Saturday, July 19, 2014

RICL's Request for an 86% Tax Abatement

Last Thursday night there was a rather interesting meeting in Grundy County .  The county board held a workshop to look into the proposed 85% tax abatement for the Rock Island Clean Line converter station.  This station will switch the direct current back to traditional alternating current.  From the proposed Channahon  conversion station, there would be a single 756kv single powerline across the Illinois River to the switch yard at the Olde Collins generation station.
Tactically, it was a most interesting meeting to watch.  The county board members were aggressive in their questioning and it was probably one of the most uncomfortable meeting for RICL's Amy Kurt.  By the end of the 3 hour workshop, it was becoming aparent Grundy County has grown a bit wherry of the "Give us everything we want or we will go to Kendall County" attitude.

During Kurt's presentation, she made a very specific point.  No one objected to the proposed route presented before the Illinois Commerce Commission.  While it was implied, this did not mean the proposed route was without objection, but the entire route was the objection.  As Kurt explained, there is no alternate routes.  The proposed route is set and final.    Yes, this was perceived by me at least as a "rub it in your face" point.

This turned out to be a big pile of do-do for RICL and Amy Kurt.  As the workshop continued, there was a constant latent reminder that Kendall County in only a half mile away from the proposed finalized route.  If RICL doesn't get everything they want with an 85% abatement of property taxes, the company will be forced to consider placing the converter station in Kendall County. 

By the end, some board members were becoming offended by the constant threat of going to Kendall County.  Supposedly, Kendall County taxes mechanical equipment at a substantially lesser rate than Grundy County.  It was even questioned if Clean Line Energy Partners LLC had even had discussion with Kendall County or the prospects whether Kendall residents would even want this project in their county.

Later in the evening, another speaker from the opposition of RICL explained to the Grundy County Board that if the route were changed for the converter station to be placed in Kendall County, docket 12-0560 (RICL's application to the ICC) would likely have to be withdrawn and Clean Line Energy Partners, LLC would have to start from square one with a third docket.  (Clean Line has already withdrawn their application once with a do-over.) 

When a board member asked RICL's Amy Kurt is that was true, would a new docket have to be applied, she speculated the company would probably be able to file a supplemental docket for just the small change in route.  My guess the change would amount to 6 miles or so into Kendal County with a converter station just before the AC line heads south in Grundy to utilize the original proposed route as much as possible.  This is where the do-do really started to get messy for Amy Kurt.

First, this is another example where RICL so often wants to change the rules to suit them.  She was very explicit that the route will not be changed.  The company offered no alternate routes and at this point it would be too late for the public to suggest an alternate.  Amy Kurt and Clean Line continues to attempt to sell us on the idea that the company can change agreements , like the route to get a better tax deal in Kendall County.  No they can't.

How does Clean Line think the ICC  would view this theoretical new docket?  Hypothetically if the ICC were to approve Docket 12-0560 and Grundy County declined the 85% tax abatement, RICL would then apply for a supplemental docket before the ICC for a change in the route so they can avoid paying their property taxes in Grundy County.  All it would take would be for one affected Kendall County property owner to appeal 12-0560 by claiming they were disenfranchised of their right to oppose RICL and 12-0560 before the ICC.  If 12-0560 were to be approved, it would be argued a supplemental docket for a change in the route through Kendall County to avoid the company's fair share of property taxes would be a formality.

It would be quite ironic if the ICC were to actually approved RICL only for the federal appellate court  to throw it out because RICL wanted a last minute route change. Like Amy Kurt explained, the proposed route for ICC Docket 12-0560 is final.  No new evidence can be submitted to the ICC, like a change in the route. 

This is just another example of RICL wanting to change the rules to suit them.  The mayor of the village of Channahon argues we must agree to stick to agreements.  This is largely the problem with the Rock Island Clean Line.  This company does not stick to agreements.

"This transmission line will follow the Rock Island railroad"  Oops.  Somebody else owns that easement.

"RICL will follow  property lines."  Oops.  there is already a pipeline up to the property line.  Now we find ourselves with RICL being proposed to go through fields

"Grundy County Board has voted to approve RICL"  That was another whooper streched by Clean Line.

"RICL is a "Merchant Transmission Line" and ratepayers will not pay for this powerline through their power bills."  While RICL was telling that whooper, they were asking grid operators for ratepayer to pay for this powerline. 

"Monopoles will be used if the landowner perfers."  Yeah, it took a lot for the Illinois Department of Agriculture to force RICL to follow through on that one.

If Grundy County Board votes not to approve the 85% tax abatement for RICl, then good.  It will send a message.  It will tell future projects desiring to come through the county to stick by the claims told to the public.  Agree to follow agreements has been the downfall of RICL and Clean Line Energy.  It's only fitting that a county were to change its opinion and reject support for this project.  

This is not how a real public utility conducts business, not even in Illinois.  This is how a speculation company tries to railroad a project through that the public does not want. 

It will be interesting how the county board votes on this matter.  Will they approve the abatement, reject the abatement, or vote to table the abatement until the ICC makes a decision.  It would be daring for the county to vote down the 85% abatement.  Dare RICL to go talk to Kendall County.  This wouldn't mean a rejection of RICL, just a rejection of giving the company an 85% discount on paying their property taxes.  It's not like the company will be supplying 50 new jobs within the county.

***More quotes from this meeting will follow.  Kurt had some great quotes that would make Skelly cringe, but then again, Skelly has had some classic quotes.***

Saturday, June 21, 2014

A Letter to Secretary Moniz Concerning Plains & Eastern Clean Line

Watching what Clean Line Energy is attempting with Plains & Eastern Clean Line has me troubled.  Sec 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act was intended to promote hydroelectric generation in the SPA.  It was never the intent of Sec1222 to be used by a transmission startup llc to circumvent a rejection by a state utility commission. 

Arkansas rejected Clean Line's request for public utility status and refuses to give Clean Line eminent domain powers.  The sole purpose of the Department of Energy's involvement in Plains & Eastern Clean Line is to obtain the easement from private landowners through Arkansas.  With the Department of Energy obtaining only the easement through Arkansas, the DoE can stay under the funding cap in Sec 1222. 
Put simply, this abuse is a bastardization of Sec 1222.  It was never intended to support a company with a lower standard of eminent domain to acquire easements from private citizens for a 750 mile privately owned powerline.   For the DoE to approve Plains & Eastern Clean Line llc, the threat of further eminent domain abuse to advance political agenda is amplified.  This is the government picking "winners" and "losers" with those of us living in the path of a proposed easement as the designated losers. 
The potential precedent set here would stretch across all of America as any misuse of eminent domain intent will be accepted.  Should Clean  Line Energy fail to obtain public utility status in Illinois for the Rock Island Clean Line, what other form of federal eminent domain will be used to circumvent the rule of law?  Will the Department of Energy provide the heavy hammer of eminent domain through means other than Sec 1222?  Will the Department of Agriculture be Clean Line Energy's new "friend" in Washington.  

The disagreement between the public and the government of eminent domain abuse in this situation has the potential to be bigger than Keystone pipeline and the Bureau of Land Management's fiasco in Nevada combined.  Mr Secretary, I urge you to not take the Department of Energy and America down this path.  The public will not support America going down this road. 
Eminent domain should not be used to advance a political agenda.  Eminent domain should only be used as a last resort and not to promote profit for wind energy corporations.
Thank you for your consideration Secretary Moniz.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

How to Price Fix Transmission Easements to Promote the Wind Industry

The American Wind Energy Association wants us to think the lack of new transmission is the barrier to market entry for more wind generation.  I'm not convinced that is the case.  What about feeding into the regional grid and using regional planning?  How is grid capacity changing with the evolution in coal and natural gas based energy?  Is the nation taking advantage of changes in supply of energy and changes in demand?  How much of the perceived barrier is the wind industry seeking the easy solution for their advantage rather than learning the transmission industry and seeking innovative solutions to meet the need? Heck, no one can show a comprehensive grid capacity mad showing what lines are being underutilized.  Yes, there is skepticism.

If a "barrier" actually exists, it is not the lack of transmission, but the high cost of obtaining transmission easements from farmers and landowners, plus other little things, like constitutional rights, existing laws and current procedures..  As Clean Line Energy has shown, the barrier is obtaining the easements from farmer at an economical price.  So, how does the AWEA work to eliminate the barrier and benefit the industry with more transmission at a cost that still allows wind energy to appear cost competitive? 

Hypothetically speaking;

If I ran the AWEA (and had a total lacked of a moral compass), I’d remove the barrier of high priced transmission easements through a collective effort of conspiracy and price fixing to lower the price of easements.  Not that I am accusing the AWEA of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, but if I ran the wind energies trade organization, and didn’t have a problem with ticking off a bunch of farmers through any tactic necessary, this is how I would take the easement market away from the landowners through lower prices.

First, it would have to be done through a trade organization at the top.  A trade organization brings together various competitors in the industry.  A trade organization can work to achieve collective goals individual companies cannot.  A trade organization is also a legal mechanism to bring together funds, whether from one entity or several companies.  Archer Daniels Midland was a great example of this first step.  Back in the 90’s they worked to form various phony trade organization to control the price of Citric Acid, Lysine and other amino acids. 

If one were to set up the price fixing model for acquiring land easements, a person would have to learn from ADM’s “mistakes”.  In this scenario, the individual companies would have to contribute or “donate” money to the trade organization and the trade organization, like the AWEA, would then disseminate the monies.  The trade organization would funnel the money to and through various Non-Government-Organizations (NGO’s).  These NGO’s would claim to be representing farmers, landowners, rural affairs, like the Center for Rural Affairs, “clean” energy, like Re-AMP, and a modern transmission planning, like America’s Power Plan.

These NGO’s would work to advance, the objectives of the trade organization members.  One NGO would promote the wind energy as economic development for rural America.  Other NGO’s would claim to promote “clean” energy while recognizing big wind corporations as the only legitimate option.  To promote “clean” energy, the only recognized solution would be more transmission.  Another organization would promote transmission development to create a 21 century grid that would enhance wind development. 

While the NGO’s need money to advance the agenda.  One of the objectives of the trade organization at the head would be to distribute the money.  Some of it would go directly to an NGO.  Other money would go through one or two NGO’s to a third or fourth NGO.  Keep the funds going through as many non for profit organizations as possible to fund each other would be vital.  This would make it more difficult to trace the money and trace the originator of the agenda.  For instance Re-AMP, the parent organization of Midwest Energy News, claims to have 160 members from other NGO’s.  The public cannot be a member of Re-AMP nor take part in its agenda making.  Also, having an arm of an NGO play itself as a news organization is also helpful to an industry and trade organization.   Need a news organization to publish your propaganda?  The best thing to do is create on as an arm of an NGO.

And then there is campaign contributions and perhaps more importantly, political lobbying.  Political contributions through multiple various organizations makes things more difficult to see who is driving the agenda.  Consider another obscure organization that has recently sprouted up, Citizens for a Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES).  Who funds these organizations?  Who pays for the downtown Washington D.C. organizations based out of marketing offices?  How do organizations like this sprout from concrete and office building?  When Representatives like Adam Kinzinger held an online “town hall meetings” at CRES to answer questions, those questions from outside his district were answered and questions from inside his district were avoided.  It is relevant to ask “Who is funding this organization and their agenda?”  What is the real agenda behind these organizations? 

For an NGO that sprang to life in a short time, this organization for “sensible” solutions has 23,000 followers on Facebook, yet no one ever “likes” its postings.  It would benefit a trade organization’s lobbying efforts to have as many NGO’s supporting it as possible.  Even if these NGO’s are offices rented by the hour, having as many voices as possible into the politician’s ear would be helpful in accomplishing the goal of more economically priced transmission.

Another organization called WindWard Iowa spontaneously pops up to advance “clean” energy and promotes the Rock Island Clean Line, and the same questions are asked.  Who is funding this organization that wants to be the “reasonable” mediator between landowners and the transmission speculation company?  It’s strange how these people based NGO’s like these can pop up with high priced Des Moines attorneys and national marketing firmed listed as mailing addresses and signing documentation. 

I absolutely believe it when these organizations like Windward claim they are not being funded by Clean Line Energy Partners LLC or other companies pushing transmission for wind generation.  It’s my guess the funding for these NGO’s is likely coming through trade organizations and other NGO’s.  It is still legitimate for the public to demand to know who is funding the agenda drive for these nonprofit organizations.  NGO’s don’t just voluntarily invest time, money, and labor to promote transmission for wind energy without it being a source of income for the NGO.   The Center for Rural Affairs has at least three people responsible for promoting energy policy (wind plus transmission).  This cost money and someone is providing it.

How exactly does an NGO like Re-AMP made up of other NGO’s generate income?  While “follow the money” is nearly impossible, these organizations have to be funded, and the big funding probably ultimately comes from industry. 

The model of organizations funding organizations funding organizations was the structure used by organized crime families in New York City.  Until the late 70’s and 80’s, this model was very effective by  using as many shell companies as possible so the true leadership of the crime syndicate was impossible to be shown in court without the help of an insider.  These organized crime families were brought down through a focused effort by federal prosecutors to prove the vast complication of the organization.  Before Rudy Giuliani’s successful prosecution, it was nearly impossible for the Department of Justice to trace this model back to the companies at the top above the original trade organization.   Without an insider, it’s doubtful the DoJ or FBI would invest that amount of time and effort to investigate such a small piece of the energy industry. 

The CFRA has now come out supporting a plan making it easier for transmission companies to acquire the easements and advance wind energy.  Again the question is being asked “who is funding this agenda by the CFRA”.  To me, it looks like an orchestrated effort to reduce the farmer’s ability to control their land.  The barrier for wind energy is not the lack of transmission, but the opposition and diligence by landowners.  If wind energy’s efforts are successful, the right of an individual landowner to choose to sell an easement to a wind transmission company is diminished as rural landowners would be forced to sell easements at a reduced price.

Now that the Chuck Hassebrock, the Executive Director of the Center for Rural Affairs resigned last September to run for Governor of Nebraska, the question about the influence of wind energy companies and the startup transmission company that was once a wind energy company are even more relevant.  Are these companies and trade organization funding Chuck Hassebrock’s campaign? Chuck Hassebrock’s opposition to corporate farms at the CFRA, but supports corporate wind farms and transmission specific for wind companies is a bit interesting.  With specific questions about CFRA’s funding for supporting RICL being avoided, it is also fair to ask where Hassebrocks campaign funding originates. 

Hypothetically, if I was a leader in the wind industry and wanted to buy political influence and promote an agenda to reduce landowner’s rights and influence, I’d do it through a trade organization and a plethora of NGO’s.  Does this sound like a crazy conspiracy theory?   Archer Daniels Midland once had the unofficial motto “THE COMPETITION IS YOUR FRIEND.  THE CUSTOMER IS YOUR ENEMY.”  It happened once. 

ADM’s mistake was stopping at just one trade organization.  In the organizational chart for price fixing, NGO’s are needed to play a vital role.  If I were Chuck Hassebrock with Governor Office aspirations, I would not be careless about what my NGO supports.  Orchestrated efforts to limit supply and reduce the price of easements for transmission still falls under price fixing and the Sherman Antitrust Act. 

These efforts don’t have to be successful to be illegal, just conspired and attempted.  If there is coordination within an industry and NGO’s to reduce the barrier and of lack of transmission that would result in lower easement prices and less control of landowner’s assets, the Sherman Antitrust Act is being violated.   Regardless, if I was in the wind industry, wanted to remove the barrier of landowners preventing transmission and had little morals, this is the strategy I would take.  


There is a concerted effort to "reform" the current process of obtaining easements.  With ideas being created by bill mills, like Multi-State Compacts being proposed by the Council of State Governments. the current checks and balance of the current system of individual state utility commissions would be eliminated.  The current system works.  Companies need to show an actual need, problem, or an actual congestion and prove more transmission is the best solution.  If a proposed transmission project crosses multiple states, the process must be done again and again in each state.   These independent hurdles at each state's utility commission are a form of checks and balances to protect the public from  unnecessary projects.  

Since 1776, the rights of private landownership has been a part of America's history.  Whether there is a coordinated effort or through random efforts, their is a campaign coordinated to reduce the rights of landowners and increase the ability for wind corporations to have special designated transmission.  To those opposed this campaign, it's not about the money.  It's not about increasing the price of easements, but forcing transmission and wind companies to work within the current system and not create a new system of lower standards to exploit farmland for the sake of wind corporation profits.

Like most people in the Midwest, I will not profit if RICL, GBE, or P&ECL are built.  If standards and qualifications are lowered for the sake of promoting wind energy, we all will suffer from a lower benchmark for eminent domain by rich individual and their speculation projects. 

This is bigger than one powerline.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Clean Line Energy, Chuck Hassebrock, CFRA, SPDC, and Just Compensation of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause

While thinking about the Chuck Hassebrock’s former Center for Rural Affairs (CFRA) proposal for Special Purpose Development Corporations (SPDC), and the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL), there are some issues that really gives me a queasy feeling in my lower GI tract but not to the point of causing anneal seepage.  Seriously, the problem with the CFRA’s model of SPDC’s is it fails to recognize individual circumstances and a landowner’s right to represent their own special circumstances in an easement negotiation with a company desiring a right of way.

While the Center for Rural Affairs implies it represents farmers and rural American’s, the CFRA assumes all farmland is created equal and it all amounts to the equivalent of mere “dirt”.  Maybe in Nebraska, one soil type can define a square mile and maybe to a person educated in Vermont, corn is corn and soil is soil, but in Illinois and Iowa, an educated farmer can describe the difference in soil from one square acre to the next across a field.    Even the author Margrett Mitchell knew more about land's value than the CFRA or it's recently replaced director, Chuck Hassebrock.

 “The land is the only thing in the world worth working for, worth fighting for, worth dying for, because it's the only thing that lasts".....Gerald O'Hara, Gone With The Wind.”
Margaret Mitchell

To an actual farmer, this is not “dirt” but soil.  Every hill, ever roil and every low is different.  The soil on a north side of a hill can vary greatly from the soil on the south side of the hill.  Only a moron from an office in Houston, Minneapolis or Lyons Nebraska will fail to understand these differences.   For this reason alone, ever individual landowner deserves the right to represent their own property in an eminent domain case. 

The CFRA’s purposed Special Purpose Development Corporation makes the assumption all farmland is created equal. While the Declaration of the United States declares the concept all men are created, it is a fallacy to imply all land is created equal.  Why is soil the only thing worth working for, worth fighting for, worth dying for?  Because soil or “dirt” to a Nebraska NGO desk jockey, is valued more than gold.  During the current recession what commodity has risen in value more than farm ground?  “Dirt” has been one of the best hedges against recession and a devalued dollar. It’s been a better investment than gold.  Unfortunately, for the fools at the Center for Rural Affairs, with their agenda to advance big wind corporations, they’ve failed to understand this concept.  Here is a specific example where a landowner would be disenfranchised if forced to comply and submit to the rule of the CFRA’s purposed Special Purpose Development Corporation. 

For hypothetical purposes, let’s pretend RICL will go through.  As Hillary Clinton describes it, let’s suspend our ability of disbelief for a moment and imagine RICL gets all the green lights, financing, and begins obtaining easements from land owners.

While I have no ownership stake, there is an 80 acre field RICL would transverse.  The only compensation I would receive is for loss of revenue from the crop, as I am just a renter.  With that said, to the ordinary idiot from Houston, this property is a plain 80 acre field, without any development.  It is an typical 80 rod by 160 rod field or 12.5% of a square mile.   However, just 37.5 feet south of the south property line lies the Northern Borders Pipeline.  This easement is 75 feet wide and borders the property line and none of this easement is in the field RICL desires an easement. 

While I have not personally confirmed it, I am told Clean Line Energy Partners wants to be 1000 feet north of the property line or 1,000 feet north of the Northern Borders easement.  Why?  Most likely because a high voltage Direct Current powerline is corrosive to a pipeline.  Put simply, the stray current from a HVDC powerline causes a pipeline to rust out like a 1975 Chevrolet pickup.  It is easy to premise, the best form of mitigation for Clean Line to potential pipeline damage is to stay as far away from the Northern Borders Pipeline while still conforming to a corridor and track parallel to the pipeline. 

However, on this specific 80 acre field, there is another pipeline.  This one is owned by Mid-America Pipeline (owned by Enterprise Products Partners of Houston Texas).  While this pipeline enters the property traveling north & south, it takes a right angle and heads east & west as it exits the property.  When the Mid-America Pipeline (not to be confused with MidAmerican Energy) exits the property, it is 1,994 feet from the southern property line. 

If RICL is successful in siting it’s powerline 1,000 feet north of the property line, it will be approximately 1,000 feet from the Northern Borders Pipeline (owner by TransCanada) and just about 1,000 feet from the Mid-American Pipeline.  For this specific property and a few properties lying east of it, RICL would be receiving a 2000 foot easement while paying for a Right-of-Way one tenth of the size. 

Will any other company seek an easement between Northern Borders, RICL, and Mid-American?  No.  While Northern Borders followed the property line and the Mid-American was constructed 70 years ago, RICL would be choosing to split the difference and take the land in the middle.  This will render 2,000 feet width of easement useless for further development and create a corridor where easements are spaced 1,000 feet apart.     

Special circumstances like these are irrelevant to the Center for Rural Development.  Special Purpose Development Corporations are not capable of acknowledging the individual differences and special circumstances.  No property to the west of this parcel contains such a special circumstance. 

With Chuck Hassebrock’s Center for Rural Affairs model, ALL LANDOWNERS would be given two options.  Join the SPDC and allow all properties be negotiated collectively with no acknowledgement of special circumstances OR allow the SPDC to acquire the easement through the property by eminent domain and the members of the SPDC will gain any potential further profit through collective bargaining. 

Through this socialist approach by the CFRA to consider all property identical, the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment is ignored and voided.  JUST COMPENSATION of the TAKING CLAUSE of the Fifth Amendment is reduced from an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to a COLLECTIVE RIGHT.  What Chuck Hassebrock’s Center for Rural Affairs is purposing is a bastardization of the Bill of Rights.  It’s an affront on the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and most assuredly a forced eminent domain to a Special Purpose Development Corporation would be a landmark case headed to the Supreme Court of the United States.  This is one example where Clean Line Energy Partners LLC could easily be a landmark eminent domain case with a title “Wellenreiter v. RICL” or any other farmer’s name versus Clean Line Energy Partners and the reputation of the CFRA. 

Do you really want to go down this road built on a Special Purpose Development Corporation?  Clean Line Energy Partners is the frontline in America’s Energy War and there are plenty of farmers and landowners willing to have their name on a landmark Constitutional case.   There are also a few attorneys who’d also enjoy arguing eminent domain protection before the Supreme Court.  Each landowner and each parcel are special and deserve individual protection under the United States Constitution. 

Land is the only thing worth fighting for.  It’s time Governors (Pat Quinnn), Wannabe Governors (Chuck Hassebrock), and Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s like the CFRA) understand why Rural America values their land.

Friday, May 30, 2014

The Rock Island Clean Line, RPS, and the Commerce Clause, a Constitutional Cunundrum

Rule #1 when writing a blog: Everything is funnier with “ca-ca” and doubly so when mentioning Michael Zilkha’s Picasso in the loo. 

There is just something magically funny about putting a most expensive piece of art in the crappers.  Ironically that is where this blog is being composed.  In case you missed it, a British author once did a story about Sir Paul McCartney and the private turned public debate on where their child should attend school.  It’s a great commentary about society, but it starts and ends with a childhood story about Michael Zilkha’s family keeping a Picasso in the “loo”.  Tom Utley is right and ending a blog with Michael’s Picasso in the loo is a good humorous. 

Here is a piece of news not nearly as entertaining but much more relevant to RICL and GBE .

The era of Kumbaya in the America’s infatuation with wind energy is coming to a close as people are realizing this is cheap date is becoming too dang expensive.  Ohio freezes their Renewable Portfolio Standard!  Yes the wind industry likes to point to Kansas and defeating legislator’s efforts to repeal the RPS but there isn’t much fanfare about what just happened in Ohio.    Wind is just too expensive.

In a recent New York Times article, Jay Apt, director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University, said “Renewable portfolio standards and other mechanisms of pollution control are not cost-free.”  That was about the most aggressive quote in the New York Times article as much of it was spent quoting friends of wind energy crying about partisan politics.  Michael Skelly once said it is the states who are doing innovative legislation to help wind energy and not the federal government. 

Hopefully Ohio is just the beginning as legislators realize expensive wind energy is slowing the nations economic recovery.  It still irks me that the Illinois RPS mandates 75% of its “clean” energy must come from wind energy.  You’d think that is a violation of the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause. 

Think about it.  The Illinois RPS mandates 75% of the “clean” energy be wind energy.  While it can come from Illinois or any of the contiguous states next to Illinois, it’s still protectionism.  Buying wind energy from Iowa is interstate commerce.  By refusing to recognize solar or hydroelectric energy from Iowa or Missouri, Illinois is playing favoritism towards wind.  Illinois, under Governor Quinn’s leadership, and other states are succumbing to the wind energy lobby and regulating interstate commerce with their Renewable Portfolio Standards.   The United States Constitution states interstate commerce regulating is the domain of the federal government and not the states.  This is designed so states cannot make protectionist policies.  The Commerce Clause is often the most abused piece of the US Constitution as it allows the federal government to stick its hand in anything that crosses state lines.  

How is this different than Illinois taxing Iowa corn because Chicago residents are morally opposed to corn grown in Iowa raising the pollen count in Illinois?  Of course that’s silly.  Corn is corn.  Whether it’s grown in Iowa or Illinois it’s still No. 2 Yellow Corn.  Yet Governor Quinn and the American Wind Energy Association is making us believe all energy generation is created equal, except some forms of generation are more equal than others. 

The wind industry likes to bash the organization American’s for Prosperity as being funded by the “evil Koch Brothers”.  At least there agenda is cleaner than the AWEA and big wind.  It’s time to end all Renewable Portfolio Standards.  America’s economy will recover faster with economically priced energy rather than this nonsense of promoting wind energy as being “clean”.  Hopefully the Koch Brothers will start taking state’s RPS to federal court as violations of the Commerce Clause.  As much as the Commerce Clause is abused for political agendas, it would be good to see it used against the government for a change.  Might even make it to the Supreme Court.
Here’s something else to consider.  Look at the landmark ruling last summer by Judge Posner in the Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC.  Judge Posner made reference to how Michigan put its foot in its mouth when the state referred to the RPS favoring instate Renewables over out of state renewables.   JudgePosner suggested states are probably practicing protectionism and regulating interstate commerce (the domain of the federal government).  He was basically encouraging a federal lawsuit. 

How much different is it for a Michigan to give preferential treatment to in state renewable energy or Illinois to give preferential treatment to wind energy from out of state over other forms of energy and even other forms of renewable energy.  It’s still playing political favoritism and protectionism as states are attempting to regulate interstate commerce.  Renewable Portfolio Standards are federal lawsuit waiting to happen.  Why American’s for Prosperity hasn’t gone that route to overturn RPS’s is a good question.  It’s only a matter of time.  Mike, think about that while you’re sitting in the loo.

Perhaps the era of Picassos in the loo are also coming to an end with RPS’s.  I better more and more people take their smart phones and tablets in with them and don’t even notice the color of the walls, let alone a piece of artwork nowadays.  So when you’re in the loo, try googling “RPS Commerce Clause”.  Might be surprised what you find.