In the News

The Department of Energy’s use of eminent domain with a private third-party company to construct an interstate electrical power line has been opposed by the entire Arkansas congressional delegation on the grounds of state’s rights and private property rights.

In a nine-page letter to Department of Energy Ernest Moniz on Monday, Arkansas’ two senators and four congressmen state Section 1222 in the 2005 Energy Policy Act should not apply to based Clean Line Energy’s proposal to build a 700-mile high-voltage, direct-current transmission line through Arkansas from wind turbine farms in west Oklahoma and Kansas.

U.S. Sens. John Boozman and Tom Cotton — along with U.S. Reps. Rick Crawford, French Hill, Steve Womack and Bruce Westerman — are asking Moniz to address their detailed concerns about the federal government’s possible “unprecedented partnership” with a third party to construct the electrical transmission project through Arkansas.

“This Project does not appear to meet the statutory requirements of Section 1222, and we believe a state-level review of many serious concerns is necessary,” the delegation letter states. “Therefore, the Department should not approve the use of Section 1222 to carry out the Project.”

Since being denied public utility status by the Arkansas Public Service Commission in 2011, Clean Line has followed the federal rule book and looked to the Southwestern Power Administration to become involved in a public-private partnership.

Resistance to the project has been shown locally by the Arkansas Citizens Against Clean Line. The line would enter Arkansas from Oklahoma in Crawford County. The energy transmission project would run through Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Although the company has offered to pay market-rate value for land, the landowners feel it will lower their property value and decrease their standard of living. They also say it will spoil the natural beauty of the land.

The senators and congressmen state they recognize that, while new electric transmission infrastructure is necessary “despite costs and adverse impacts,” they are “not taking a position on whether the Project or any other should move forward under non-federal authorities.”

“Such decisions regarding electric transmissions are appropriately left to elected officials at the state and local level, where they have resided for generations,” the delegation states. “State and local officials can most effectively weigh the questions and concerns raised in this letter—and more importantly, concerns raised by our constituents — and determine whether such projects should be permitted.”

The lawmakers also shape their opposition to the project by calling it an “unprecedented partnership.”

“Throughout the history of electric transmission siting, transmission projects have been reviewed and approved at the state level,” a news release from the congressional delegation states.

In the letter to Moniz, the senators and congressmen outline their opposition to the use of Section 1222 in this context, seek answers to a number of related concerns and call on DOE to legally justify its potential actions.

“Again, we believe the Project does not meet the statutory requirements of Section 1222, and state-level reviews of many serious concerns are necessary,” the letter states. “Therefore, in our federal lawmaking and oversight role, we oppose the use of Section 1222 in this context and we urge you to disapprove it.”

Before asking a series of pointed oversight questions related to Section 1222, the letter urges the Department of Energy “to protect each state’s authority to review transmission projects.”

Specifically, the letter states, the authority is important because it allows states to consider and reduce the impact of a number of potential factors, including possibly harmful environmental impacts and disproportionate impacts on rural, poor and disadvantaged communities.

Reduced property values on lands adjacent to the project, and infringements upon private property rights are also listed in the 13 concerns. Others include negative impacts to energy exploration, development and production, including harmful impacts to existing energy infrastructure. The congressmen are also concerned about increased land fragmentation and degraded public safety.

Oklahoma’s tribal opposition and concerns, the letter adds, are the impact to migratory birds and threatened or endangered species. They also list the exclusion of many Arkansas and Oklahoma power customers from use of the proposed transmission line, the exclusion of Regional Transmission Organizations (i.e. the Southwest Power Pool and the Mid-Continent Independent System Operator) from “appropriate control of the transmission line.” And decreased productivity on farms, ranches and forests is also addressed. Finally, the question the adverse socioeconomic impacts associated with each of the issues addressed in this letter.

The letter to Moniz follows an introduction in mid-July by Arkansas congressmen of the Assuring Private Property Rights Over Vast Access to Land (APPROVAL) Act. It was submitted by all four of Arkansas’ U.S. representatives to follow up a bill submitted by both Arkansas’ U.S. senators in mid-February to rewrite Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act and give more leverage to states faced with new interstate power-line construction.

Regarding property rights, Clean Line President Michael Skelly said in July that he takes them “very seriously” and “values one-on-one conversations with landowners to answer questions and address concerns.”

“We will continue to work with state leadership and the people of Arkansas to follow the appropriate processes that ensure a fair hearing for all involved,” a Clean Line Energy Partners news release stated in July.