Legalectric

Here’s their press release:

Clean_Line_Energy_ROD_National_Press_Release

And here is the full “Record of Decision” of DOE:

• Clean Line ROD FINAL 3-25-16
• Secretarial Determination re CL Project 3-25-16
• Summary of Findings Plains Eastern Clean Line Project 3-25-2016 FINAL
• Clean Line – Participation Agreement – EXECUTED VERSION (dated March 25…

There’s a lot to read here, and I’m just starting.  The primary question I have is what exactly it means that the DOE will “participate” and what that decision confers on the project proponents.  Much of that is in the “Participation Agreement” of which there were drafts, this is the “Executed Version” that has conditions that CLEP must meet.  Section 1222 is a financing provision, and having worked on a couple of projects that are USDA RUS funded, how do they get from financial wheeler-dealering to the idea that DOE participation could circumvent state jurisdiction and powers?

The entire Arkansas delegation has come out strongly against it, slamming the DOE decision.  Now how about they introduce a bill to repeal Section 1222?  That ought to take care of it!

Yesterday, the Arkansas Delegation hit Plains & Eastern Clean Line where it counts — a line drive to the Secretary of the DOE with this letter:

AR Delegation_Moniz_Sept 14 2015

Maybe this letter should have been headed “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST.”  Plains & Eastern Clean Line applied under Section 1222 of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005.

For reference, here’s Section 1222 of Energy Policy Act 2005.

Many of the points raised were ones brought forward in testimony, public comments, and media reports of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line transmission line proposal.  Questions the AR delegation raised include basic project information and:

• transactions and costs related to participation in Section 1222;
• obvious failure to qualify because it is not in a “national interest electric transmission corridor” under Section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act;
• improper use of Federal eminent domain authority undermining states’ rights;
• that the project is outside the statutory mission of federal Power Marketing Administrations (Southwestern PMA is proposed by Plains & Eastern Clean Line as partner in its project);
• project boundaries extend beyond the statutory boundaries of Southwestern Power Administration;
• costs for this private project could be transferred to electric utilities and their customers and this possibility has not been walled off/mitigated to insulate Southwestern’s customers;
• concerns about “non-completion” assessment of costs and prevention/mitigation have not been addressed;
• Clean Line’s assertions that they will pay certain taxes to local communities have not been investigated and verified;
• use of existing federal rights-of-way and federal land;
• Clean Line’s substantially incorrect, misleading, and/or inconsistent statements, which are basis for rejection or denial of the application, have not been addressed;
• draft EIS “did not meet the expectations of an inclusive, community-driven feedback process” expected of administrative agencies, and public comment periods and involvement of landowners and stakeholders was insufficient public engagement;
• questions regarding tribal consultation; questions regarding DOE position on state’s role in siting under Section 1222;
• impacts of traversing Mississippi Flyway on waterfowl and migratory birds, together with resultant economic and recreational impacts;
• impacts on public recreation on outdoor recreation in Arkansas;
• use of non-governmental email accounts for Department deliberations regarding this project.

Like WOW!  I’m impressed — this letter is a work of art.

Quick — email angela.colamaria@hq.doe.gov and ask that they hold public hearings, just like they did for the environmental review!

Today is the deadline for Comments on the “Section 1222” review, time to tell the DOE what you think of this (&($%&(#@*%&()# project!

BLOCK_Comment_Motion_FINAL

BLOCK_Comment_Attachments_A-J

Are we having fun now?

And good news today too — we’re getting some “US TOO!” support on our previously filed Petitions and Motion.  YES!  That helps!

QUICK — take a few seconds and send a missive to BOTH plainsandeastern@hq.doe.gov AND Angela.Colamaria@hq.doe.gov and ask for 1) an extension of time to file comments, at least to September 11, 2015; and 2) public hearings across the affected area, as they did for the DEIS.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hot off the press, here are the BLOCK Plains & Eastern Clean Line: Arkansas and Oklahoma Initial Filings to the DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability in the Plains & Eastern Clean Line docket:

Cover_Petitions&Motion

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE_June 8 2015

Notice of Appearance

BLOCK_Petition_Extension

BLOCK_Petition_PublicHearings

BLOCK_Motion_Intervention

BLOCK_Petition_ContestedCase

BLOCK_Petition for Delay

And to add a little frosting on the cake:

CEII_Cover & Agreement

Meanwhile, Clean Line is putting its efforts into ASTROTURF!!!  You’d think they’d have a clue how that goes over.

Arkansans for Jobs and Low-Cost Energy

And here’s the Citizens First Congress Champions for Change luncheon, where BLOCK Plains & Eastern Clean Line: Arkansas and Oklahoma’s Alison Milsaps spoke to the crowd:

Quick comments — this project is bizarre, a private project proposed on request of DOE (with applicant ringleader a former DOE employee) that has no demonstrable need.  ???

Overland Comment 4-20-2015

Here’s the link for the DEIS, from their site:

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project (DOE/EIS–0486; Draft EIS) is now available

I do hope the DOE will explain how they intend to review this under Section 1222… it’s all too bizarre for words!