Regular visitors
to this blog can probably guess that I’m more interested in writing about farmer
owned distributed generation (DG) than utility scale renewable energy projects.
To clarify, I’m not really opposed to the big wind thing, but I’m opposed to large
wind projects as the only business model for developing wind resources. I’m also
of the opinion that small scale energy projects are more cost effective than
centralized generation supported by transmission lines. Current U.S. tax policy
and regulations discourage farmer owned DG, but that’s really a topic for an
upcoming post. So, with that out of the way, let’s look into the Clean Line controversy
a little more thoroughly, as it has generated a fair amount of media coverage
in Iowa.
Clean Line is a is a proposed
transmission project that bills itself as a vehicle for carrying wind energy from
O’Brien County in Northwest Iowa to markets in Illinois. Farmers and landowners along the proposed transmission
line route are quite upset at the prospect of a private company possibly using
eminent domain to seize farm land for that companies own use. This has resulted
in what I think is really the first organized
opposition to renewables in Iowa. Several Farm publications have covered
this story. It was on the front
page of a recent Wallace’s Farmer issue. The Iowa Farmer Today (IFT) also
covered it, noting that over 1000 oppositions to the project have been
filed at the Iowa Utilities Board. IFT also
noted that “Roger McEowen, director of
Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation, said the
first thing landowners need to realize is the agreement as it stands favors
Clean Line Energy.” Also, it appears
that the transmission line compensation is a one-time payment, while wind
projects generally compensate landowners annually. So, it’s easy to see why
farmers are peeved.
While I’m
very concerned about potential abuse of eminent domain in Iowa, I think it’s
unfair for the opposition group to single out Clean Line on this issue. Eminent
domain is typically used for projects that serve a public need, and Clean Line opponents
don’t seem to believe the company has passed that test. Then they should also
be concerned with other company’s eminent domain use in the state. In the Iowa
Utilities Board 2009 Docket RPU-09-0003,
Micheal O’Sullivan with Nextera Energy
testified that “MidAmerican had non-requirement
sales for resale in 2008, according to its FERC Form 1 filings, of
approximately 38% of its total sales of electricity, and approximately 42% of
its total MWh sold”.
So, it looks like a portion of MidAmerican’s (MEC) wind
is sold on the wholesale market. Therefore, Clean Line opponents should also be
concerned with MEC having eminent domain at its disposal to expand their AC
transmission in Iowa for excess generation.
The Iowa Legislature
introduced a bill
in 2014 to tighten requirements for use of eminent domain for this type of
project. Early versions of the bill would have also affected AC transmission
lines. Later changes were proposed so the bill would only pertain to DC transmission
lines, the type proposed by Clean Line, giving the state’s other utilities a
pass. The bill didn’t advance, but why would legislators write an eminent domain bill that only
affects one company, and not a bill that helps all landowners approached by
developers. The bill was almost
certainly lobbied on by utility interests. It was also opposed by some environmental
groups, who want the Clean Line project. It will be interesting to see if some
of those same enviro groups will now oppose eminent domain use by a Texas company
that has proposed an oil
pipeline in Iowa. Some of them are already citing concerns about the pipelines
potential impacts on farmers. It seems that the Clean Line opposition group
might also oppose eminent domain use to acquire land for the pipeline.
A number of
groups do support the Clean Line project, so let’s examine the “for” position
as well. Supporters like the potential additional clean wind energy the transmission
project could bring online, and wind developers have secured easements where the
Clean Line Substation has been proposed. I’m not convinced that the new transmission
line will just carry wind energy, as federal guidelines try to give equal transmission
access to all forms of generation. Wind generation in that section of Northwest
Iowa would have a very good capacity factor, probably close to 45%. But that
still means that quite often, it could carry coal power from the Dakotas. Wind
is currently without subsidies, as the federal production tax credit has
expired, while coal still enjoys federal assistance (see
my past post, or try Google). So, coal power could have an advantage over
wind for electric power purchasers. That may balance out somewhat with the proposed
EPA regulations for power plants, but you get the picture. This
study by Capx2020, while from back in 2007, seems to think Regional
Transmission Projects may help import coal power to areas of the Midwest (page
15 – PDF file).
I found the
above link in the comment section of an article
discussing the nebulous sounding idea of a “Special Purpose Development Corporation — created for the sole purpose
of acquiring properties for a transmission project and then selling the bundled
parcels to the developer. The number of shares granted would depend on assessed
value.” The concept was pitched
by the Center for Rural affairs, to help
decrease landowner opposition to transmission projects. While the think tank’s attempt
to “think outside the box” is somewhat refreshing to me, Clean Line opponents didn’t
seem to care for it, as a “small riot” erupted in the comment section of the
article.
So, how do
we go about encouraging more renewable energy development in the Midwest? I’m
going quite a bit further out of the box. Annual payments to landowners for
wind projects have worked well to date, so it seems annual transmission line easement
payments might work better to secure rights for new power lines. It’s pretty
clear that eminent domain use by renewable projects pisses people off. It’s an
old business model tool that doesn’t seem suited to modern clean energy
development. Letting affected landowners have actual ownership in the wind project
and transmission line might work a lot better. Even wind energy trade magazines
have noticed that the current model for wind development might be in need of
improvement. Mark
Del Franco at North American Windpower notes that “Times have changed, and so must the actions of wind developers.
It’s the new reality.”
However, I’ve
noted before that I think it’s high time for a robust distributed generation
policy to encourage more
local ownership of wind and solar. It will build more public support for
renewable energy policy. It might also help larger projects as the public will become
better educated about wind and solar when they can own it. The public might start
ignoring misinformation about renewables. It will also help regulators plan and
watch for ratepayer interests, given that some are projecting
that as many as half of the countries electric customers might generate their
own power by 2028. Some of the many
projects planned around the country just won’t be needed under that scenario. Having
a stable DG policy in the country would help regulators decide which of those
projects will be warranted. Until that happens, at least some forward thinking
areas of the company have decided not to wait. I’ll close with a
link to a positive example of rethinking our plan for modernizing the
countries electric grid.
Update
I found an additional link for this post. It is a Fort Dodge Messenger story about Clean Line meeting with local economic development officials in northwest Iowa. It contains the following quote "Because of the federal regulations that require line owners to allow interconnecting, Detweiler said there is the likelihood of additional revenue by other entities moving power along the system." So it looks likely this project will carry some coal power. Mr. Detweiler is an employee of Clean Line.
Update
I found an additional link for this post. It is a Fort Dodge Messenger story about Clean Line meeting with local economic development officials in northwest Iowa. It contains the following quote "Because of the federal regulations that require line owners to allow interconnecting, Detweiler said there is the likelihood of additional revenue by other entities moving power along the system." So it looks likely this project will carry some coal power. Mr. Detweiler is an employee of Clean Line.