Stop Rock Island Clean Line

US Dept of Energy Misuses Eminent Domain for Clean Lines Land Grab

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 01:37:00 -0600

Every now and then someone writes something and puts it on the internet that is truly extraordinary and a piece of work. If newspapers still did the research like Keryn and STOPPATHWV and wrote like this, the paper industry would be thriving today. The internet didn't beat print. Print just got lazy.

In this blog Keryn shares with us about Section 1222 of the 2005 EnergyPA. This obsure little part of a monster bill during the Cheney Administration is now being used by a venture capital start up company seeking to build their powerline any way possible.

This blog below is woth reading. Whether you work in the industry or a ratepayer, this is some good reaing material!

http://stoppathwv.com/1/post/2013/04/us-dept-of-energy-misuses-eminent-domain-authority-for-clean-lines-private-land-grab.html

While it didn't make it to Keryn's blog, here's my favorite quote about Section 1222 from Jimmy Glotfelty of CLean Line Energy. It's all about the eminent domain power.

“Right now in Arkansas, we’ve been turned down to be a utility because we don’t serve state customers,” Glotfelty said. “Until we can find a way around that, this would allow us to move forward to get transmission built.”

Michael Skelly, Clean Line Energy, Parking Lots & Powerlines

Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:27:00 -0600

Originality is the art of concealing your source.

There is no attempt to hide the source of this Letter to the Editor.

This letter has been shamelessly plagiarized from Michael Skelly, the President of Clean Line Energy, and his recent Letter to the Editor in the Houston Chronicle about parking lots. This is worth reading! It's a real hoot when you think it's coming from the guy wanting to take over 48,000 acres for right of way through eminent domain.

So...according to Skelly Logic, government mandates for parking lots is a bad idea, but government mandates for powerlines across America is a necessary. I would question his motives for powerlines and government intervention is motivated by personal financial gain and not a true need for more energy.

Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Skelly for his inspiration and his poignant comments about powerlines...er...parking lots...whatever...the line between parking lots and powerlines can get blurry sometimes.

The verdict is in. Georgetown Law Journal recently documented that most Americans prefer energy companies cover their own costs through localized energy generation over cost allocation and building unnecessary Merchant Transmission Lines where consumers who do not receive the benefit are force to pay or sacrifice for energy they don’t need as it goes halfway across the nation.

But how do we get to this more distributed generation, energy efficient, and demand response energy generation? The answer is not more powerlines.

Recent proposals to increase the number of powerlines are a step in the wrong direction. While the proposal offers some relief to certain regions, like New England, the revisions miss the point. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Americans consumers should not pay for powerlines through other parts of the country that are not benefiting them directly. Many of these countless acres of aerial sewers are required by law. Our nation through FERC wants to mandates powerline for every class of energy - from wind energy to coal energy to nuclear to natural gas to hydroelectric. Implicit in every one of these rules from FERC’s Order #1000 is the presumption that government knows customers’ needs better than the local energy businesses that serve them. Why don’t we let local consumers and industry decide how to meet their own energy demands for themselves?

Government regulation and Renewable Portfolio Standards inevitably leads to too many powerlines, since one-size-fits-all rules mandate the same requirements for the Great Plains as for the Appalachian Mountain regions or New England, regardless of wind availability, resources available in the region, the cost of transportation, and the actual value added.

If the energy industry believes its customers need and demand more energy, it will have every incentive to figure this out and provide the energy locally. On the other hand, a business that is forced by law to provide more powerlines than it needs will pay a significant cost. An aerial powerline costs many millions to acquire and billions to build, and local energy generation still costs millions but without the unnecessary additional powerlines. The space that is occupied by that these powerlines that are not needed can’t be used for money-making purposes such as more agriculture production, industrial development, or housing.

It’s not just the business that pays the cost for providing unnecessary powerlines - we all do. Every mile of excess powerlines means all of us will have to swallow the incremental visual blight; our blight of environmental injustice effect will get a bit more fuel and our privately owned land will become a bit less functional. And if a lot farmland stays vacant because powerline requirements make development economically infeasible, we all pay the cost in a loss of vitality.

The proper role for government is the competent management of government-approved powerlines - otherwise known as Merchant Transmission Lines. Most, if not all of the energy conflicts in places such as New England arise because residents, not unreasonably, lay claim to other priorities in their neighborhoods and expect “outsiders” to provide their energy in the Midwest. Other regions around the country have found that the best resolution is a combination of local generation, demand response, and energy efficiency programs and often the development of public/private energy generation - not mandating acres and acres of private owned powerlines.

We don’t need more planning or zoning-like ordinances to build the unneeded powerlines to denser parts of the nation through eminent domain. A better national answer is for local governments to encourage more local generation and local energy independence through measures like The Green Team by ComEd and from there our unleashed entrepreneurial energy.

As America’s energy needs change from region to region, let localized regions figure out the right mix of money spent on energy generation vs. powerline creation. As America continues to mature, let the entrepreneurs decide if they want to give a free beer to a toll road customer (instead of a free parking space). As regions find new uses, let’s not gum up the works with powerlines zigzagging across the nation and instead allow new markets to figure out what their customers want. And as maturing nation with ever changing populations, we can think strategically about how to keep our energy costs low. Let’s help our energy generating businesses keep their costs down, and let’s not tax consumers by forcing cross-subsidization of powerlines by ratepayers.

A more urban and populated East Coast is in our future. Most residents embrace this new world. As this reality comes about, we should take measure of our strengths. Higher density development will provoke strong reactions along the way.

But you can’t get to high density markets if you mandate paving every other square foot of farmland - which is roughly what Houston’s Clean Line Energy requires of Midwest landowners.

Clean Line Energy, Vulture Capital, and Venture Politics

Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:35:00 -0600

Clean Line Energy, Vulture Capital, and Venture Politics

A mere forty years ago, beach volleyball was just a beginning. No bureaucrat would have invented it, and that's what freedom is all about. - Newt Gingrich

Like Newt Gingrich explained, "Policy Driven Innovations" from the government do not accomplish much other than make a very few people very wealthy. How much more must we sacrifice for "clean" energy?

1. The Wind Industry said they need PURPA so real electric companies would be forced to buy their energy. We gave them Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act.

2. The Wind Industry said they need a subsidy, so we gave them the Production Tax Credit at $22/MWh and the Investment Tax Credit that paid for a third of the cost to build a new windfarm.

3. The Wind Industry said they need PUCHA abolished to get more investors in powerlines for “clean” energy. We scrapped President Roosevelt’s Public Utility Holding Company Act and venture capital could invest in powerlines for wind energy.

4. The Wind Industry said they need Renewable Portfolio Standards as a policy to mandate 25% renewable energy by 2025. We Illinois gave them the RPS.

5. The Wind Industry said they need 20 Year Power Purchasing Contracts. We gave them 20 year Power Purchasing Contracts at 184% the current market value for energy. Illinois Governor chose "winners" and "losers" as his Illinois Power Agency agreed to buy and resell to ComEd "clean" wind energy at $55.18/MWh while today's market price for energy in Illinois is closer to $30/MWh.

6. The Wind Industry said they needed a Rapid Response Transmission Siting Team for projects running through federal land, and this administration created such an animal.

Now we have created a situation where federal employees are told to approve projects passing through federal parks or be fired.

Now the Wind Industry says they need superhighway powerlines (Rock Island Clean Line, Grain Belt Express, Illinois Rivers project) to get the energy to the east coast.

Now the Wind Industry says they need federal "siting authority" or eminent domain for powerlines. At the very least they claim a need for “State Siting Compacts” to make approval automatic for large transmission project traversing pass-through states.

When is it enough?

Do captive ratepayers really need to pay for these grandiose powerline dreams for "Merchant Transmission Lines" also?

How much more of this "success" of government endorsed "public policy innovation" must we pay to the wind energy companies to ensure their success?

How much more do I need to sacrifice to the owners of these windmills?

What is the depth of the greed of the wind energy lobby?

Show me a wind company that is going out of business. Show me a wind company that isn’t making money. How do you think Michael Zilhka, the financer of Clean Line Energy made his billions from his millions? Wind Energy.

If the Renewable Portfolio Standard is not frozen, by 2025 Illinois residents are going to have 25% of our energy as unregulated “renewable” and “clean” energy. These “clean” energy companies are exempt from all the regulations natural gas, nuclear, coal, hydro, and all other energy generators must work and abide by. There is no restrictions or limits on profit wind companies can make. By 2025 the largest player in the energy business (wind energy) will be left unchecked and all other energy manufactures will be scrapping for income and survival around this out of control monster.

Now is not the time to build Clean Line Energy's superhighway mega-powerlines across the nation for the sake of wind energy. We have paid enough of our money to these “clean” energy companies. It’s time to regulate "clean" energy's greed before it’s too late and we create the next Enron situation. Michael Skelly, President of Clean Line Energy and his merry band, do a good job attempting to sell their product as value added, but in the end he's like the Wizard of Oz, just a man hiding behind a green curtain telling us to pay no attention to the abundance of supply and the bubble economy the government is creating. As wise consumers and residents of Illinois we need to look at what the market is telling us and be aware of the rising bubble economic the government is creating by giving the wind energy industry everything it says it "needs" to survive and be competitive in the marketplace.

Let's look at past governmental "Policy Driven Innovations" in the energy industry. President Nixon, Ford, and Carter all had public policies declaring America's energy independence was through coal. America built coal plants. America built powerlines based on coal generated energy. Today, we have a President who boasts about bankrupting the coal industry. The farmers and ranchers of the Midwest now have an literal Aerial Sewers of these transmission lines through our farms ... virtual powerlines to nowhere.

20 years from now what will American's think of the "Public Policy Innovation" of wind energy? Either we will be foolish enough to subsidize the industry for another 20 years or America will laugh at the folly of wind energy. The Midwest farmers will have more of these aerial sewer through America's farmland.

While growing up on a farm with my formative years of school in the 1980's, there are two things this generation of farmers learned, what happens when "Public Policy Inovation changes and the effect of a large suppply when there is little demand for a product. In the late 1970's President Jimmy Carter changed a "public policy innovation" and dropped a grain embargo on Russia. Grain markets crashed. Farmers suffered a severe recession while the rest of the nation enjoyed a significant economic recovery. With supplies large, farmers went out of business as the export economic engine of the farm economy suffered. Growing up, this was a hard lesson learned.

One thing I have learned about the energy industry is today there's a surplus energy. The pre-2008 business model is gone. People are not consumer as before. The manufacturing industry is not consuming as it once was. Look at the unemployment numbers as an example. We once had 4.3% unemployment. Today 8.0% unemployment is the standard. People are not working and manufacturing, which uses tremendous amounts of energy, is hit hardest. Cheap energy is great for the consumers, but at $30/MWh energy, the market is telling the industry there is too much supply and the industry needs to shed some generation. Yes, in the next several years, we will likely see a reduction in the supply of energy.

Even with a surplus of energy, FERC is encouraging more transmission and more wind energy. FERC has created Order No. 1000 in an attempt to give incentives to tranmission for a "need" for more wind generation. The federal government has extended the wind energy’s Production Tax Credit through 2013. In the eyes of many in the government, there is a shortage of supply and a denial of the truth. We have a surplus of energy in this new economy. In its zeal and over estimation of the economy Illinois' government has purchased a surplus of wind energy at prices far higher than the current market price through 20 year power purchase agreements. This is indeed a strange contrast in a time of surplus.

Government’s endorsement through “Public Policy Innovation” of more wind energy is creating more risk than reduces it. Look at what government’s endorsement did in the housing market. The bubble collapsed. Yes, wind energy can replace other forms of generation, but we still will have a surplus of generation. The market is still telling the industry to lose generation as prices remain low. It is very possible few wind companies will take advantage of the extension of the Production Tax Credit.

This is an interesting time for a start-up like Clean Line Energy. The market was there when the business model was conceived. Their business model was probably sound a few years ago, but that market is long gone. All they can do know is hope and pray. Hope the demand in the market comes back, and they can find wind farms to fill their powerlines. Pray that the investment capital funding continues to fund their dream, doesn’t cut the flow of money, and walk away.

It’s time politics quit tampering with industry through "Public Policy Innovation". Have we learned nothing from the housing bubble market, Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter's endorsement of coal energy. It was and always will be a failed for the President, FERC, Governors, and other bureaucrats to tell the consumer what they :need". Let the market be allowed to find the least cost energy resources.

Yes, beach volleyball would never been invented by government bureaucrats. These same people who are here to "help" the public manage our energy needs are promoting market inefficiencies and creating risk of a collapse of a false economic bubble. Look at the list of regulatory concessions, subsidies, and general lack of oversite given to the wind industry.

What is going to happen if we permit an unregulated wind industry to couple with a less regulated transmission industry? America is exposing itself to see more energy manipulation and profit from energy trading with more power transmission and wind energy controlling the market,. We will see the next Enron created once unregulated wind energy dominates the energy markets with their own transmission. Perhaps this is the motive of vulture capital in the "clean" energy transmission business.

It's time for some bureaucrats to take a step back. In the name of removing barriers for wind energy, the government has created barriers for fair competition in the energy market with the Renewable Portfolio Standards and Power Purchasing Agreements. It’s time to let Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand of Capitalism" help determine the most economical form of energy from the competing sources. Wind Energy can compete in the marketplace, but the incentives handed out by the government is only making a bloated inefficient industry that is not the best option for consumers.

llinois' Renewable Portfolio Standard needs to be froze and Illinois Power Agency needs Reform

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:01:00 -0600

Part 1: Wind Needs 20 year Power Purchasing Agreements

I love it when the wind lobbyist and those that jump on their coat tails make contrasting arguments. The wind industry cried they needed long term Power purchasing Agreements…or the Illinois wind energy industry will just die. This threat of suicide is a common thread for the wind industry lobbyist. “We need (fill in the blank) or the industry will wither to nothing. “ This time the wind industry was lobbying Illinois and Governor Quinn for long term wind energy contracts.

Back in 2010 the New York Times ran this story; Cost-Saving State Law Endangers Wind Industry.

They industry didn’t like it when the Illinois Power Agency Director, Mark Pruitt, was buying economical Renewable Energy Credits instead of 20 year Power Purchasing Agreements.

But the byzantine process by which an obscure state agency decides where that wind power comes from has stalled development of new wind farms and threatens to curtail Illinois’s wind generation for years to come, experts said.

So…who were these “experts” back in 2010? American Wind Energy Association lobbyists is my guess.

Companies say they are caught in a vise. In order to get bank financing to build a wind farm, companies usually need a promise from the Illinois Power Agency — a long-term power purchase agreement — that their electricity will actually be bought for years to come. But the power agency so far has not made guarantees that would facilitate new wind farm construction since it is required to buy electricity from the cheapest sources that will satisfy wind-power mandates.

Why can’t the wind industry compete in a competitive open market with other generators of energy?

The contracts will guarantee the agency’s power purchases, which could prompt construction of new wind farms. But many fear that the contracts will go to existing merchant wind farms, instead of financing new ones.

Again, here is an example where the government creates winners and losers. The winners are the lobbyist who convinced Governor Quinn the state needs to give sweetheart deals to new windmills. The losers are the windfarms who already made a commitment to Illinois.

A Houston company, Horizon, is ready to build a wind farm near Bloomington that would power 138,000 homes, but it probably needs a long-term contract to secure financing. “The reality is if we don’t have long-term contracts, we won’t get new resources built,” Mr. Deora said.

Again we gave these companies more than everything they wanted. PURPA to force traditional energy generators to buy this wind energy. We abolished PUCHA so more holding companies to get involved with wind energy and power transmission. The got the Production Tax Credit with a $22 per megawatt hour subsidy from the federal government. After that, the Obama Administration gave them an Investment Tax Credit to cover 1/3 the cost of new construction of windfarms.

After all that, in 2010 the industry cried they needed long term contracts to lock in a price for the energy. Howard Lerner of the Illinois Policy and Law Center also advocated these long term Power Purchasing Agreements for the wind industry. Howard Lerner and the Environmental Policy & Law Centeris also a big advocate for the Rock Island Clean Line, but in this NYT article he claimed the industry needs consumers to pay more for their “clean” energy.

Howard Learner, a professor of environmental law at Northwestern University, said this was a make-or-break moment for wind power in Illinois.

“There’s been recognition by everyone involved of the need for long-term contracts for new wind farms to support jobs in the state and also reduce pollution here,” Mr. Learner said.

Mr. Learner is also executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, which released a study this month showing that Illinois is home to more than 100 wind-related companies employing more than 15,000 people.

Part 2: How Power Purchasing Agreements are “Killing” the Wind Industry

So the wind energy industry got what they begged and pleaded and lobbied Governor Quinn for and got their 20year Power Purchasing Agreements. Crain’s Chicago Busniness did a great article last year about how Power Purchase Agreements are affecting the wind industry in Illinois….with a little spin by the wind industry lobbyists. What really caught my attention was Howard Lerner of the Environmental Policy & Law Center was used again in this article as a source. This time Mr. Lerner, a strong advocate of the Rock Island Clean Line…the powerline for “clean” wind energy from Iowa, was telling the press what a problem these 2o year Power Purchasing Agreements have created. Actually, while the terms in these 20 year contracts are grossly uncompetitive and unfair to the consumer at $55.18 per megawatt hour, the real root cause of the wind industry’s problem is their greed. Consumers are willing to pay less for energy regardless of the virtues of wind energy.

An Exelon spokesman gave an excellent comment on the current situation with wind industry in Illinois.

“Right now, you have an excess of supply to meet the demand that's out there,” says David Fein, Chicago-based Exelon's vice president of state government affairs. “The market has spoken. It's obviously not economic to build. A 20-year contract . . . doesn't make sense.”

Yes, 20 year contracts at 180% the current market price still do not make sense. The market has too much supply and too little demand with the poor economic condition of the nation. At this time we don’t need more energy generation, powerlines from Iowa for more wind energy, or 20 year contracts signed by the Illinois Power Agency.

Howard Lerner of the Environmental Policy and Low Center was actually a bit more diplomatic for his friends at wind energy.

Howard Learner, executive director of the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center and an advocate for more clean-energy construction in Illinois, says the political hurdles are surmountable. “Renewable energy is strongly supported by the Illinois public,” he says. “This is a problem for people of good will to solve.”

Another Crain’s Chicago Business article explains consumers and cities are moving away from ComEd because of these long term Power Purchasing Agreements. Alternative Energy Retail Suppliers like Constellation, ComEd parent Exelon Corp.'s retail power supply unit, Integrys Energy Services, sister company to Chicago natural gas utility Peoples Gas, or Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Solutions, are able to offer cities electricity at lower prices than ComEd because these companies are not forced to buy “clean” renewable energy from the Illinois Power Agency.

It seems a bit ironic that because of good old fashion corporate greed the wind energy industry lobbied and claimed they NEEDED these 20 year contracts. Now after consumers are leaving ComEd, this corporate greed is hurting the companies. So many cities are leaving ComEd and moving to cheaper suppliers that the Illinois Power Agency has purchased far more power than it knows what to do with it.

Who’s going to buy this excess “clean” energy at over 180% the market price? Will the few remaining consumers of ComEd be forced to pay for Governor Quinn’s screwup? Is this fair to force consumers to pay for the Governor’s mistake. Will the state just eat the cost of this extra high priced energy where there are no captive consumers to force it on? Will the Illinois Power Agency attempt to sell this power in the market at a discount and just attempt to cut its losses?

There are reports the Wind Industry now is lobbying Springfield to force the Alternative Energy Suppliers to buy the overpriced energy from the Illinois Power Agency. Will the state just buy this excess energy and eat it? Illinois is broke. We have no money to waste on unwanted “clean” energy.

With the current low prices, only the wind energy industry says we need more energy. Exelon understands now is not the time for additional energy construction in Illinois. Andrew Ott at PJM even questioned the wisdom of 20 year contracts for wind energy.

“'A 20-year fixed-price contract (for renewable resources)? I'm not seeing a lot of that.” Andrew Ott, senior vice-president of markets, PJM.

It’s time to freeze the Illinois Renewable Portfolio Standard and fix the Illinois Power Agency before we create a bigger mess with more unregulated wind energy in Illinois.

The Wall Street Journal's Opinion on the FERC FREAK SHOW and the Order 1000 cult

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:08:00 -0600

PTL! Hallelujah! Amen. Somebody get me a hanky to wave cause that’s some mighty fine preachin!

If you have an account to the Wall Street Journal, check out yesterday’s editorial. I don’t know what the industry thinks of me. Maybe I’m just a simple plowboy from Prairie Center, Illinois. Maybe Keryn at StopPathWV is perceived as some West Virginian Mountain hick. And perhaps Mary at www.BLOCKRICL.com is just chorus teacher in the eyes of the energy industry.

In any case, it sure is good to read the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal cut FERC down .

Yes, go out and find that gas station that keeps yesterday’s (February 11^th) Wall Street Journal on the bottom of the stack and buy it. If you need to sneak into the Executive bathroom to find a copy, do it! There is a great editorial called the "WIND POWER TAX".

Seriously, it’s good to hear what we as consumers have been saying country and across the internet come from the editorial board of a very fine newspaper. Maybe the industry writes us off as a bunch of NIMBY’s who just don’t want to pay for grandiose powerlines, but it sure is good to hear the WSJ say the same thing. Wind energy is overprice. If wind energy isn’t needed, then the consumers shouldn’t sacrifice to build the powerlines. Below are some exerts from the editorial;

“When we challenged FERC for straying from the user-pays principle, FERC chairman Jon Wellinghoff responded that his agency's pricing proposal "makes clear that only those who benefit from transmission facilities will be allocated the costs of such transmission investments."

Well, now we'll see. The dispute is over what constitutes a "commensurate" benefit. Interstate Power and Light says it doesn't use the wind power, so it shouldn't pay for it. “

Gee…sounds like the same argument Clean Line Energy is attempting to make by protesting PJM to FERC and asking for cost allocation for its Rock Island Clean Line….a proposed merchant transmission line.

“But this is like arguing that Oklahomans should pay to fix potholes in Manhattan because this enhances the national transportation system. In any case, wind power is one of the least reliable sources of electricity due to its intermittency.”

And that’s basically the argument the Illinois Commerce Commission is making in Clean Line Energy’s protest to FERC. We shouldn’t have to pay for a powerline across Iowa where the energy is intended to go to the east coast…where the east coast governors don’t want the energy from Iowa. Socialized powerlines where those who do not benefit doesn’t work.

"It's no secret why FERC is likely to rule against the homeowners in Iowa and Minnesota. The Obama Administration's green vision is to make wind and solar an ever-larger share of U.S. electricity production, regardless of costs."

Wow. Say it like it is Wall Street Journal!

"Wind and solar power are too expensive to compete with natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower without government help. The wind lobby already won an extension of its $12 billion production tax credit as part of the recent tax increase. More than half the states also have renewable energy standards forcing residents to purchase wind power. And now the greens want another subsidy for transmission lines."

"In the Interstate Power and Light case, FERC has an opportunity to reinstate the user-pays principle. If FERC won't do that, Congress should step in for consumers and define "just" and "reasonable" pricing for the windy Mr. Wellinghoff."

I think the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board just told Mr. Wellinghoff to

“GO FERC YOURSELF!”

Thank you Wall Street Journal editorial board. Great opinion. I think it might have even violated somebody's precious social media rules. Those of us out in the country fighting these powerline’s for “clean” energy appreciate your comments! Make no mistake these powerlines are the frontline in America’s Energy War.

I think I'll now going to do a Jericho March around a monopole in the pasture now and celebrate this editorial.

Go buy a WSJ, it’s worth reading. With writing like this, maybe the WSJ will even resurrect print.

States Reiterate Opposition to Federal Transmission Siting

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 22:54:00 -0600

Thank you NARUC!

There's somebody that represents the consumer, ratepayer, landowner, and public.

They just put out a press release opposion federal tranmission siting authority.

States Reiterate Opposition to Federal Transmission Siting

It's not often you can find a govenrmental organization that supports the interests of the public. Seems like the main interest with FERC is setting the rules for RTO's and tranmission owners. FERC then looks like they forget about seeking what is the best interest of the public in many matters. It actually excites me to see NARUC opposing more authority be given to FERC.

For NARUC just putting out a press release opposing another organization's report , it surprises me the fury of opinions that followed today.

Keryn at STOPPATHWV wrote an excellent opinion. Bill at the Calhoun Powerline also did a great job disecting the Bipartisan Policy Center's report. Both of these are far better than anythign written by me. If you want a good and humourous read check these two blogs out.

Yes, there is a place and need for state regulators in multistate transmission projects. The larger the projet, the more checks and balances are needed. Washinton is not the answer. It is likely the problem. I am reminded of the CU Powerline. Three U.S. Presidents preached coal was the answer to AMerica's energy indpendence, and powerlines were built in the name of national energy policies. Now President Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry. Today Warshington is playing favorites with the wind industry. FERC is attempting to play a heavy hand to intimidate the states, as Clean Line Energy is doing their road show through Arkansas with FERC.

How foolish will this look in 20 years as the nation moves on to the next great savior for energy independence. It's not Washington's place to pick "winners" and "losers" or decide how many powerlines need to pass through Illinois to take coal...I mean wind energy from the Dakota's to New England. It's not the federal place to act as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand of Capitalism".

Government regulators need to be the checks and balance in the system, not the advocate that FERC now acting as they preform reform a roadshow with Clean Line Energy. For projects such as the Rock Island Clean Line that passes through two states, yes, it needs to jump through twice the hoops and a simple single state project.

www.ridiculousricl.blogspot.com

John Kerry, Local New England's Energy Problems, and National Issues

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 07:26:00 -0600

There seems to be a notion that the only wind energy in in the Midwest and unless we build more powerlines to New England and the southeast, Midwesterners are being selfish and not sharing like we should in a progressive government.

Look at this John Kerry video made while testifiying to become the next ecretary of State. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXyazBTyrJ8&feature=player_embedded

“We can't sell energy from Minnesota to Arizona, from the Dakotas to Massachusetts,to the coal states, it doesn't make sense, we can't be a modern country if we don't fix this.” -- John Kerry

What arrogance by Senator Kerry. Do we need more powerline’s from Montana to New England? Why can’t East Coast states utilize the energy assets available locally rather than treat the Midwest as colonies to supply the east coast food and energy. We built nuclear plants in Illinois because the east coast doesn’t want them in their back yard. Be build ginormous wind farms because the east coasts states don’t want to invest in wind farms off their Atlantic Coasts. Coal power plants are in West Virginia because the East Coast states don’t want them in their back yard.

And yet The Haughty John Kerry lectures us that we need more powerlines, but yet the keystone Pipeline is not needed and a State Department issue. To claim we need a national powerline system is classic liberal east coast arrogance to view this as everyone else’s problem.

No, New England energy situation is not a national issue. It is local issues where New England politicians find it easier to demand the Midwest take care of their problem. There are sources of energy in the New England states. Coal. Natural gas. Wind. The solution is not more powerlines and more energy trading. Solutions like that brought us Enron and politicians claiming shortages were from a lack of energy, not abuse by energy traders (Enron). We do not need to build large massive new tranmission projects like the ROck Island Clean Line or the former PATH to bring "clean" energy from the Midwest to New England state.

Massachusetts can take care of their own energy problems without building powerlines to the Midwest and forcing us to deal with their energy issues. Building more powerlines is only forcing someone else to deal with the issues New England refuses to take care of. There are some states who are dealing with their own issues. Maryland is working to build its own off shore wind energy industry. They are not blaming any of their problems on the Midwest. Ohio, when given an option to buy renewable energy out of state or in state, they preferred an instate solution. Rather than look for someone else to solve their problems, they negotiated the best deal and bought the instate energy.

The solution to East Coast Energy problems is not a national problem. They do not require national solutions. Southern Company in South Carolina is building a Nuclear Reactor to address their energy needs. I don’t see southern politicians claiming the problem is a lack of high voltage powerlines to the Midwest. Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina are not claiming they need more wind energy from the Plains & Eastern Clean Line powerline. It’s time New England national politicians recognize and accept their own problems and quit blaming the Midwest for their own lack of addressing problems. The price of energy in Boston is not a national issue. In spite what Warshington politicians and bureaucrats might say, the solution to all localized energy problems is not more transmission lines to the Midwest.

OK maybe I’m being too harsh on New Englanders. My friends at www.blockricl.com reminded me all New Englanders aren’t opposed to local solutions. 10 New England governors wrote a letter to “Warshington” (that’s the way it’s pronounced outside the beltway) opposing transmission solutions to their problems. The governors recognize local solutions are better. Maybe it’s easier for the “clean” wind industry to lobby a handful of federal politicians than thousands of state politicians. Maybe the arrogance of federal politicians like the Haughty John Kerry instinctively believes everything is a federal issue. Maybe federal bureaucrats are prone to be instinctively narcissistic (John Kerry).

When the government picks "winners" , somebody has to be the Loser...Goodluck AWC.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:58:00 -0600

PJM Cartel Exposed Again – The Atlantic Wind Connection Fights for its Life at FERC

http://calhounpowerline.com/2013/01/17/pjm-cartel-exposed-again-the-atlantic-wind-connection-fights-for-its-life-at-ferc/#comment-2414

This is an excellent read! Looks like AWC has some big challenges ahead of them.

I've been watching this as two competing projects for the eastern end of the PJM market. Atlantic Wind Connection is proposing a backbone out in the ocean to relieve constraints and take advantage of the best winds in the nation.

Clean Line Engery wants to build a powerline from Iowa to provide the same market with "wind" energy, but doesn't releive transmission congestion in the Eastern states.

When the government picks a "winner" in the marketplace, somebody has to be the "loser".

Looks like Atlantic Wind Connection might have a tough road as FERC is partnering with Clean Line in Arkansas.

http://www.i360gov.com/government-energy-news/2013/jan/10/doe-moves-on-possible-partnership-with-clean-line

Who is regulating the regulators in this? Seriously, if FERC has chosen Clean Line as it's new special red-headed step child of the energy industry, who is regulating FERC?

Heck, who gave FERC federal eminent domain in these matters? Congress?

Creating Multistate Transmission Siting Authorities

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:56:00 -0600

This is a great read about how legislation is created at the state level through bill mills. I highly encourage reading this blog on the Council of State Governments. Their idea of Transmission Siting Interstate Compacts is quite disturber. Like Keryn Newman says, this seems to be an automatic approval process with the only possible outcome being approval and the (NIMBY) public has no voice in this situation.

http://www.stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog.html Transmission Siting Interstate Compact Neutralizes State Authority

http://calhounpowerline.com/2013/01/14/a-little-more-on-multi-state-transmission-compacts/ The Power Line

Please, go there and read this. It’s far better than anything I’ve written bellow.

Aside from industry lobbying, it looks to me states fear FERC trumping them with Federal Siting Authority, so they set up Mini-FERC's with interstate transmission siting compacts to automatically approve projects before the feds can override state’s vetoes. It is understandable transmission company’s feel their multistate projects do not receive the recognition they feel the projects deserve (arrogance and a contempt for the “nimby” public, but I would argue the current system is better with slight modifications. Yes, there is clearly a bias from FERC that needs to be recognized for wanting more transmission for any reason. Because of FERC’s prejudice towards more transmission projects of any kind regardless of reason, large multistate projects deserve more scrutiny from the states, not less.

The idea of less oversight for large multistate projects scares the hell out of me. The current system offers better checks and balances with projects requiring seeking approval in multiple states. More hoops should be jumped through for larger projects and not less for larger projects. Project approval should face a process of checks and balances and not a one stop automatic approval. If a project runs from Iowa, through Illinois and into Indiana, the project’s owners should jump through three hurdles and not one joint hurdle.

The other state commissions should be intervening in each other's states to provide better checks and balance. In this example, the Iowa commission's voice should be heard in Indiana. Iowa is a stakeholder in this, and their opinion should matter in the other states. If Combined Multistate Transmission Siting is approved, future projects are going to be bigger rather than smaller for the sake of easier approval. Two state projects will be avoided.

In the end, there is no emphasis on economically priced energy with Combined Multistate Transmission Siting. More transmission is encouraged rather than more localized generation. Potential Projects compare themselves to alternate routes or altenate projects. Local generation through local sources is not considered. If there is truly a "need" shouldn't it come from generation and long term jobs rather than transmission and short term construction jobs? It would be smarter for states to seek energy independence policies that encourage economical local generation rather than multistate transmission projects.

The Council of State Governments website recommended this ISO New England Report. It’s interesting the New England states ask for a report from the ISO about New England’s capabilities to create renewable energy and the RTO provides an Appendix E which says building powerlines to the Midwest will provide a lower priced energy from coal power. When “transmission” is indeed an RTO’s middle name, the solution for everything is more transmission. Ask for a report about the potential for local renewables and receive a report saying building more powerlines to the Midwest is the answer. Do Regional Transmission Organizations have only one tool in their toolbox? More powerlines.

The only tool in the RTO’s toolbox is a hammer and every problem is a nail. The solution to everything is building more powerlines for energy that is far away. What is even more absurd from this report’s expert view of natural gas energy being expensive while Midwest coal energy and increased transmission is considered economical.

Do RTO’s ever consider the opportunities within the region or only look at opportunities elsewhere for an excuse to create more transmission?

No, state commissions have not lost there relevance.

Learning how to read FERCenese with Clean Line

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:34:00 -0600

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.” --Douglas Adams

I don’t know what it is. Maybe living under powerlines all your life affects the brain. Maybe the brain is slowly destroyed from working inside the D.C. Beltway, but who writes like Jimmy Glotfelty of Clean Line Energy did in 2009?

Whichever approach is taken,the Commission should ensure that the manner in which these projects are incorporated takes due account of thedifferences between merchant and participant-funded transmission projects, on the one hand, and transmission upgrades that are included in the rates paid by captive transmission customers, on the other hand. Where an independent developer of a merchant or participant-funded transmission project is willing to assume the financial risks of the project, the planning process does not need to consider whether transmission customers are being asked to pay for transmission facilities that may not be necessary in the relevant planning horizon. Instead, the planning process should focus on ensuring that the project can be safely, securely, and reliably interconnected with the transmission system. The planning process should also recognize that flows over a transmission project that uses HVDC technology to facilitate long-distance transmission of renewable energy are physically separate from the AC transmission systems to which it interconnects. Such projects should not be studied as though they are AC projects that necessarily have far more variable effects on existing AC transmission facilities.

I read and reread that paragraph from Clean Line until it started to hurt. Perhaps dissecting it word by word would help. Nope. Maybe this paragraph needs dissecting each sentence to the subject, verb, predicate, and all that. Seriously, who writes like this? D.C. lawyers perhaps. Plain English is much nicer to read than FERCenese. I finally had tophone a friend. Keryn was a help interpretating Jimmy’s FERCenese. Maybe someday, I’ll be able to read FERCenese better, but I don’t think I’ll ever be able to write in this sub-dialect of the English language

What we think Jimmy Glotfelty is sayingin October 2009 before Order 1000 and under Order 890 is that RICL and its sisters are not "needed" in a traditional sense.

To finish reading, go to Ridiculous RICL. Clean Line is attempting to change the rules of the game again. They wanted to be irrelevant. Now they are protesting PJM to FERC because they are not being treated as relevant.

FERC's Fast-n-Furious Freak Show

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 23:25:00 -0600

I just started understanding who FERC truly is and what goes on there. Keryn Newman at StopPATHWV and her previous postings were a big big help. She recently wrote another Blog about FERC’s Order No. 1000 and nailed it. It’s refreshing to see someone isn’t afraid to call it like it is. Take a minute and go there. It is one of the best commentaries I have read in a while. Besides FERC and Order No. 1000, Keryn has taught me not to take this industry too seriously. She taught me to look at this in the context of a circus, comedy or the soap opera that it is and not so much as a battle. (You too can learn to read FERC petitions like it is a script to some lame episode of the show DALLAS or maybe make comparisons to Madagascar 3’s AFRO-CRICUS!) http://ridiculousricl.blogspot.com/2012/12/fercs-fast-n-furious-freak-show.html

A Letter to my US Representative Concerning the "Clean" Energy Industry and Order No. 1000

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:59:00 -0600

My first reaction to Grid2030 the assumption Jimmy Glotfelty was rather arrogant in his failure to recognize ratepayers and landowners, but I am beginning to realize it is a large portion of the federal government also refuses to recognize ratepayers, landowners and consumers with grandiose plans for larger powerline system. I am learning there is a rather bazar game for power being player between FERC, the RTO's and the states for authority power and control. The ratepayers, consumers, and landowners appear to be regarded as just a pawn who is largely ignored unless found to be useful by one of these players in this game.

To borrow a Hunter Thompson quote, “Politics is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There is also a negative side.” So is the world of the “clean” energy industry.

Who will represent us, the American citizens, if the federal bureaucracy assumes "federal siting authority" (eminent domain powers) through its Order No. 1000? Seems to me that FERC isusing Public Policy Statements and "clean" energy as a means to take authority away from the states for FERC's own gain. It's difficult for RICL, FERC or a politician to explain a "need" for "clean" energy when there is no such need for additional energy or the cost of the "clean" energy is not considered.

Yes, there is also a negative side to this "clean" energy industry and a need for the creation of true regulations of this industry beyond obtaining power for the regulators.

I would also like to thank Energy Central for letting the views and opinions of a ratepayer about this weird world of "clean" energy be posted. Thank you.

Below is the letter to my US Representative.

Dear Sir,

Please oppose a further extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy. A one year extension is not a compromise but further appeasement. For the last 17 years we have been "compromising" with further extensions after the original 3 years of the PTC. With the nation on the edge of a fiscal crisis, we do not need to borrow billions more from China for the virtues of "clean" energy.

In a related matter, last fall we had correspondence about the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL), the proposed powerline from Iowa to Illinois for wind energy. Your office explained to Illinois residents RICL is a state issue for the Illinois Commerce Commission to decide.

RICL has become a federal matter as RICL has petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to allow cost allocation for the "Merchant" Line under FERC Order No 1000. RICL was approved by FERC to be a "Merchant" powerline where the company would accept the costs, risks, and rewards. Now RICL is asking the federal government to force ratepayers across the entire PJM region to pay for all or part of the powerline. Construction has yet to begun on the powerline and RICL is changing it’s position. In a deceptive way, after being sold to the public as a “merchant” line, the company is quietly asking for federal authorization to force ratepayers across regions to pay for its construction.

RICL believe if some states have a Renewable Portfolio Standard requiring a percentage of the state’s energy be from renewable sources, all states in the region benefit and should pay for the powerline's construction costs. FERC under its Order No 1000 has indicated they do support regional or even multi-regional cost allocation for the transmission projects that promote renewables. FERC believes they are authorized to promote additional transmission lines for an alleged “need” for renewable energy when there is no need for additional energy.

Clean Line has failed to gain state approval in Arkansas as RICL's sister project does not benefit the ratepayers of the state. There is a potential the Illinois Commerce Commission will also deny Clean Line's petition. Should that happen, Clean Line next step will be to ask FERC for "federal siting authority" (federal eminent domain) through FERC Order No 1000. FERC has indicated FERC believes they have the authority to grant eminent domain for renewable projects such as RICL.

Congress has never created a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard. Congress has never given FERC "federal siting authority" and eminent domain powers to take land rights away from Americans. Yet, somehow FERC does believe they have been given these powers by a higher authority with FERC Order No 1000.

Clearly the Rock Island Clean Line is a federal issue with FERC wanting a first case to grant eminent domain and take authority away from the states and Clean Line desiring to push their project through any means possible.

As a member of the House’s Committee on Energy and Commerce, please support our efforts to block RICL. This is clearly a federal issue and shaping up to be an abuse of power by FERC and RICL. FERC's Order No. 1000 is an over reaching abuse of power. Yes, it is an attempt to encourage competition in the powerline industry but FERC's Order No 1000 is also an attempt by FERC take authority from the states and landowner rights from citizens through an alleged “need” for more “clean” energy through underhanded dirty tactics. Please help us.

Below are some websites supporting this position against RICL and FERC's Order No. 1000. Please notice many of the commentaries below were written in the summer of before RICL was even becoming a public issue. RICL has become tool of FERC to advance its Order No 1000. There has been difficulty finding accurate interpretation of Order No. 1000 but Keryn Newman at www.STOPPATHWV.com has described Order No. 1000 very well.

Thank you Representative, for your consideration and help representing the district of Illinois.

www.blockricl.com

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13128021

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/07/fercs-order-no-1000-and-other-news.html

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/07/aeps-sinister-national-grid-plan.html

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/08/ferc-order-no-1000-the-push-for-federal-siting-permitting-and-investor-owned-utility-corporate-propaganda.html

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/08/ferc-attempts-to-revive-nietcs-to-trump-state-authority-on-new-transmission-projects.html

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/08/fercs-transmission-siting-federalism-coup.html

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/09/why-fercs-regulatory-push-for-new-transmission-lines-is-a-recipe-for-disaster.html

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/09/if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it.html

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/09/congress-never-intended-for-ferc-to-designate-nietcs.html

http://www.stoppathwv.com/1/post/2011/10/doe-declines-to-designate-its-authority-to-ferc-at-least-officially.html

Clean Line asks FERC to Subsidize Merchant Line Because Some States have an RPS

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:14:00 -0600

Somebody in recent Northern Illinois Letter to Editor’s War with RICL once said “We can’t have it both ways”. This is exactly what RICL needs to be told. You can't have it both ways. It looks like they have a bit of an identity crisis going on. They don’t know what they are.

Is RICL a Merchant Transmission Line or a Cost Allocation Powerline?

RICL, pick one!

Back in last summer RICL won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to be a Merchant Transmission LINE (MTL). RICL explicating understood and guaranteed they would be considered a Merchant Transmission Line. RICL agreed as an MTL, they would be accepting the risk. Costs would not be allocated to consumers across the entire region. Let’s remind RICL what was in FERC’s approval.

1. Commission precedent distinguishes merchant transmission projects from traditional public utilities in that the developers of merchant projects assume all of the market risk of a project and have no captive customers from which to recover the cost of the project.

2. To approve negotiated rates for a transmission project, the Commission must find that the rates are just and reasonable.15 To do so, the Commission must determine that the merchant transmission owner has assumed the full market risk for the cost of constructing its proposed transmission project.

3. Rock Island affirms that it will assume the full market risk of the Project and that it will have no captive customers.

4. Rock Island meets the definition of a merchant transmission owner because it assumes all market risk associated with the Project and has no captive customers. Rock Island has agreed to bear all the risk that the Project will succeed or fail based on whether a market exists for its services. Rock Island also has no ability to pass on any costs to captive ratepayers.

RICL was very specific with FERC and FERC put in RICL’s approval. So why is RICL now having this identity crisis? Does this Texas company need a Dr. Phil moment?

RICL was approved to be a Merchant Transmission Line.

RICL is not a Cost Allocation public utility.

Hans Detweiler has been proclaiming this powerline will bring cheap power to Illinois, but he has always refused to say how much this energy will be costing the consumers. This gives the appearance Hans is walking the line being careful in what he says and how he says it so as not to be held liable for fraud. The fact is Hans Detweiler and RICL has never said how much this electricity will cost us or how the company intends to pay for this powerline. Residents, like me, were daring Hans to say something with Letter to Editors in papers across Northern Illinois, but Hans always skirted the issue.

Last summer just after RICL won approval from FERC, RICL had dialog with PJM, the regions energy cartel, asking permission to change from the current merchant model to a more traditional cost allocation model were consumers over the entire region are forced to pay for the powerline. The ink wasn’t even dry on FERC’s approval and RICL was already trying to change to rules. All this time RICL is attempting to deceive the Illinois public that it is a merchant line.

Apparently RICL didn’t like the answer PJM gave them. On December 10, 2012 Clean Line Energy filed a petition with FERC to allow them to have the costs for the RICL powerline be allocated to the ratepayer across the entire region from Illinois to New Jersey.

This company hasn’t built one powerline, set one lattice tower, strung one mile of cable, or even gotten approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission, but Jimmy Glotfelty has the audacity to tell FERC great progress has been made. Jimmy wrote FERC;

Clean Line has achieved several key milestones in the development of its projects, including signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Tennessee Valley Authority and obtaining certification as a transmission-only utility in both Kansas and Oklahoma. Two of the Clean Line’s projects, the Rock Island Clean Line and the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, have obtained approval from the Commission to charge negotiated rates and enter into negotiated agreements with anchor-tenant customers.

RICL forgot to tell FERC it is receiving mounting opposition from Illinois residents. RICL has forgotten what it agreed to this summer with FERC. RICL has forgotten or never knew a lot of things about honesty and transparency.

Hans Detweiler has told us the virtues of a Merchant Transmission Line and consumers won’t be held to pay for this powerline for the windmills, but now RICL is now arguing a powerline for the windmills is worthy of cost allocation.

The Commission also recognized that different regions of the country may have different practices in populating their regional transmission plans when considering projects that are cost allocated and those that are not.

When has Illinois residence been forced to pay for a powerline specifically for the “virtues” of wind energy? Never. What ever happened to the virtues of economically priced energy? Hopefully FERC commissioners understand overpriced wind energy and the misguided beliefs of RPS Public Policy Requirements is not worthy to change RICL to cost allocation before RICL transmits 1 kilowatt of energy. Jimmy Glotfelty goes on to claim;

Order No. 1000 requires that Compliance Plans “ensure fair consideration of transmission needs driven by Public Policy Requirements as well as by reliability needs and economic considerations.”

Again, this attempt to make renewable portfolio standards as “public policy” to justify consumers pay for a Merchant Transmission Line is a joke. Any moron can justify a need for a powerline when costs are not an issue and overpriced or under demanded electricity is not a factor. The fact remains, this energy is not needed. Economically priced natural gas coupled with increased energy conservation makes energy priced below what RICL can provide. If RICL wants to follow the Cost Allocation Model, then reapply to FERC.

"The Commission should also require the PJM TOs to modify their compliance filing specifically to allow merchant transmission projects to be eligible for cost allocation for the economic and public policy benefits. If a merchant project is submitted for inclusion in the RTEP as a Supplemental or other non-cost allocated project, the project sponsor should be allowed to propose that the project be studied as a solution to identified transmission needs. If these studies show regional benefits, some portion of the project cost should be eligible for cost-allocation through the process identified in the PJM TOs’ Compliance Filing."

We find ourselves with RICL wanting Illinois residents to pay $70 per Megawatt hour or even more for wind energy from Iowa when the current price is closer to $30 per Megawatt hour. Then RICL refuses to ratepayer the cost of this energy, their potential profit margins, or even the projected payback years for this project. Clean Line Energy now wants ratepayers to pay for their merchant powerline.

This is ridiculous! There are some states who have no Renewable Portfolio Standards or the standards are merely goals. These consumers will be required to pay for RICL’s project while their states do not recognize the benefit. RICL now desires to retain the “merchant” model but have captive ratepayers (consumers) liable for the cost of their project.

Shall the ratepayers of the entire PJM region subsidize the RICL project? America is on the edge of eliminating the Production Tax Credit for windmills and RICL thinks we need to subsidize this venture capital company. Should West Virginia ratepayers fill the pockets of Michael Zilhka and the Ziff Brothers and pay for this powerline? Should Illinois residents only pay for the Clean Line Energy powerline?

No. This is wrong. RICL was approved to be a “Merchant Transmission Line”. They agreed and accepted the risks. Michael Skelly, Jimmy Glotfelty and Clean Line Energy need to live by this agreement. RICL can look at the BLOCKRICL.COM reference page. There is a great link under “THE SOICIALIZATION OF RENEWABLE TRANMISSION COSTS”. Georgetown Law Journal had a great article called It’s Electric, but FERC’s Cost–Causation Boogie-Woogie Fails To Justify Socialized Costs for

Renewable Transmission.

Still, the question remains why Clean Line Energy has made this petition to FERC. Has FERC given a hint to Clean Line they are about to make a mandate on Renewable Portfolio Standards, a wink or maybe a tip of the hat? No transmission project has been paid for by the entire region based on the virtues of renewable energy. Clean Line has made claims their funding is secure and will be there should state approvals are complete. Perhaps this is a sign Clean Line’s financing is not as strong as the company claims. While Clean Line is keeping all financial numbers confidential in their petition to the Illinois Commerce Commission (docket # 12-0560) asking to become a public utility, it is evident in the ICC has some concerns about the financing of the RICL project in its further line of questions. Perhaps with the potential of losing funding from the Production Tax Credit, Clean Line is desperately looking for additional sources to subsidize their projects and are seeing the ratepayers across the region as the next best source.

Another possibility is this statement from FERC Commissioner John Norris. He has indicated as a FERC Commissioner he will support ratepayers across a region subsidizing “Projects that provide access to location-constrained resources, such as our nation’s wealth of renewable resources, that previously had no or limited access to markets”. The fact is these pass through states are a problem. Just as states generally do not grant projects eminent domain for pass through projects that might benefit another state, all states have different RPS requirements or no requirement at all and state’s ratepayers should not be forced to pay for projects to meet political objectives of another state’s RPS.

If FERC pushes Oder 1000 applies to a diverse array of Renewable Portfolio Standards, this will surely be a long and argues court battle. Does one RPS trump another? Does a state’s lack of an RPS mean any RPS trumps it or is a lack of an RPS an opinion that RPS’s are stupid and other states RPS should not be recognized. And what happens five or seven years from now when there is a new state’s public policy. Coal is good. Coal is bad. Nuclear is good. Nuclear is bad. Wind is good…today….what about tomorrow?

Will wind be considered unsustainable, too costly, and lose favor in the eye of popular opinion?

Will there be a new flavor of the month?

Clean Line is indeed the frontline in America’s Energy Battle.

Like FERC Commissioner John Norris’s letter states, renewables are being added to energy portfolios purely on the basis of economics.

I found myself surprised to be sitting with a group of utilities and businesses in the Southeast who face virtually no Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) or other government clean energy mandates, but are still looking for ways to get access to clean energy. They are doing it purely on the basis of economics

Those in the southeast deserve to be applauded. This is the way it should be. Renewables can compete on a level playing field with other forms of energy. Renewable transmission does not need subsidizing from an entire region. Innovation never comes through subsidizing an industry. Perhaps Clean Line is attempting to force ratepayers to pay a portion of RICL’s sister projects that FERC has yet to approve. If this is the case, it won’t be long before Clean Line is asking for regional subsidies for its RICL project.

Michael Skelly and Jimmy Glotfelty have had one do-over with the Illinois Commerce Commission for state approval. If Clean Line and its RICL project wants to follow the Cost Allocation Model, they need to have a do-over with FERC. It’s absolutely ridiculous RICL wants to change in midcourse from the Merchant model to cost allocation. It is doubtful FERC is seriously about to force a uniform Renewable Portfolio Standard on all states without Congressional approval. If RICL wants to follow the cost allocation model then reapply to FERC. While RICL is preforming do-overs, Michael Skelly , Jimmy Glotfelty, and Jayshree Dasei can come back to Mendota, Illinois and have a do-over with an informational meeting with the Illinois stakeholders of this project.

Jimmy, Clean Line, and PUCHA

Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:51:00 -0600

Frequently over the internet, Jimmy Glotfelty claims to be a “Roosevelt Republican”. This is an interesting comparison considering Franklin D. Roosevelt would call him something less flattering. FDR fought hard to pass the Public Utilities Holding Act (PUHCA). President Roosevelt saw a sharp rise the abuses of Holding companies, or rather a company that owns a company that owns a company….and so on and so on in the public utility sector.

During the George W. Bush administration, Mr. Glotfeltylobbied heavily for the recall of federal oversight of utility companies. In February 2004 Jimmy testified before the Senate Energy Committee on the 2003 Blackout. He proudly said the following during his testimony;

"I just got back from spending from spending two days in New York City meeting with investment bankers ... and time and time again we heard that repeal of PUHCA was necessary for more investment in the transmission sector."

After aggressively lobbying Congress to abolish PUHCA, four months later, Mr. Glotfelty abruptly resigned from his position at the Department of Energy. He went to work for a consulting company in Houston, Texas. Sometime later, he quietly moved three blocks down the street to Clean Line Energy, the venture capital company that would not exist without his lobbying effort to Congress. (It’s too bad the Cheney Energy Task Force notes were never made public.)

PUHCA was created during the Franklin Rooseveltadministration to protect consumers from venture capital companies like Clean Line Energy from manipulating the energy markets. Without PUHCA, the SEC does not regulate and watch over venture capital companies like Clean Line Energy who work in multiply states. Without this regulation, Rock Island Clean Line, who is owned by Rock Island Wind, who is owned by Clean Line Energy, who is owned by who is owned by Michael Zilhka, Clean Line Investments, and Clean Line Investors, who is owned by ZAM Ventures, who is owned by ZBI Ventures, who is owned by Ziff Brothers Investments, who is owned by the actual Ziff Brothers.

The number of companies involved in the ownership of this RICL project is beyond belief, and the company still does not produce a product or create added value to the economy. None of these companies own one mile of cable. They do not own one electric pole. This is exactly the kind of company President Franklin Roosevelt called evil and a private socialist. Even Ken Lay of ENRON would be proud of the number of companies involved in this one simple project by Clean Line!

RICL desires to be classified by the states as a “public utility” and obtain the power eminent domain to take the property of individuals and give it a select few billionaires, Michael Zilhka and the three Ziff brothers. This is indeed what FDR referred to as private socialism. President Rooseveltsaid it best in his letter to Congress recommend regulating public utility holding companies.

I am against private socialism of concentrated private power as thoroughly as I am against governmental socialism. The one is equally as dangerous as the other; and destruction of private socialism is utterly essential to avoid governmental socialism.

Because RICL is a HVDC powerline, there is only one start and one finish. Between the start and finish, Clean Line Energy owns the market and will be able to influence the price of energy from this powerline.

Clean Line Energy would likely say these is no relationship between Jayshree Desaipetitioning Washington to take regulating powers away from Public Utility Boards, and Commerce Commissions and Jimmy Glotfelty successfully lobbying Congress to repeal PUHCA. Clean Line Energy would also likely claim it is just a coincidence Jimmy Glotfelty’s career currently ends at a venture capital company after he lobbied Congress to end PUHCA, yet the relationship RICL has to the former Enron business model is more than a coincidence.

The RICL model is strictly profit oriented. The problem arises when current energy regulations were written for the more traditional electricity producers and actual utility company. If a traditional energy producer wants to build a new transmission line, they must first prove a need for it. Current state and federal regulations were built to protect consumers within the traditional cost allocation model. Merchant Transmission Lines did not exist in the past. Currently there are less than a half dozen such powerlines in the United States.

Our existing laws and regulations were both designed for this traditional utility company model. It is only through a slow and steady process of deregulations that we now have the potential for such companies as Clean Line Energy.

Clean Line Energy and its RICL project recognizes this opportunity to take advantage of deregulation and argue the current rules do not apply to them as a privately held venture capital merchant transmission line. Unfortunately, this opportunity for Clean Line Energy comes at the expense of the Illinois public and landowners.

Is Jimmy Glotfelty a “Roosevelt Republican”? No. He is a private socialist!

And more regulation and oversight is needed with companies like Clean Line around!

www.ridiculousricl.blogspot.com

Thank's for the hint in the right dierection Snowball!

Snowball, Pete Domenici, Jimmy Glotfelty, and RICL

Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:59:00 -0600

Every now and then something is written on the internet. Sometime later the author comes back and reads it. The question is then asked “Did I write that?” The relevance at the time of writing was small and weak, but after aging a bit, the relevance increases dramatically. This is the beauty of writing commentary on the internet. Comments, statements, opinions are saved on the internet and allowed to age and mature. I've done this a few times and can hardly believe what I wrote a little while ago.

Some guy named “SNOWBALL” wrote this blog over 8 years ago. It probably went unnoticed at the time with few readers who yawned and said “whatever”. Today this one little blog speaks volumes to me. He deserves an honorable mention somewhere. Maybe no one else sees the relevance of the blog listed below, but wow, he called it correctly.

Who was Snowball? Not a clue. The name is an obvious Orwellian reference to Animal Farm. It’s probably a popular internet name. That’s probably the beauty of the name. It’s more untraceable.

Why did he choose to make commentary out of this testimony before congress? With hours of testimony before the Senate Energy Committee, Snowball chose to comment on one little softball question asked by Senator Pete Domenici. It was a question the Senator asked out of left field. The question had little to do with the subject of the 2003 Blackout, but was evident the Senator or someone wanted the statement made at a Senate Committee hearing.

If any professional reporter wrote about this testimony before the Senate committee, they surely wrote about the 2003 blackout. This small question and comment went unnoticed by the pros, but not old Snowball. He wrote his commentary on the internet. 8 years later in 2012, Snowball’s commentary looks like he had incredible insight into the world around him.

Who is Snowball? Was he an expert on national energy policy? Snowball is probably just a guy. Maybe he is just the equivalent to a farmboy from Illinois. He’s probably not a genius or expert on any matters, but for a brief moment in February of 2004 he was a bit of a visionary and saw the road this nation was headed impulsive reactions to the energy situation of the first days of the 21 century.

Thank you Snowball.

Also, thank you Energy Central for allowing this farm boy from Illinois to post his commentary on one small part of today’s energy industry. The people who post here are some very big names in the energy business. The author of this posting is clearly not one of them, but sometimes a guy like Snowball can make comments on a small part of the big picture. After a little aging the relevance becomes more and more obvious.

Thank you.

I look forward to Michael Skelly's presentation at Transforum East.

http://dailytravesty.blogspot.com/2004/02/bush-cheney-energy-bill-is-back.html