Bill Clinton toadying for transmission
December 13th, 2012
In Chicago, Bill Clinton calls for national grid to boost renewable energy.
Yes, it’s all connected…There goes Clinton promoting transmission that enables coal.
We all know Bill Clinton has his warts:
But did you know that yesterday Clinton exhibited a major outbreak of warts as a transmission toady for Obama?
And we all know Obama loves transmission and declared seven transmission projects for “accelerated permitting and construction” including two of “my” projects, the PSEG Susquehanna-Roseland line and Xcel’s CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-LaCrosse line. I’ve posted a few times about this:
Obama “fast tracks” transmission?!?!?!
Obama’s Transmission BS in the News
What does Obama’s Xmsn push mean?
Here’s the plan in the Midwest — check out the blue solid lines and dashed lines:
… and it gets worse:
These JCSP lines are in the MTEP 11 Appendices, 765kV lines across the Midwest:
But do you know the level of toadyism and sell-out of so called “environmental” groups that made this transmission build-out possible? Transmission is just one of the legacies of the Izaak Walton League (and its program “Wind on the Wires”), Fresh Energy, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and North American Water Office. There’s also coal gasification, burning turkey shit, and rolling for nuclear power in a deal to stick nuclear waste in Florence Township and taking the money for compensation of the Prairie Island Indian Community and shift that into the Renewable Energy Development Fund, Community Based Energy Development (C-BED) legislation that gave House Speaker Steve Sviggum a turbine and substation on his land in the first C-BED project applied for (and thankfully failed). Gee, thanks for all of this and more from Minnesota’s “environmental” organizations over the years… the 1994 Prairie Island deal, the 2002 Transmission deal, the 2003 Prairie Island deal… it makes me ill. Who do they think they are to make these deals, who are they representing? Not the people! Not the public interest!
Here’s some primary documentation:
$8.1 Million to Wind on Wires – grant from McKnight/Energy Foundation
$4.5 Million to Wind on Wires – grant from McKnight/Energy Foundation
2005 Session Laws Chapter 97 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell
Bill Grant – Sawmill Presentation – Promotion of Coal Gasification
Presentations at IEDC (Legalectric – posted February 16th, 2007)
IEDC gets carried away (Legalectric – posted February 15th, 2007)
You might think this is old news, but it’s not, it’s got an impact right now, an impact felt by the thousands of landowners whose land is being condemned right now for CapX 2020 transmission routed over their land. Why? Well, just after Mark Dayton won the election in 2010, the Waltons and Wind on the Wires did a spin off (note their numbers don’t match), separating the two, that’s just after the election, and just before Gov. Mark Dayton announced the Walton’s Bill Grant would be the new Deputy Commissioner of Dept. of Commerce in charge of Energy Facilities Permitting.
And “Wind on the Wires” IRS 990s:
Wind on the Wires 2009 IRS Form 990 (signed 11-12-10, a week after the election)
Wind on the Wires 2010 IRS Form 990 (signed 11-14-2011)
How could anyone be more unsuitable for a position heading the state Energy Facilities Permitting department at Commerce?
Here’s the article in its entirety for posterity — from Midwest Energy News, brought to us by (buy) RE-AMP!
In Chicago, Bill Clinton calls for national grid to boost renewable energy
“Look what happened to civilizations that had their day in the sun and then declined,” he said. “Progress is a long road, a lot of rolling big rocks up steep hills.” Read the rest of this entry »
ILSR’s Farrell on Fed Transmission Scam
June 29th, 2011
ILSR’s John Farrell is halfway there – he recognizes the federal part of the transmission equation, but the state part is missing, for example, Minnesota’s special eminent domain exemptions for “Public Service Corporations” (particularly where the transmission is for private profit, NOT public service), rate recovery for “Construction Work in Progress” and state regulators refusal to examine the interstate nature of transmission proposals. And the third part of that unholy trinity — in the Midwest, bulk power transmission would not be being built but for the Settlement Agreement – ME3(Fresh Energy), Izaak Walton League (and Walton’s program Wind on the Wires), Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and North American Water Office. This glut of transmission is their legacy. It takes all three to build transmission.
From Grist, today:
Feds running a high-voltage gravy train for power transmission
by John Farrell
28 Jun 2011 6:00 AM
Even as distributed generation shows economical and political advantages over centralized renewable energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is running a high voltage gravy train in support of expanded transmission. FERC’s lavish program is expanding large transmission infrastructure at the expense of ratepayers instead of looking at more economical alternatives.Since 2007, FERC has had 45 requests for bonus incentives for transmission development — authorized under the 2005 Energy Policy Act — and has provided all or most of the requested incentives in more than 80 percent of the cases. With the bonuses, the average return on equity for utilities for their new transmission investments is nearly 13 percent. This high rate of return is a full 2.5 percentage points higher than the median utility return on equity [PDF], a value considered just and reasonable by state public service commissions in ordinary times. However, these rewards came during a time when unemployment doubled, the stock market tumbled, and most corporations were lucky to have any profit.The ratepayer impact of these bonuses is significant. In a November 2010 criticism of FERC transmission awards, Commissioner John Norris noted that the 2 percent bonus FERC provided to the PATH high-voltage project on the Eastern seaboard would “cost [Maryland] ratepayers in PJM at least $18 million per year.” The bonus payments were also given in concert with other incentives that reduced risk, including rate recovery during construction and guarantee of payment if the facilities were abandoned for reasons outside utility control.