding arbitration to resolve any compensation disputes.

Establish a Missouri Agriculture Protocol. Clean Line will follow strict guidelines to avoid, minimize and mitigate any impacts to agricultural fields or activities. The Missouri Agriculture Protocol should implement utility best practices and establishes an Agriculture Inspector to monitor construction activities. The Agriculture Inspector has the power to immediately stop construction when best practices are not being followed or when contractors are in violation of any negotiated obligation with landowners.

Establishment of a fund to decommission the project when it is determined to be near the end of its useful life.

Have a local firm update land value assessments. In the event land values have decreased since the last assessment because of commodity prices or any other reason, the Grain Belt Express will honor the higher of the values. Also, compensation will not be reduced after an Order has been issued approving the project by the Missouri Public Service Commission.
Oh, binding arbitration?  What is that, exactly?  "If the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their rights to access the courts and to have a judge or jury decide the case."  Binding arbitration is quicker.  Binding arbitration is cheaper.  Binding arbitration may be free from public scrutiny.  Binding arbitration is giving up your rights to have a similarly situated landowner determine your value in a public, appealable court proceeding.  Now who would have an interest in making eminent domain takings of hundreds of land parcels across Missouri quicker, cheaper and quieter?  It's not landowners.  It's Clean Line and Governor Nixon!  Protecting you?  Not so much.  These people must think you're really stupid.

As well, financial compensation may be the least of a landowner's worries when presented with an easement agreement written by Clean Line's lawyers.  Who's representing the landowner's interests in this situation?  Not Clean Line.  Not the arbitrator, he only wants to talk about land value.  It's up to the landowner to retain his own counsel to review any easement agreement.

Missouri Agriculture Protocol?  How many actual farmers were consulted to develop this "protocol," and why does the Missouri Farm Bureau still oppose the project if this "protocol" ameliorates agricultural concerns?  Buyer beware on this one!   Ya know the best way to avoid impacts to agricultural activities?  Don't build the project.

Establishment of a decommissioning fund?  How much will that be?  Since Clean Line has the idea that the scrap value of the project's physical components will be more than enough to pay for its decommissioning, this "fund" might contain nothing more than pocket change and a couple of gum wrappers.  Where's the guarantee?  Where's the oversight?  Where's the money?

Update land value assessments?  When was the last "land value assessment" performed, and where can landowners access this information?  Will landowners be able to access the information in the new assessment, or are they just supposed to take Clean Line's word for it?  A transmission company never reveals any professional assessment of what your land is worth before approaching you to sign an easement or purchase agreement.  That's because your property is represented by a range of values that comes from land sales data in your county or region.  It's all very generic and created by some company in another state that never visits your property.  Because it's a range of general value, the company will start by offering you the lowest amount in range.  As you negotiate, the offer will increase within the pre-designated range.  Get to the top of the range, and suddenly any offers need to be approved by supervisors and managers.  How IS a landowner supposed to know whether their "land value assessment" increased or decreased under Governor Nixon's "protections?"  Is he going to come to your house to help in the negotiations and "protect" you?  Of course not.

Compensation will not be reduced after approval?  Again, who is going to police that?  Are you just supposed to trust Clean Line to honor this, when their profits are directly tied to the amount of money they must pay for your easement?  This is another worthless "protection."

So, what is going on here?  Political gamesmanship.  Clean Line and the Governor have now turned this into a political process.  They hope that the Missouri Public Service Commission can be politically influenced to approve the project the second time around, since Clean Line's first attempt was rejected on its technical merits.

Public Service Commission decisions are supposed to "provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally."  They are not supposed to be politically motivated.  Commissioners are supposed to be free from political influence so that they may make independent decisions based on the law.  They're supposed to be ethical.  They're supposed to have integrity.  Will the Commissioners be brave enough to remain true to their own personal code of ethics when making their decision, or will they fall before political pressure from lame duck Governor Nixon?  And what good is Nixon's political pressure, when he'll be long gone before any decision is made?  Be careful who you vote for, Missouri!  Your Governor is not protecting you.  In fact, he's giving your private property rights to an out-of-state company to use for their own profit.  With a leader like that, nobody's property in Missouri is safe.  It's all for sale to the highest bidder.
7 Comments

Mark Twain's Ghost Thinks You're Ridiculous, Bob

6/20/2016

1 Comment

 
Peppering every thought and process with quotes from Mark Twain.  Is that really a thing in Hannibal, Missouri?  Apparently so, judging by this article in the Hannibal Courier-Post.  I guess I've been derelict in my communications efforts directed toward good ol' Bob and his friends at the Hannibal Board of Public Works by not including a trite quote from Twain as a preamble to my opinion.  My bad.  I hereby remedy that failing.

Reporter Danny Henley surely knows
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice.

MARK TWAIN, Following the Equator
Because he obviously didn't look at the actual "contract" between MJMEUC and Grain Belt Express before writing his article.  He relied on Bob Stevenson's sly "memo" to simply report incorrect facts and opinion as "news."
To string incongruities and absurdities together in a wandering and sometimes purposeless way, and seem innocently unaware that they are absurdities, is the basis of the American art, if my position is correct.

MARK TWAIN, "How to Tell a Story"
The contract clearly states it is for transmission capacity ONLY.  Henley needs to quit reporting lies such as this:  "Hannibal was also given the chance to buy electricity for as little as 2 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh)..."  No, they weren't given the opportunity to buy electricity.  They were given the opportunity to buy transmission capacity.  That would be like buying an extension cord, Danny, not signing up for a new account with the electric company.  One provides a means to move electricity from one location to another, and the other actually supplies the electricity.  Without electricity, the extension cord is useless.  And there have been no quotes offered from electricity suppliers.  None.

Henley reports that Bob Stevenson read a "memo" he had written to the BPW at the June meeting of the Board, lamenting that Hannibal had missed out on Grain Belt Express "opportunities."
In order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to obtain.

MARK TWAIN, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Picture
Grain Belt Express has a fence that needs whitewashing at the Missouri Public Service Commission.  Someone took away Bob's paintbrush.  Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Bob thinks the project is "moving forward without Hannibal."  It's okay, Bob, the project isn't moving anywhere.  It can't go anywhere without eminent domain authority from the MO Public Service Commission, and that contract isn't a guarantee of success.  In fact, if you would actually read it yourself, Bob, you'd see that it's not even a firm contract, but sort of like a pre-contract, where MJMEUC can back out at any time up to 60 days before Grain Belt Express energizes its line.

Bob also expects to receive an offer from MJMEUC to join its useless pre-contract, even though he chose to wax poetic about missed opportunities at the Board's June meeting.  Of course Hannibal is not precluded from buying a paint brush and joining in the whitewashing.  It just made better theater to pretend Hannibal has missed some rare opportunity.

Hannibal should beware unsubstantiated claims that Grain Belt Express will save Hannibal (or any other municipality) money.  It's clear from GBE's "offer" to MJMEUC that the purported $10M/year savings aren't the result of any "study" by MJMEUC (as falsely reported in the press) but a summary of Clean Line's "preliminary calculations." 
Preliminary calculations, assuming existing production tax credits for wind project participation in the project, could reduce costs by as much as $10M/year or $10 per  megawatt hour compared to delivery of other wind projects from SPP to MISO.
It's nothing but Clean Line's made up "preliminary calculations!"  None of the figures in this "calculation" has any validity.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

MARK TWAIN, Autobiography
Despite his fretful report that other cities are scheduling council action long before they sign a contract, and urging Hannibal to do so quickly in order not to miss out on this great opportunity, Bob needs to remember that he is merely a servant of the people.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

MARK TWAIN, The Bible According to Mark Twain
There's no danger "up to 200 MW" of transmission capacity is going to disappear like hot Krispy Kreme donuts.  There's plenty of fence for everyone to paint!

The harder Bob tries to sell GBE, like the world's worst circus sideshow barker, the more suspicious he looks to the people of Hannibal.  Here's what Twain would tell him about his failure:
Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God.

MARK TWAIN, Europe and Elsewhere
Trust your ratepayers, Bob.  After you see what happens at the Public Service Commission, you're going to be thanking your lucky stars that it didn't happen to you.
1 Comment

Would You Trust This Guy?

5/23/2016

2 Comments

 
James V. Fakult needs to work on his communication skills.

I get lots of notices about new transmission proposals, but this one was so poorly done, it made me laugh out loud.  According to this article, liespotting is an art.  Watch out for number 6 when reading the quotes from Fakult.
Liars overemphasize their truthfulness. “To tell you the truth…” “Honestly…” “I swear to you…” Oh, if only it were so! When people use these bolstering statements to emphasize their honesty, there’s a good chance they are hiding something. Learning to baseline someone’s normal behavior is important in situations such as this:  You want to listen for normal or harmless use of such phrases. There’s no need to add them if you really are telling the truth, so be on guard.
Now listen to Fakult:
"The growth has been in some fits and starts, but we're at a point now where this is an essential project to continue to provide, really, the type of service, the level of service, that our customers expect from us," Fakult told the Asbury Park Press. "It reinforces the system in that area. It allows us to, again, provide better, more reliable, resilient service."
Really, James?  Really?  What was the purpose of sticking that word into your statement, except to bolster your statement that the people really need your project.  And you repeated yourself there at the end, hoping it would give more credibility to your proposition.  Clearly, he doesn't even believe it himself.  Maybe if he repeats it a couple dozen more times it will become true?
"The time is now," Fakult said. "It just needs to be done now."
Perhaps Fakult is attempting to tread carefully, since a substantially similar project was attempted many years ago but failed due to public opposition.
Nearly 16 years ago, the utility scrapped plans for a 6.5-mile transmission line, to be run on 60-foot high steel poles, along the railroad tracks from Matawan to Middletown, after intense community opposition. Residents and some town officials, fearing a reduction in property values and worried about health risks, fought the project for a decade.

"To me, it is nothing but a resurrection of precisely the same plan that we fought and stopped," said state Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, R-Monmouth, a vocal opponent years ago. "It's the phoenix rising from the ashes, it's the ghost of battles past. It's not different."
I don't think the people have forgotten.  Looks like opposition will be swift and fierce.  So, what's changed this time?
This time, the utility proposes to run the wires atop slender single poles that average 140 feet tall rather than bulky towers used in the past, spokesman Ron Morano said.
Who says the public likes monopoles any better than they like lattice towers?  Did AEP tell you that?
AEP isn't the public.  Truly aesthetic transmission is underground.  You should have started there, James.  Since everyone (214,000 ratepayers, according to the article) is going to benefit from the project, everyone should pay the increased cost of undergrounding it so it doesn't become a hazard or a burden to adjacent landowners.  You're always going to have opposition when you propose that a few should sacrifice themselves for the many.  Beneficiary pays.
The use of the NJ Transit corridor, which is already designated for public use and has existing electric infrastructure, as well as the slimmer monopoles, will help to minimize the disruption on the community, Fakult said.
Transmission lines are NOT like Lay's potato chips.  Just because someone lives near invasive infrastructure does NOT mean they want or deserve more of it.  Look at it this way -- those folks living in close proximity to existing infrastructure have already paid their dues to society.  Isn't it someone else's turn?
Morano, the JCP&L spokesman, said the utility follows all safety and heath guidelines and will have an electromagnetic fields expert available at open house sessions. "We are successfully building transmission lines in other (areas) without any issues," she said.
EMF health-related issues are entirely perceptual.  Your "experts" and selected 30 year old studies don't convince anyone.  How about putting your money where your expert's mouth is, FirstEnergy?  How about offering the landowner a written guarantee to cover the health care costs of any individual who can prove their illness was related to living in close proximity to your transmission line?  Your wallet clearly doesn't believe your "science."

So, next FirstEnergy plays its trump card to claim that PJM has determined the project to be necessary.
PJM Interconnection, the organization that oversees the electric grid in 13 states and Washington D.C., has identified the Monmouth County Reliability Project as a necessary project to reduce the length and frequency of outages in Monmouth County, the utility said.

If not built, "over the long term, you start to see issues emerge," Fakult said. "When you start to see peaking conditions, you just don't have the contingencies that you need to run the system reliably."
PJM?  The organization that "answers to no one?"  But your press release said YOU were proposing it, FirstEnergy.  Which is it?  Who first "identified" this project as a necessity?  Was it PJM, or was it FirstEnergy, looking to "energize" its profits by building transmission it believes necessary to meet future demand:
As noted in the fact sheet, Energizing the Future is a transmission initiative through 2017 that involves upgrading and strengthening the grid to meet the future demands of customers and communities. Key factors driving that investment include enhancing system reliability by replacing existing equipment with advanced technologies; meeting projected load growth; and reinforcing the system in light of power plant deactivations, the fact sheet added.
Fakult thinks he can do things differently this time:
The company plans to hold three open house events in neighborhoods near the proposed project to share information with the public and gather feedback. The company also is setting up a website at www.monmouthreliability.com.
You're going to hold three events guaranteed to thoroughly piss off the communities and give the opposition an opportunity to meet and greet and build mass, FirstEnergy?  You've really learned nothing at all over the years, have you?

Your talk about "need" really isn't convincing.  Did the utility "need" this transmission project the first time it was proposed, 16 years ago?  Obviously not, since it never happened and the lights still come on in those communities when people flip the switch.  Adding words like "really" this time isn't going to help you.

Once again, FirstEnergy puts its cart before its horse by presenting a community with a transmission project as a fait accompli.  Presuming the project is "needed" and it's only a matter of how to build it and where to put it will never be accepted at face value by a community.  First, you have to convince them that a need for something exists, and then you consult with the community to determine an acceptable solution.

That's true "community consultation."  Really.
2 Comments

Truth In Media

4/13/2016

0 Comments

 
Perhaps one of the most satisfying articles about the U.S. Department of Energy's decision to "participate" in the Plains and Eastern Clean Line came from something called The Covington (Tennessee) Leader.  Perhaps an editor or reporter was having an "off" day, or perhaps an editor or reporter wasn't fooled by the bullshit in Clean Line's press release and simply decided to tell the truth.  This is a rare opportunity to see what goes on in today's modern newsroom.

Opposed project gets federal green light begins by revealing that The Leader received an "email blast" and press release from a prominent public relations firm.
The public relations firm WestRogers sent out an e-mail blast on March 25 with a press release touting a federal decision that appears to clear the way for a $2.5 billion transmission line that would bring wind power from Oklahoma, through Arkansas and southwestern Tipton County, and into Shelby County.
West Rogers is a branding, advertising and public relations firm who will "analyze your goals and develop a communications strategy that meets them."  In other words, West Rogers will create whatever reality you need in order to accomplish your goals.  On its website, West Rogers shares one of its communication strategies to accomplish your goals:
This Grass Looks Real

In grassroots organizing you drum up broad-based support for your issue.  A grasstops effort is more narrow, focusing on business, community or government leaders.  But what if you could create the appearance of citizen interest and get decision-makers to take notice?  It's called astroturf organizing, where you fake grassroots support.  Tactics include phone banks, "citizen" front groups, press release blitzes or rent-a-demonstrators.  Politicians are catching on to this latest turf war, so practitioners are looking for more subtle ways to simulate citizen concern.
The Public Relations Society of America says astroturfing is often associated with unethical front group activities.  And they say it constitutes improper conduct and malpractice under their Code of Ethics and should be avoided.  Maybe West Rogers isn't a member of the PRSA, but The Covington Leader seems to be familiar with ethical public relations, and they don't seem to like West Rogers very much.  And The Covington Leader proceeded to tear West Rogers' press release apart as only a seasoned public relations professional can:
In the release, there is ubiquitous use of buzz words like "jobs," "clean," "low-cost" and "renewable," classic public relations language.

Despite the flowery language in the release, there is plenty of opposition to the project.
The Leader is talking about "glittering generalities," which are one of the Seven Common Propaganda Devices.  And the Leader wasn't fooled by them.

The Covington Leader reported the truth. 

Reporting the truth is in short supply these days.  When newspapers were better funded through advertising, they had more reporters.  The reporters would investigate the press releases they received from companies like West Rogers, hear both sides of the story, and separate fact from fiction.  They would then report the facts.  However, in this day and age of shrinking newspaper advertising revenue, newspapers have fewer reporters, and they pay them less.  Today's reporter, especially at a small-town paper, does the work of 10 reporters of the past.  The modern reporter no longer has the luxury of time to investigate press releases.  The reporter may only have minutes to turn a press release into a story.  As a result, many press releases are simply re-written as "news" and the investigation process doesn't happen.

This is why I'm a huge advocate of opposition groups writing and issuing their own, competing press releases.  While good press releases are a bit of an art, it's nothing a transmission opposition group can't learn with lots of practice.  A concise, well-written press release works, where bombarding a reporter with helpful links and things to read doesn't.  A reporter simply doesn't have time these days to read, analyze, and investigate the reams of technical and other material that are generated by a specific issue.  A short press release is often their only view of the other side of the issue.

Newspapers like The Covington Leader are very rare these days.  Learning today's public relations game is a transmission opponent's responsibility, if they want to help generate fair press.  Otherwise, only one side of the story gets told.
0 Comments

FirstEnergy's Switch is Off in West Virginia

3/1/2016

1 Comment

 
Have you heard or seen one of FirstEnergy's vomitrocious "The Switch is On" ads recently?  I heard one on the radio the other night, although it could have been directed at other FirstEnergy distribution customers in surrounding states.

At any rate, FirstEnergy is launching its first major advertising campaign in 19 years!  And you're the beneficiary (also the financier -- every time you see or hear an ad, someone adds money to your electric bill, and maybe kills a puppy, but I'm not sure about that last part).

What's this campaign about?  It's about FirstEnergy's environmental stewardship.  FirstEnergy wants you to know what it has done to protect the environment:
  1. They invested $10B in environmental protection efforts.  Of course, the cost of that, plus a healthy double digit return for FirstEnergy, gets added to your electric bill.  Who invested $10B?
  2. They have reduced the amount of water used to produce electricity in their power plants (because they were forced to do so by regulation, kicking and screaming all the way -- you also paid for that).
  3. Eleven percent of their energy resources are renewable (again, regulated against FirstEnergy's wishes, and at your expense).  Who cares how many hours of wind generation FirstEnergy supported.  It still only totals 11% of their generation portfolio, right?
Here's what FirstEnergy promises to do in the future, now that their switch is on:
  1. Have a "goal" to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% (of their 2005 levels) by 2045.  But this only happens if the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio approves their plan to make Oho ratepayers subsidize their dirty generation plants for the next 8 years.  What's 90% of an unspecified number?  Is there an algebraic equation for that?  X = 90% of Y.  Anyone who can answer this homework question receives a gold star!  Oh, and did I mention you'll pay for this further CO2 reduction, too?  You will.
That's it!  Now don't you feel much more educated about FirstEnergy's environmental stewardship than you did 10 minutes ago?  No?  Not much of a plan, is it?  It is worth the millions of dollars this campaign is costing you?  And why would you care about what's going on with FirstEnergy's Ohio rate case?  My radio gets some funky stations from time-to-time, but none from Ohio.  So I'll assume there are some other benefits West Virginians are getting for their advertising dollar.

Maybe this video of CEO Chatty Chuck Jones explaining his company's environmental stewardship will do it?
WAKE UP!!!

Did Chatty Chuck put you to sleep, too?  Sorry about that.  Engaging TV personality he's not.

Wait?  Did Chatty Chuck say, "We've supported energy efficiency throughout our 5-state region?"  What five states would those be... let's see... Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and... not West Virginia?  He can't mean to include West Virginia in that, can he?

Why, just this morning I read an article about how FirstEnergy is blocking an important energy efficiency bill at the West Virginia Legislature!  SB 370 has been sent to "purgatory" in the Rules Committee because FirstEnergy has "come forward with a potential problem" with the bill.  In other words, FirstEnergy does not support energy efficiency in West Virginia.  The bill would "allow local governments to adopt energy efficiency partnerships with commercial building owners to help finance energy efficiency improvements on the property."  Isn't that energy efficiency, Chuck?  It doesn't sound like you're supporting it.  In fact, your corporate motormouth, Toad Meyers, says:
“FirstEnergy already offers low-income customer and commercial lighting programs in West Virginia, and we are on track to achieve our 0.5 percent energy savings target by the end of 2016,” Todd Meyers, a First Energy spokesman, said in a statement. “We strongly believe that these and any future energy-efficiency programs are best managed by the utilities as overseen by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, which balances the needs of both customers and the utilities.

“Local governments are better positioned to provide their residents with necessary core services such as police and fire protection, road maintenance, and the like,” he added.

FirstEnergy’s West Virginia utilities have gotten a reputation of offering fewer energy efficiency programs for Mountain State residents than the company offers for other states, such as neighboring Ohio and Maryland. But the utility argues it's a matter of cost in West Virginia.

"The reason is simple enough: surrounding states such as Pennsylvania and Maryland have state laws that mandate energy efficiency programs. At the same time, utilities operating in those states also recover all costs from their customers associated with operating these programs," Meyers said. "In Maryland, for instance, residential customers pay about $7 per month, each and every month, as part of their electric bill to support these programs, whether or not they ever participate or redeem a rebate.

"There is definitely a general misconception that these programs are free… they’re not," he added. "And there has been significant pushback over the years from businesses and residents in states with mandatory programs who don’t like paying the costs every month to subsidize other customers’ appliance purchases and other rebates."

Meyers also said Mon Power and Potomac Edison plan to file plans for Phase II Energy Efficiency Programs "to help customers achieve additional energy savings in the near future, with rollout occurring in mid-2017, contingent on PSC approval.”
What is up with that?  What is up, Chuck?  (My lunch, after watching your video, but I digress).  You'd better grab Toad by his power cord and reprogram him, Chuck!  He's turning you into a liar!  Worse than that, Toad has managed to contradict himself in just a few short paragraphs.  After stating that "FirstEnergy already offers low-income customer and commercial lighting programs in West Virginia," Toad also says, "there has been significant pushback over the years from businesses and residents in states with mandatory programs who don’t like paying the costs every month to subsidize other customers’ appliance purchases and other rebates."  But isn't that exactly what the majority of West Virginia's ratepayers do?  Residential ratepayers pay monthly energy efficiency fees to support programs that are only available to low-income and commercial lighting programs!  Like, duh, Toad!

So, FirstEnergy is not supporting energy efficiency in West Virginia.  They're also belittling West Virginia's local governments, presuming them too stupid to govern anything to do with energy.  Because that's best handled by utilities (so they can make sure nothing a local government does harms their greedy bottom line).  Ain't that right, Chuck?

And what's that you say about being most proud about your employees?  I will agree that your front line employees are your ONLY redeeming asset.  But why is it that you want to harm them with "Right to Work" legislation, cutting benefits, and union-busting?  The way you treat your employees is shameful.  Proud my ass.  Just remember, without them, you are nothing.  When's the last time you hiked your bulk up a utility pole, Chuck?  I fear you're not contributing to keeping my lights on!

And how come there were no little video clips of your corporate employees, like Toad mouthing off to reporters and contradicting himself?  Aren't you proud of him, too?  I didn't see one corporate stuffed suit in that whole video, except for yours, Chuck.

Maybe it's because that snooze-fest was "Produced by the Communications and Marketing Department?"  While I'm thrilled you didn't waste any of my money hiring a real advertising firm to create an engaging and entertaining campaign, tell your Communications and Marketing Department not to quit their day jobs.  Even Charles Ryan could have done a better job than that.  Like maybe they could have given you a banana phone for a prop, Chuck, or perhaps even a clown hat?  Everybody loves a clown!  And wouldn't it have been fun to subject a cute puppy to your filthy environmental practices, and then show him still alive (but a bit dirty and singed around the edges) after 30 days?  Doesn't that just tug on the heart strings?

The switch is on.... but nobody's home!
1 Comment

Clean Power Plan Does Not Require "A Tangled Mess of Hulking, Long-range Transmission Lines"

1/12/2016

3 Comments

 
The Pittsburg Post-Gazette's "Power Source" energy news believes the Clean Power Plan will require "a tangled mess of hulking, long-range transmission lines."  Not true, and the report's "facts" are fallible.

The reporter seems to rely on energy platitudes, pasted together with quotes from people who should have been asked about the conclusions the reporter made.

Such as:
Opponents used some of those arguments to successfully derail the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, a 290-mile line from Putnam County, W.Va., to Frederick County, Md., proposed by Allegheny Energy in 2008. The Greensburg company, acquired by FirstEnergy in 2011, suspended the project after it could not convince regulators the line was necessary.
This guy calls up Steve Herling, but doesn't bother to ask him why PJM terminated the PATH project.  It's not that "opponents" proved there was no need in any state regulatory process.  It's that PJM first suspended, and later terminated the PATH project because
PJM staff reviewed results of analyses showing reliability drivers no longer exist for the project throughout the 15-year planning cycle. The analyses incorporated the continued trends of decreasing customer load growth, increasing participation in demand response programs and the recent commitment of new generating capacity in eastern PJM.
This reporter also seems to be under the impression that all transmission opposition comes from "citizens groups" who oppose transmission due to environmental reasons.
While citizen groups have fought transmission projects — often successfully — by attacking the developer’s need to build them, the environmental regulations could usher in more projects and complicate opposition.

Changing drivers of transmission
In the past, environmental groups have glommed onto transmission battles and used citizen group opposition to fuel the push on environmental grounds.  Those days are over.  This reporter seems to be the last to find out, but environmental groups are the newest and biggest fans of transmission lines.  Numerous environmental groups have intervened in favor of big, new transmission lines that the wrongly believe are "for wind."  Transmission lines are open access and it's not possible to segregate "clean" electrons from "dirty" ones.  The citizens are on their own here and that's just fine... nobody needs or wants a hypocritical environmental NGO championing eminent domain for "clean" transmission lines while simultaneously using the same issue as a reason not to build "dirty" pipelines.  Nobody takes these fools seriously anymore.  Without an army, the environmental groups are simply Don Quixote.  Tilting at their beloved windmill fantasy, but getting nothing accomplished.

It's still about need though.  And the transmission poster child the reporter chose to use is not part of any regional transmission plan and therefore has not been designated "needed."
Transmission companies see big potential for new projects, particularly from sparsely populated areas that generate wind energy to urban areas. “Just as trains carried cattle and other goods from the rural areas to urban centers, the Plains & Eastern Clean Line will carry renewable energy from the Plains of the Southwest,” states the website of one developer, Clean Line Energy of Houston, Texas.

Clean Line expects federal approval for its 700-mile Plains & Eastern Clean Line, designed to carry 4,000 megawatts of power from wind farms in the panhandle of Oklahoma. The line will terminate near Memphis, Tenn. Clean Line has four other projects in the pipeline.

“We anticipate a very busy 2016,” said company president Michael Skelly. 
And that's why Clean Line is attempting to use an untested part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to usurp the siting and permitting authority of states and ram its project through using the federal eminent domain authority of federal power marketers.  Except that statute requires a need for the transmission in the first place.  And there is none.  Clean Line elected not to participate in the regional transmission planning processes that determine need for transmission projects.  Clean Line is nothing but a gamble -- the investors are gambling that a need for the project will develop if they can build it... but Clean Line hasn't been successful in signing up any potential customers... because they can't get their project built... because there is no need for it.  That's the real chicken/egg the reporter should be examining.

I do hope Mr. Skelly is very busy in 2016... polishing up his resume and looking for new investors for his next get rich quick scheme.

The reporter longs for
...some wind mills and solar farms in areas with constant breeze and abundant sunshine
But he's looking in the wrong place.  Even though he had a conversation with Scott Hempling about non-transmission alternatives, none of that seemed to sink in.

There's an area with "a constant breeze" located much closer to Pittsburgh than the Great Plains.  It's called the Atlantic Ocean, where wind potential is much greater.  Best of all, very little "
tangled mess of hulking, long-range transmission lines" would be "necessary to bring that renewable power from the point of generation to utilities for local distribution."

Why can't eastern states boost their own economies by harvesting renewables close to load?  The days of centralized generation are over.  Also, sunshine is abundant anywhere -- no transmission lines needed to slap some solar panels on your own roof.

This reporter needs some education.

1.  Transmission opposition by "citizens groups" won't change because of the Clean Power Plan.

2.  Speculative transmission projects for which there is no need shall not be granted state eminent domain authority to take property for rights of way.

3.  Clean Line is a merchant transmission project, not part of any transmission plan and completely unlike most other transmission projects.  Therefore, it should not be lumped in with them or used as an example of anything transmission-related.  If the CPP requires transmission, it will be planned and ordered by regional transmission organizations so that there is some surety that it will actually be built.  Clean Line is not needed, may never be built, and is driven by anticipated profits selling energy into more expensive markets, not by the Clean Power Plan.

And stop drinking the big wind koolaid.  There are no facts in it.
3 Comments

Holiday Vacation Fun & Games

1/7/2016

6 Comments

 
What did you do over the holidays?  If you spent time with friends and family, unplugged from business and transmission line nonsense, congratulations!  If you're Clean Line, though, you spent your holidays pumping out the most unbelievable crap in the media.  Not that it really mattered though -- nobody was paying attention because we couldn't be bothered to do more than laugh at Clean Line in private venues.

However, the holidays are now over.  It's time to take a look at the silly things Clean Line wasted their holiday time doing.

First, let's address the article claiming that the Hannibal (Missouri) Bureau of Public Works is considering "buying power through Grain Belt Express."  I'm sorry, but Clean Line is not selling power.  Clean Line is selling capacity on its proposed transmission line.  That's all Clean Line can sell.  It is not a power generator and will never own any wind farms.  The power generated by any future wind farms will be sold by the wind farms.  The wind farms have yet to be built (or even planned with any conviction).  What is Clean Line doing going around "selling power" at a certain price from generators that don't exist and that they will never own?  It's a fairy tale that Clean Line is selling.
General Manager Bob Stevenson said Clean Line contacted the BPW about a month ago, offering the utility a draft letter of intent. Clean Line hasn't made a firm proposal, but Stevenson called prospective prices "very attractive." He declined to disclose them, citing confidentiality, but Lawlor estimated Grain Belt Express could deliver electricity in the 3- to 4-kilowatt-hour range.
If Stevenson thinks Clean Line's offer is anything more than fiction, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell him.
But, all that aside, the ultimate goal of getting utilities like the Hannibal BPW to sign a "letter of intent" is to prove to the MO PSC that there is customer interest in Missouri to be used in another possible run at a MO PSC permit.  The PSC isn't going to be fooled by this nonsense.  They also know that Clean Line can only sell capacity on its line, not energy.  If Hannibal BPW wants to sign up for some capacity on a fictional transmission line, that doesn't keep the lights on.  It also doesn't set a price for purchase of future energy from fictional third party generators that may be built.  How about if I offer you tomatoes grown by a farm that doesn't exist at a great price?  Of course, my offer will include a whole bunch of legal gibberish that absolves me of actually producing the tomatoes at the price named in the contract.  What's a contract like that worth?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  And that's what this article does because it's not going to convince the MO PSC to grant approval to Clean Line, and that's all that matters in this game right now.

Next, Mark Lawlor attempts to convince Illinoisans that his "Green Belt Express" project will provide jobs and lower rates, therefore they should continue their chummy relationship with Mark and continue to invite him to their backyard barbecues and cocktail parties.  Fail.

Beth Conley also interrupted her holidays to "respond" to Iowa legislators, who condemned her project in a hugely popular "Open letter to Rock Island Clean Line from lawmakers" that ran all over the state just before the holidays.

Except Beth didn't actually "respond" to anything in the open letter, but pulled up her soap box to go off on her predictable tangent about wind energy being an Iowa product that needs to be exported like beans and hogs.  Yawn.  Everyone's heard this before and nobody is convinced.  She also claims, "Clean Line has been working in Iowa for over five years and has invested millions of dollars in the Iowa economy developing the Rock Island Clean Line..."  What?  Where?  The only "investment" in the Iowa economy that Clean Line has made to date is the funding of its law firm to make redundant runs at the IUB to bifurcate the process (now on third attempt).  Do Clean Line's lawyers filter their "millions" down into Iowa's economy in a way that makes a difference?  Maybe they're funding Beth's political aspirations to run for a seat in the Iowa legislature?  Puh-leeze!
Starting Line now hears about a number of people interested in running for Rick Olson’s house seat. That includes Beth Conley, Marc Wallace and Connie Boesen. Conley works at Clean Line Energy Partners, and has a history of working with wind energy projects.
Beth also claims, "With so many power plants retiring, it is essential to maintain our nation’s electric power supply. The energy is needed and the Rock Island Clean Line project is too important for Iowa and the nation not to pursue."  But, as usual, she provides no facts.  Where are these power plants retiring?  How would RICL fill the void?  This claim is nothing but crap.  The "need" for electric transmission is managed by regional grid operators, who monitor retiring plants and order transmission to fill any void.  No regional grid has ordered RICL to fill any need.  There is no reliability need for RICL and it has no customers.

Beth prattles on about Clean Line's "market leading compensation package."  What market?  There is no eminent domain condemnation "market."  Eminent domain avoids any free market principles by taking land from its owners instead of negotiating a price both parties agree upon.  The proof is in the pudding, Clean Line's compensation package has attracted only 11% of the landowners crossed.  It must not be such a good deal after all.  Duh, Beth.

She tries to sell bifurcation as "without any cost to Iowa ratepayers."  However, bifurcation is also without cost to Clean Line's investors.  Although Clean Line pledged to accept ALL RISK of its merchant project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Clean Line was well aware of Iowa's regulatory process before planning its project through the state, Clean Line now wants to change the process because the current procedure requires the company to invest in a whole bunch of paperwork before being guaranteed a permit.  All risk means all risk, including any presented by an existing regulatory process.

Lastly, Beth shares that her family's holiday activities included driving by substations and discussing how "neighborly" it is to be a doormat.  Someone needs an Elf on her Shelf, I'm thinking.

Next, Clean Line engineered an AP story about wind energy transmission by supplying a "pro" landowner, who recruited his "con" neighbor to act as the opposition (although there is organized opposition with experienced spokespeople).  Clean Line trots Wilcox out for the press whenever it needs to pretend that landowners support its project.  He's got a lot of miles on him. 
At any rate, Clean Line's effort failed when the reporter's rather unenlightened review of energy policy concluded, "I think (wind energy) is fine," he said. But "it doesn't make sense to me to have to transport it halfway across the United States. We're smarter than that."

And, finally, there was another episode of the Loren Flaugh show published in the Cherokee Chronicle Times.
  This "freelance reporter" continually inserts his opinion into the "stories" he writes in order to libel Clean Line's opposition.  In this version, he accuses Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance's Carolyn Sheridan of "reveal[ing] an apparent lack of understanding for how eminent domain works."  Nothing could be farther from the truth, and it appears that Flaugh is the one who doesn't understand exactly what an easement means, in legal terms.  The editor of this paper owes Sheridan (and PRIA member Jerry Crews, who got libeled in a similar fashion in Flaugh's last story) a retraction and an apology.  Real "news" doesn't attempt to inexpertly analyze facts to come to conclusions that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.  It simply reports the facts.  Analysis and conclusion are the domain of opinion pieces, where Flaugh's fluff rightly belongs.  At any rate, I'm eagerly looking forward to Part II of Flaugh's "reporting," where he claims he will "examine the legal reasoning for filing the petition [to bifurcate the IUB process by Clean Line]."  It's like the expectation to be entertained I have when I buy tickets to a comedy show.  A promised giggle fest, and we all know laughter is the best medicine.

And on that note, thanks for the holiday entertainment, Clean Line!  We were privately laughing at you while we were spending the holidays with our family and friends.


6 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.