We are proud to introduce the ACCESS Bone & Joint Center, which enables Primary Veterinarians to offer the forefront of orthopedic care for their patients.
Located at ACCESS – Los Angeles, the Bone & Joint Center is led by Dr. Reunan Guillou, and Dr. Laurent Guiot. Together with their expertise, our cutting-edge resources, and the level of service and care for which ACCESS is known, the Bone & Joint Center is now the go-to specialty animal hospital on the West Coast for animal orthopedic treatment and care.
Services include advanced orthopedic procedures, total joint replacement for the hip, knee, and elbow, angular limb deformity correction, and minimally invasive reduction and internal fixation of a bone fracture with implantable devices, also known as osteosynthesis.
Introducing two orthopedic options for your patients. | Repair or Replace.
For 'repair,' we focus on minimally invasive orthopedic surgery – which includes advanced technologies such as intra-operative fluoroscopy – and which aims at restoring function while decreasing the morbidity associated with surgery. This translates into lower complication rates, improved recovery times and superior outcomes for both pets, and pet owners.
With regard to joint 'replacement', we're delighted to offer one of the very few comprehensive total joint replacement programs in the United States.
This includes replacement options for all sizes of dogs and cats. It's worth noting that while hip replacement is the most common procedure, we also provide advanced elbow, knee and ankle replacement.
To discover more, please do not hesitate to talk to your Primary Veterinarian, or to give us a call.


text:
Rafael Nadal off to a perfect start after six-month hiatus
In his first match in over six months, Rafael Nadal swept aside fellow Spaniard Pablo Carreno Busta yesterday morning (Singapore time) to reach the third round of the Italian Open.The nine-time Rome winner came through 6-1, 6-1 against 18th-ranked Carreno Busta, a recent semi-finalist at the US Open.
Nadal has not played since winning in Acapulco at the end of February, opting to skip the US hard-court tour because of coronavirus concerns.
The 34-year-old, a 12-time French Open winner, will next play Serb Dusan Lajovic for a place in the quarter-finals of the tune-up for Roland Garros.
The French Open is scheduled for Sept 21-Oct 11. - AFP
Quarantine woes at Australian Open
Covid-19 causing uncertainties ahead of Australian Open
Early exits for Muguruza, Pliskova at season-opening Abu Dhabi event
World No. 1 Ashleigh Barty to return to action after 11 months

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The official calendar schedule of the Minnesota Wild including ticket information, stats, rosters, and more. The most up-to-date breaking news for the Minnesota Wild including highlights, roster, schedule, scores and archives. Visit ESPN to view the Minnesota Wild team schedule for the current and previous seasons. Minnesota Wild Schedule - More NHL teams, Anaheim.
A quick look at what Wild prospects are up to this year. Wenatchee Wild Junior A Hockey Club. Wenatchee Wild Hockey Walla Walla Ave Wenatchee WA phone: PUCK () fax: (). We're upgrading our systems to improve the site. During this time, you may notice outdated statistical information. We apologize for any inconvenience. NHL; >.
Stream Wild games live on your mobile device with the FOX Sports app. Download the app and take FOX Sports North and Wild hockey with you wherever you.


text:
Q:  max value won't change anymore into other value after getting error validation form So, it worked fine, until it get error required validation in form. myMaxDuration won't change anymore in xhtml, but when I sysout it in console it changed.

If, the myMaxDuration I send into bean is 30, Ajax worked fine.
  But, if myMaxDuration when I send into bean is 10, ajax won't work.
already tried using ajax update in bean

<p:panelGrid columns="1" columnClasses="ui-grid-col-6" layout="grid" styleClass="ui-panelgrid-blank">

<p:outputLabel value="Name"/>
<p:inputText value="#{myBean.nEmp.name}" required="true"/>

<p:outputLabel value="Status" styleClass="labelSmall"/>
    <p:selectOneMenu required="true" value="#{myBean.nEmp.employmentStatusID}"
             <f:selectItem itemValue="10" itemLabel="10"/>
             <f:selectItem itemValue="20" itemLabel="20"/>
             <f:selectItem itemValue="30" itemLabel="30"/>
        <p:ajax listener="#{myBean.maxDuration()}" update=":form:durasiID"></p:ajax>
    </p:selectOneMenu>
</p:panelGrid>

<p:outputPanel>
     <p:panelGrid columns="1" columnClasses="ui-grid-col-3" layout="grid" styleClass="ui-panelgrid-blank" rendered="#{myBean.nEmp.employmentStatusID != 6}">
       <p:outputLabel value="Durasi" styleClass="labelSmall"/>

       <p:spinner min="1" max="#{myBean.myMaxDuration}" id="durasiID" value="{myBean.nEmp.monthDuration}"/>
     </p:panelGrid>
</p:outputPanel>

<p:commandButton value="save" action="#{myBean.saveNewDecreeEmployee()}" />

on my bean

    public void maxDuration() {

        if(nEmp.getEmploymentStatusID() == 10) {
            myMaxDuration = 10;
        }
        else if(nEmp.getEmploymentStatusID() == 20) {
            myMaxDuration = 20;
        }
        else {
            myMaxDuration = 30;
        }
        nEmp.setMonthDuration(myMaxDuration);
        System.out.println(myMaxDuration + " - maxDuration");
    }

the value of  in xhtml should be changed like in console, after someone get error form validation field name required.

A: So, I solved this problem by reference of @Kukeltje
Based on this, How can I populate a text field using PrimeFaces AJAX after validation errors occur?

I just add resetValues="true" into my <p:ajax>

and it's worked fine.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


*Best-In-Class (Non-Hybrid) Fuel Consumption Rating in the DesRosiers Subcompact SUV Segment.
**Bose® is a registered trademark of The Bose Corporation. Centerpoint® is a registered trademark of The Bose Corporation.
†Driving is serious business and requires your full attention. Only use feature when safe to do so. Compatible iPhone® required. If you have to use the connected device while driving, exercise extreme caution at all times so full attention may be given to vehicle operation. Text rates and/or data usage may apply. Services/features are provided by independent companies not within Nissan's control. Should service provider terminate/restrict service/feature, service/feature may be suspended or terminated without notice or liability to Nissan and/or its agents. Nissan not responsible for any equipment replacement or upgrades, or associated costs, that may be required for continued operation due to service/feature changes. Apple's terms and privacy statements apply. Apple CarPlayTM is a trademark of Apple, Inc. iPhone® is a registered trademark of Apple, Inc. All rights reserved. External device not included. Provincial and local laws, regulations or ordinances may apply based on the location of the vehicle.
††Cargo and load capacity limited by weight and distribution. Always secure all cargo.


Has Market Connections been acquired by Doxim?
Yes, MCI has been acquired by Doxim in February 2019. Please read more details about the acquisition in our press release.
Is Market Connections going to continue producing its Dental Health News® newsletters and other related marketing products?
Regretfully, no. As part of our post-merger integration, the development, sales, and production of the newsletters, postcards, greeting cards, calendars and digital products has been halted.
When will the last issues of each product line be published?
When is the last day to submit changes for the newsletters?
Please ensure all changes are submitted by May 1, 2019.
Can I still login and access my Invoices and Order History?
Yes, Online Customer Services will be up and running until May 31, 2019. How to Print Invoices.
Can I still download my Mailing List?
Yes, you will be able retrieve your mailing list data until May 31, 2019. How to export your Mailing List.


GAGE The Georgetown Alliance of Graduate Employees filed with the American Arbitration Association to hold an election on unionization for graduate student teachers and research assistants this fall.
The Georgetown Alliance of Graduate Employees announced its intention to file for an election with the American Arbitration Association on Oct. 8, beginning the process to hold a union election for graduate student teachers and research assistants this fall.
The election will ask eligible graduate students to vote by secret ballot on whether they wish to unionize. If the majority votes in favor of unionization, GAGE will be able to negotiate on behalf of all graduate student assistants.
This development comes after a two-year effort by GAGE for university recognition of a graduate teaching assistant labor union. GAGE reached an agreement with the university to hold an election April 2.
Deidre Nelms, a teaching associate and fourth year doctoral candidate in the department of philosophy, believes forming a union will give graduate students greater bargaining power.
Douglas McRae, a graduate worker and fifth year doctoral candidate in the department of history, said unionizing would have a positive influence on the quality of life for graduate workers across Georgetown's programs.
The Georgetown Solidarity Committee, an organization dedicated to workers' rights and social justice issues on campus, stands in solidarity with GAGE as they move towards an election.
Under the regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, graduate student teaching assistants are considered university employees. However, this is under an August 2016 ruling which could be challenged in the future. A third-party organization administering the election helps ensure the result in case the ruling is ever reversed. The election is set to be administered privately by the AAA, a neutral third-party organization, outside the scope of the NLRB, to ensure Georgetown University cannot legally challenge the election's outcome.
The university will stand by the decision of the graduate students, Provost Robert Groves and Executive Vice President for Health Sciences Edward Healton said.
"We will work together to ensure a free and fair election that encourages dialogue and gives eligible graduate student assistants the opportunity to decide if they would like to be represented by a union," Groves and Healton said in a joint statement released to the university.
If the election has an affirmative result, GAGE's next steps will be collective bargaining for and signing a contract intended to benefit graduate employees.
GAGE shared a priorities survey with its members for graduate workers to list what it would like to see in a new contract and what they think would improve their experiences working at Georgetown.
This article has been updated at 6:36 p.m. on Oct. 25 to reflect the National Labor Relations Board's classification of graduate student employees.


text:
Tanner Answers the Maple Leafs Mailbag – Again!
By James Tanner January 24th, 2015
I just can't help myself.
These mailbags are amazing. As you can imagine, I spend a fair amount of my time talking hockey with people on Twitter and in message boards and these guys still manage to blow my mind. It also gives me an opportunity to discuss a wider range of topics than I normally would.
I myself don't have the reach or influence of a Kevin McGran, so nobody asks me anything – and why would they? But I have all the answers, so I might as well share. So kick back while I hijack the mailbag of the Toronto Star in totally unoriginal fashion. Don't forget to check the original.
QUESTION: "As a long time supporter of the TML , I am fed up with the way they play. In the pre-season I watched this team play solid defence and explosive offence. Now I watch them with a not-care attitude. They are being paid to play a game that the majority of hockey-loving Canadians wish they had the talent to play and are paid well for it. In some regards I think too well. I know how the coaches must feel. They are in the pro's. Therefore they can tell the players what they want. But, they can't tie up skates and play the game. How do you motivate a guy to play well? I certainly don't have the answer. We as Canadians will always watch hockey. And most of us will grumble, but, those same grumblers will be there cheering next year with hope and admiration of the same Leafs. Anyhow your welcome to correct my grammar if you choose to share my thoughts. Sincerely Robert Valcourt.
ANSWER: If I'm honest, then this is just an insane rant disguised as a question about motivation. Rob, my friend, you need to put on some Bob Marley and cool out on a bean-bag chair. Other than that, I think you should realize that it's impossible for someone to accurately gauge the extent to which a player is trying or not trying from the comfort of their couch.
In some of the recent games, the team has looked demoralized and sluggish to me. But, and I can't stress this enough, that is probably because that is what I expect to see and so my brain picks out and remembers every single instance that could be interpreted as a player not trying or looking depressed – did I subconsciously choose to ignore plays that would contradict this train of thought? It's highly likely. You're probably doing the same thing too, since (and I only assume here) you are also a human. I am very confident saying the Leafs current slide has nothing to do with motivation.
(Kim Klement-USA TODAY Sports)
QUESTION: Mr.McGran:
There is no question the Leafs need to trade: Phaneuf, Kessel, JVR, Gardiner and Kadri if they are going to turn this team around for the future. But why is nobody in Toronto writing about the lack of depth, toughness and heart on this team? You bring up Orr and maybe another young banger and actually roll four lines….and you will see an immediate improvement. As Nick Kypreos said yesterday, the Leafs can't answer the bell and "push back" because they don't have anyone to do it with. It's a whole team of passengers. I have been watching this team for a very long time and this is the weakest, wimpiest most heartless team I have ever seen. Where is SHANAHAN? "We'll see what they are made of…..?" Where has he been for the last few months and did he not see what happened to them the last eight years, especially the last four as they collapsed over and over? Fire Nonis and Shanahan……….for going into the season with this team and expecting a different result when the core is the same. How is the new coach going into each game with the same lineup and STILL not ROLLING a FOURTH LINE of BANGERS and expecting to win?
Truly a professional disgrace. And for an entertainment industry…..just incredibly BORING HOCKEY……..people spend their hard earned money and their hard earned time to be Entertained and Represented by players with Pride and Heart……………….Kessel for Monahan and start the re-build….I think Toronto Sports writers are missing the bigger point: The Leafs are no longer representing their fans they are a disgrace and we want a re-build, we want trades, we want a coach that will try something different to win and sees a place for toughness.
-McCabe/Ottawa
ANSWER: So you want to trade Kadri, Gardiner, JVR, Kessel and Phaneuf, you think fighting and heart are the team's biggest problems and you think the Leafs should trade the NHL's most consistent scorer of the last five years for Sean Monohan? I honestly don't even have the heart to make fun of this. Well actually, it's more of a time thing – I could literally do 3000 words just on how dumb of a question this is. Mr. McCabe's on the Leafs is about as valid as my opinion on Psychics or Neurology.
QUESTION: I own some retail stores for the past 30 years or so.
Some gals that work for us are good at selling, some gals are good at folding and some don't mind taking out the trash And as long as I don't make the sales gals take out the trash and the other gals know their roles business has been good.
So why do the Leafs try to make Kessel and a few take out the trash – when sales are their thing? I always think you should work to people's strengths – and at our end sales are the toughest commodity to find? So we would never try to train as sales girl to fold or take out the trash…anyone can do that?
Thanks, Arch
ANSWER: Arch, I gotta be honest with you, you're coming across a bit sexist here. But if I can speak to your point, I must say I disagree. The entire problem with the Leafs has been that they've employed this exact philosophy for years. It's 2015: you can't call your employees "gals" and your fourth liners don't have to be grinders. Your first line has to play defense. Everyone has to be as complete a player as possible. The fact is, when you have two of the highest scoring wingers in the NHL, one of the highest scoring lines actually, and they are so defensively poor that they end up being a negative to your team, then you really have to try a different philosophy.
The exact problem for the Leafs has been that – to borrow your analogy – no one has forced Kessel to take out the trash.
(Steven Christy/OKC Barons)
QUESTION: Hi Kevin.
I read a fair bit about the Leafs having bad puck luck right now with a relatively low save percentage and very low shooting percentage. I have also read that, on the issue of shooting, total shots and total scoring chances are up. So a couple of questions about this:
1. Are the Leafs simply not good at scoring on shots that other teams are because they haven't focused on getting those shots for a long time? Are the Leafs forwards simply trained to score on a different shot selection? If so, do you think players like Kessel, who is an amazing scorer, can simply adjust? I guess that's like asking whether Kessel really is like a Patrick Kane or whether he can really only be a great rush scorer.
2. Are the Leafs goalies simply not great when not getting a lot of shots? I have read some analyses that suggest that with an increase in shots, goalies tend to put up a higher save percentage. Are the Leaf goalies simply not that great when the shot total is lower, maybe because the action isn't high enough to keep them sharp through the game? If so, do we have the wrong goalies for the type of game the leafs want to play?
Thanks, Brandon
ANSWER: Yes, the Leafs offensive ineptitude since Horachek took over has been something to behold, and yes it is almost entirely based on luck. To say the Leafs are getting different scoring chances or less rush chances since he took over is absurd. It really is. Over time, all scoring chances equal out and around 9% of all shots will end up in the net.
The Leafs are not "trained to score" differently from other teams. The amount of shots has nothing to do with the quality of game a goalie has. More shots equals more puck possession time equals more goals.
It is really just an unfortunate coincidence that the Leafs went cold at the same time that Horachek took over. Horachek's style will prove to eventually allow just as much scoring as Carlyle's. Kessel will still get roughly the same amount of rushes and shot quality will be equal. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
People wanted Horachek to magically turn the season around but seem lost to the reality that without a second centre behind Kadri and a defenseman who is a clear-cut number one, the team will always be un-competitive.
(bridgetds, Flickr)
QUESTION: Kevin, what is up with these Leafs? Who are you going to blame this time? You got rid of the coach to appease a couple of players who didn't like to work that hard, while I watched the beginning of the season I said this team is playing like it is play offs, they will be burnt out by Christmas, and guess what they are, or were?
My opinion is this: This team doesn't have to do anything but show up and they all know it, the fans will be there no matter how they play, so my opinion is that it is the fans fault that this Toronto team plays the way they do.
The fact is, this team charges the most for tickets to watch these players.
Regardless of how this team plays, the only one thing that they can count on is the fans to show up to watch their disgraceful attempt at a hockey game
You people have blamed everyone for this teams losing attitude, but my opinion is it belongs to the fans and to the fans alone.
When these stupid fans stop going to the games to watch their display or attempt at just showing up then and only then will this franchise wake up?
The players will know that they have to produce or they may be out of a job, they may not have a team to play for and their pay checks will be in jeopardy, and it will put a lot of people like yourself out of a job.
The province of Ontario is in a spiral down turn, and yet somebody has the money to pay for these tickets, whether it be companies or not. The money that these companies use to buy these over priced tickets could be put to better use for the people that they employ, like a pay raise etc., and i am sure that these under paid employees will not be using their pay check to buy over priced Leaf tickets.
Can you belief this that the Leaf's have had their fans charged with public mischief for showing any sort of disgust at their play. The fans who have paid their pay checks and the team is turning on these stupid people who show up to watch these pathetic players who only can say (Kessel) in a tired tone of voice, we are trying, are you kidding me with the amount you are being paid and you got the nerve to even show your face on national TV to make a fibula attempt at an excuse as to why you can't score a goal, perhaps you should make a better attempt while your on the ice
This team has not won anything since 1966. Do you realize how many years ago that is?????, and yet they still have a franchise!!!!!,
When Ballard was there you said he was cheap and refused to pay for the better players, this team has had its share of good players, good goalies, and good coaches, all have been blamed for the teams poor performance,
I say it is the fans fault, when they stop going to the games and supporting this pathetic franchise, only then will the players and the owners wake up to the pathetic state of this organization.
Recently the coach was fired, why was that, because he could not get the players to perform, and why was that, because the players didn't have to, they knew the fans would support them anyway they played all they have to do is show up, so i say if the fans stop showing up then the team may get a wake up call
Bring in another team into Toronto and lets see how many fans show up at the Leafs game, I bet money on the fact that the arena will be pretty much empty, all except for the boxes that companies buy and give the tickets away, because the people don't want to watch this poor excuse for a national hockey team
So my question or comment is who will you be blaming next the only people left are the fans, who pay money to watch this?
Thank you for reading this but my family are strong supporters of this team and I think it is pathetic that this organization has not produced a cup in the last 40 years, and not only that, they haven't even come close it is the team, as a whole that is to blame, their attitude towards the fans, that they don't have to win, the seats will be full anyway they play, therefore their pay checks will be secure, hit them in the pocket book, maybe then their attitude will change
IF THE AIR CANADA STADIUM WAS EMPTY WOULD THE TEAM GET THE DRIFT THAT THEIR PERFORMANCE WAS UNACCEPTABLE OR BRING IN ANOTHER TEAM AND SEE IF THE LEAF'S GET THE SAME SUPPORT FROM THESE STUPID FANS SUPPORT,
I PERSONALLY CHEER FOR MONTREAL OR OTTAWA BEFORE I WOULD WASTE MY TIME CHEERING FOR THESE LOSERS
ANSWER: I now want to write Kevin and ask why he'd print such drivel. Next to this, McCabe looks like Scotty Bowman. I guess anyone who'd learn from what other people have to say already knows this, but the Leafs spend a ton of money, they have brought in many, many different kinds of executives, but from Fletcher to Burke to Shanahan no one would have done a thing differently regardless of how much money the franchise makes.
In fact, a better argument could be made attempting to appease fans like Elizabeth and McCabe has been much more detrimental to the Leafs success over the last few decades than the fact the building always sells out.
(John E. Sokolowski-USA TODAY Sports)
QUESTION: Hi Kevin,
Was watching one of the games this week (believe it was TSN) and one of the reporters said something along the lines (please don't quote me 100%) if the Leafs fall out of the playoff race by more than eight points at this time of the year, the per cent chances of making the playoffs falls to single digits. The Leafs as of Monday January 19th are 7 points back. Let's assume more or less by this Friday it remains 7 points give or take. Basically to me, this sounds like the season is pretty much done. No more playoffs, yet again. If you are the GM, what do you do leading up to the trade deadline? For me, I try and get rid of some of the big contracts and hope the team finishes in the top 5 draft pick for next year. Hold on to a few names like Reilly, van Riemsdyk and perhaps a few others. I know trades are a lot harder these days with the cap system, but surely something can be done no? This main core group has to go in my opinion.
Regards, Justin
ANSWER: The answer of what to do is simple: You for-sure keep Kadri, Kessel, Rielly, Nylander and Bernier. You consider – if the price is right and you can add a young-high ceiling player – trading JVR, Phaneuf or Franson.
You then make it your #1 priority to fix the cap problems and get assets for: Winnik, Santrorelli, Polak, Komarov, Bozak, Lupul, Robidas, Clarkson, Booth, Reimer and Holzer.
This is not to say that those players – especially Komarov – aren't valuable, but that since winning is not a significant priority at this time, you must ditch your role players if they have value then do your best to turn the picks and prospects into blue-chip pieces going forward.
Nazem Kadri
Phil Kessel


text:
Good Transmission Makes Good Neighbors The Case for Easing Permitting Processes to Encourage Cross-Border Power Infrastructure Between Mexico and the United States
Note - by Elizabeth Furlow Volume 96 - Issue 6
Barriers to cross-border transmission on the United States–Mexico border, including labyrinthine permitting processes, have long impeded the development of valuable border-region power infrastructure. The historical origins of the electric power regulatory system offer some guidance for why the presidential permitting system exists in its present, tangled form. Recently, legislators have renewed efforts to amend cross-border infrastructure approval. Though these attempts have failed, a new set of legislative proposals has been making its way through the chambers and has a high chance of achieving success. This Note discusses these topics and closes by advocating for Congress to ease cross-border infrastructure permitting processes to benefit the economies and peoples on both sides of the United States–Mexico border.
Nearly half-an-hour into the third presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump accused Clinton of wanting "open borders" with Mexico. When a moderator asked Clinton to clarify her position, Clinton, perhaps deflecting, insisted that what she referred to was not immigration, but energy: "We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that will be of great benefit to us."[1] Lately, this sentiment has gained traction—not just on the political stage, but in executive orders; proposed bills to Congress; and agreements between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. There is good reason for a change. Currently, cumbersome permitting processes stymie the growth of power infrastructure along the United States–Mexico border.
Easing the permitting process would lead to great benefits for both the United States and its southern neighbor. Indeed, the change would lead to the growth of power infrastructure, economic development in the border regions, electric grid security and stability, cheaper electricity prices, and economically efficient generation and capacity along the United States–Mexico border.[2] As such, this Note advocates that Congress ease permitting processes in order to encourage economic flourishing and improved relations with Mexico.
On the northern border of the United States, a history of grid interconnections between Canada and the United States has already developed into a robust, fully integrated system that provides grid reliability, security, and cost-saving benefits. Though the United States is a net importer of Canadian-generated electricity, the power flows both ways—providing for stability in times of emergency but also efficiency in day-to-day operations—a policy that has benefited both countries and served as a model of cooperation worldwide.[3]
The border between Mexico and the United States stands in stark contrast to the border between Canada and the United States. Transmission between the border states of Mexico and the United States is nearly nonexistent, and the great majority of the connections that do exist operate via low-voltage ties.[4] This disparity continues despite the enormous opportunity for development.
In 2013, revolutionary changes to Mexico's constitution opened Mexico's wholesale electricity market to greater private and foreign investment.[5] In the same wave of legislation, the Mexican government set a goal of generating 35% of its power from clean energy sources by 2024, and 50% by 2050.[6] Meanwhile, across the border, Texas's "wind boom" increased clean, wind-generated energy capacity from just over 4,000 MW to more than 21,000 MW in 2017[7]—and Texas rivaled Spain for the title of sixth-largest wind-power generator in the world.[8] This technological progress was not perfect, however, as supply occasionally outpaced demand, which caused electricity prices to go negative.[9] The confluence of developments on the United States–Mexico border has allowed the opportunity for interconnection to ripen on the vine. Nevertheless, cumbersome permitting processes have stymied potential growth.
This Note advocates for easing permitting processes to encourage growth and investment in infrastructure, grid security and stability, and economically efficient generation and capacity along the United States–Mexico border. Part I will begin by presenting the history of U.S. cross-border electricity trade, the development of cross-border transmission and facility permitting—including its origins in hydroelectric power regulation—and the blurred boundaries between congressional and executive powers that have been a part of this permitting process since its inception. Part II will discuss the present state of the permitting process, developments in the electricity markets in Mexico and the United States that make border interconnection both more viable and more attractive, and existing proposals and efforts to ease permitting in the region. Finally, in Part III, this Note will apply the analysis of congressional and executive powers in Part I to propose how Congress can reform permitting processes to effectively encourage cross-border interconnection on the southern border.
I. The History of Cross-Border Electric Transmission Facility Regulation
Two matters are of interest when analyzing the subject of cross-border presidential permitting in the power sector: (1) the origins of this regulation in hydroelectric power statutes, and (2) the blurred lines between congressional and executive power for promulgating and enforcing presidential permits.
A. Origins of Electricity Regulation in Hydroelectric Power
The first electricity regulations originated in the growth of hydroelectric power: from the prohibition against using navigable waters of the United States for hydroelectric dams without a license, electric power became formally regulated by the federal government in 1920, when Congress passed the Federal Water Power Act (FWPA).[10] The FWPA—to be administered by the Secretaries of War, Agriculture, and the Interior—created the Federal Power Commission (FPC), and gave it authority to permit the generation of hydroelectric power.[11] The birth of the FPC did not presage a future of efficient permitting; with the new regulations, the FPC received more applications than it could address and left many of the permits undecided.[12] But what is of greatest interest in these origins is the emphasis on the power-generating source. Before the advent of modern travel—the shipment of goods and the transportation of people via cars, trucks, and planes—maintaining the navigability of waterways was a key component in a well-functioning society and economy. Regulatory bodies had to account for competing claims to maximize the efficient, shared use of waterways.
As such, it makes sense that the origins of the power-market regulation originated in dam permitting.[13] But it is arguable that this origin influenced the development of a blanket cross-border regulation that failed to consider the effects of a similar permitting process on the southern border.
The New Deal Era Congress passed sweeping legislation in 1935 under the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA), which in part amended the FWPA.[14] One of the focuses of Part II of PUHCA, also known as the Federal Power Act (FPA), was to fill regulatory "gaps" associated with interstate wholesale electricity.[15] Perhaps influenced by the spirit of the times, legislators writing the FPA also chose to fill regulatory gaps that had not been disputed—and for the first time, the FPC was authorized to demand and enforce a cross-border transmission facility permitting process.[16]
These regulations were practical enough. They required that electric energy should not be transmitted to a foreign country without an order from the FPC. The regulations also stated that the FPC would grant such an order to an applicant as long as it did not find that "the proposed transmission would impair the sufficiency of electric supply within the United States or would impede or tend to impede the coordination in the public interest of facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the [Federal Power] Commission."[17] This legislation, part of an act that amended the FWPA, surely contemplated transmission on the Canada–United States border, and not the effects such a permitting system would have in the South. Notably, these restrictions, passed by a Congress not known for its regulatory laxity, were less stringent than today's—indeed, they were essentially permissive. Now, obtaining cross-border transmission facility permits can take several years and cost millions of dollars.[18]
B. Constitutional Issues Between Executive and Legislative Branch Authority
In 1953, acknowledging the FPA's grant of authority to the FPC to authorize transmission from the United States to a foreign country, President Eisenhower issued an executive order that delegated his own authority to grant permits for electric transmission facilities to the Secretary of Energy.[19] As such, Congress had delegated its authority to the President, who had in turn delegated that authority to an agency that Congress has created.
The executive order stated that the Secretary of Energy could issue a presidential permit upon finding that the permit was "consistent with the public interest" and had "obtain[ed] the favorable recommendations of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense thereon . . . ."[20] If the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense could not come to an agreement, the permit would then be submitted to the President for a decision.[21] This authority was later delegated to the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977, but its requirements remained essentially the same.[22]
II. The Permitting Process Today
A. Requirements of the Permitting Process
Today, applicants who wish to construct and operate cross-border electric transmission facilities must comply with a protracted and elaborate permitting process. First, applicants must apply to the Secretary of Energy for: (1) a presidential permit to construct, connect, operate, and maintain cross-border electric transmission,[23] as well as (2) an authorization to export electricity.[24] Additionally, an application for a permit to construct, connect, operate, and maintain electric transmission lines requires evidence supporting "two primary criteria" for proving that the project is "consistent with the public interest": (1) the impact the project would have on the operating reliability of the United States' electric power supply, and (2) the environmental consequences of proposed projects under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), which requires an environmental assessment.[25] At this point, if the DOE determines that the proposal would be a "major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment," then, after an environmental assessment has been completed, an environmental impact statement is required.[26] The environmental impact statement in turn requires a minimum forty-five-day public comment period.[27] The DOE will then issue a "record of decision."[28] This extensive process often takes years.[29] If all of these steps proceed without a hitch, the DOE must then obtain concurrence from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before issuing the permit.[30] This first step of the process, at least according to the DOE's website, can take anywhere from six to eighteen months.[31] But there are still more requirements.
For an export authorization to export electric energy from the United States to foreign countries, applicants must send their materials to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, an office of the DOE, and submit evidence that, first, the proposed export will not impair the sufficiency of the electric power supply within the United States and, second, that the proposed export will not cause operating parameters on regional transmission systems to fall outside of established industry criteria.[32] There must also be NEPA compliance for this export authorization, since approval of a presidential permit constitutes a "major Federal action."[33] This process, according to the DOE's website, takes "usually 3 to 6 months."[34] There are still further filing requirements for electricity exporters, including self-certifications and annual reports. The FPA also explicitly provides for state regulation of cross-border transmission so long as the state regulation does not conflict with the FPC's regulatory powers.[35]
Because the permitting process is cumbersome, many companies find it easier to simply take over older generation and transmission facilities that have already maneuvered the presidential permitting process. For example, Blackstone LP recently received a presidential permit to export all of its electricity across the border from its generation facility in Mission, Texas to Mexico.[36] Commentators noted that Blackstone likely received the permit because the preexisting Frontera facility that Blackstone bought had already received a presidential permit. But even in situations like these, a change in ownership necessitates a new presidential permit.[37] For voluntary transfers, the permittee and the entity who wishes to take over the permit and the facility must file a joint application to the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) that includes their reasons for requesting the transfer.[38] The law also prohibits that any "substantial change" be made to the permitted facility unless ERA has granted its approval.[39]
Even small modifications made to facilities require new or amended permits.[40] A good example of what amounts to insignificant, yet for all intents and purposes, "substantial changes" under these regulations is the case of Fraser Papers, Inc. The company owned a pulp facility in Madawasaka, Maine, and a paper-making facility in Canada. In 1945, the then-titled Fraser Paper received a presidential permit to construct two transmission lines that would connect the pulp and paper-making facilities. These lines consisted of a 6.6-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 30.6-kV line.
In 1999, when Fraser Papers wished to increase the voltage of the 39.6-kV line to a 69-kV line "without making any physical changes to the transmission line itself," it was required to seek permission for a permit. Several years later, the company again requested permission to increase the voltage on the 69-kV transmission line to 138-kV. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense then concurred in the amendment of each of these permit applications, noting that the "subject facility does not constitute a major transmission interconnection . . . . Therefore, the DOE has determined that amending Fraser's existing presidential permit . . . would not impair the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system."[41]
The problem with these requirements is that aside from burdening operating businesses, they can also hamper investment in clean power development at a time when renewables are revolutionizing the industry. For example, the California company Sempra Energy built a wind farm on the high peaks of the Sierra Juárez mountain range of Mexico—what has been considered to be one of the last great undeveloped wind sites in the West—to transmit electricity across the international border to power the city of San Diego.[42] California had recently scaled up its renewable energy goals, and the site posed a solution to the increased demand for clean energy. Profits from the Mexican wind farm would also provide an economic boost to the small Mexican community that leased the land to wind developers. Indeed, because the wind farm was positioned on communally owned land, locals were set to receive $2,000 a month in profits—a substantial sum for residents whose primary income came from farming or other agrarian means.[43]
In 2007, the Energía Sierra Juárez wind farm applied for a presidential permit to construct an electric transmission line across the United States–Mexico border.[44] The line was short. Only 0.65 miles of the transmission line would be planted on U.S. soil before extending into Mexico, where the line would connect after one mile to an interconnection point.[45] The interconnection point would be connected via another mile of transmission line to the wind farm. In total, the transmission would extend 2.7 miles—only 0.65 miles on the U.S. side—but the NEPA review took five years to complete. Worse, there were three phases of the wind project. This was only Phase I.[46] Each phase required its own individual NEPA review and impact authorizations.[47]
The wind farm did not begin to produce and transmit power until 2015, and soon after, it faced litigation from environmental groups.[48] A federal district court ruled that the DOE violated NEPA by not considering in the Final Environmental Impact Statement the environmental effects that the transmission facilities would have on the Mexican side of the border,[49] despite the fact that the Mexican national environmental agency, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recuroses Naturales (SEMARNAT), had already approved the project.[50] At this point, Energía Sierra Juárez had already made a twenty-year, $820-million power purchase agreement with distributor San Diego Gas & Electric.[51] Now, there is a fifty–fifty chance that the district judge will close the 1,200 MW project down until the environmental assessment has been conducted.[52]
Additionally, there are many authorizations and presidential permits for cross-border transmission facilities that are hanging in bureaucratic limbo: in April 2017, four applications were pending export authorizations (including one from 2004), and seven applications were pending presidential permit approvals (including one from 2010 and several from 2013).
Examining the DOE's list of Pending Presidential Permit Applications and list of Pending Export Authorization Applications also reveals that the time spans of six to eighteen months are more optimistic than a reflection of reality.
These regulations stifle the efficient functioning of business and deny facilities the flexibility to quickly adapt to an electric power market with rapidly changing technology that has in recent years moved towards incorporating clean energy.
Even the DOE, in its Quadrennial Report, acknowledged that the planning and permitting aspects of cross-border transmission are "uniquely challenging" and that these challenges stem, in part, from "permitting-related delays."[53] Because, of course, not only do facilities have to comply with byzantine federal regulations, they must also navigate the permitting processes of "provincial, local, and tribal governments."[54]
Speaking before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Jim Burpee, President and Chief Executive Officer of Canadian Electric Association, testified about the permitting delays associated with requesting permission for border-crossing transmission facilities on the Canada–United States border.
We wait for presidential permit for an average of 2–1/2 or more years. We have a similar example of basically an ownership change . . . that took 2–1/2 years to get a new presidential permit for a 7–1/2 mile section of transmission line underwater that crosses U.S. territory waters going from south of Vancouver to Vancouver Island. And the Canadian equivalent was 7 months, 3 page[] application on the Canadian side, 62 pages on the American side.[55]
By laying down a blanket permitting process—and then, through later regulation, assuring that it was effectively labyrinthine—overly complicated permitting processes have raised significant barriers to entry where development has not yet justified the cost of transmission. As a result, the southern border area has entered into an endless cycle of stunted development due to a lack of grid reliability and transmission capacity; in turn, only a few companies are willing (or insensible enough) to take the risk of development.
III. Mexico: Past and Present
On the United States–Mexico border, there are only five electric transmission interconnections and eight interconnections used only for emergencies.[56] On the border between Canada and the United States, over thirty-five transmission connections cross international lines.[57]
There are several reasons why the power market did not develop on the United States–Mexico border as well as it did on the border between the United States and Canada. The first is a matter of population density and energy resources. In Canada, 75% of the population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border,[58] and Canada has had access to vast hydropower resources.
By contrast, Mexico's population consolidated around Mexico City, and there was less need to develop the border region for many years. Additionally, though Mexico had access to coal and natural gas resources to generate power, energy sources in Mexico's northern border region such as solar power, an attractive option today, have only recently become economically viable.
Finally, there were governmental differences between Mexico and Canada that made the power market in Mexico less attractive for U.S. generators across the border. In Mexico, the power sector was born through private, and often foreign, investment.[59] In 1922, the government created the Comisión Nacional de Fuerza Motril (CNFM) to regulate the power industry, and in 1937 created the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) to ensure that rural areas unattractive to private investors would nonetheless have electricity.[60]
In 1960, after years of slowly consolidating the power market under the CFE, the government officially nationalized the entire industry.[61] This state of affairs remained the status quo until a half-century later, when in 2013 President Enrique Peña Nieto pushed an overhaul of the energy markets in Mexico, citing stunted development, high energy prices, unmet demand, and a potential for growth through privatization.[62]
For the electric power market, this development led to a number of changes. First, CFE, which owned 60% of generation capacity and has had a monopoly on transmission and distribution, vertically and horizontally unbundled.[63] System operation, which had for many years been the purview of CFE, was given to the Centro Nacional de Control de Energía (CENACE).[64] Independent Power Producers (IPPs), which operated even before the reform, no longer have to sell all of their power to CFE, and may now sell electricity via long-term contracts on an auction system.[65] The reform has also created short-term wholesale electricity markets to be calculated hourly for each node of the grid, and this locational marginal pricing will ideally mean that the lowest cost power is purchased for the grid.[66]
This means that if there is excess electricity generated in the United States' border states, they could get a good price for it on Mexico's market—particularly since peak demand times often differ on the two sides of the border. For example, a study found that peak demand times in Arizona and Sonora differed, in part because of distinct cultural traditions.[67] In Arizona, the peak demand occurs between 4 and 6 p.m., while Sonora has two peak demand times: 2–4 p.m. and 7–9 p.m.[68] Estimates of interconnection for one project predicted that, given these demands, Sonora would be transmitting power to Arizona 30% of the time, and Arizona would be transporting power to Sonora 70% of the time.[69]
Other studies have shown that, given these circumstances, there is great potential for cost-saving efficiencies if the two sides of the border are interconnected, in part because of the difference in peak demands. California already has multiple interconnections with Mexico. One study estimated that an 800 MW interconnection between Baja California and California could save $100 million yearly by reducing marginal costs through trading electricity.[70] Other states are also seeing the potential for energy exportation. Arizona has begun to develop solar projects in the sun-drenched stretches of the Sonoran Desert, right across from Sonora, Mexico, where there is already an insufficient supply for peak demand in the summers, and population and economic growth are expected to increase demand in the region.[71]
As such, there now exists an opportunity for growth that has not been available in nearly a century. Mexico currently has a higher priced market—which means that there is an opportunity for U.S. exporters to send electricity across the border, a development that would both benefit Mexico's economy while lowering costs for energy consumers across the border.[72] Indeed, Blackstone Group LP cited the price differential of consumer power in Mexico compared to Texas as its reason for applying to export electricity across the border.[73] In 2016, the wholesale price of electricity in Mexico was between $48/MWh and $60/MWh, while in the Texas grid, managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the wholesale prices averaged $22/MWh.[74] Though ERCOT has been historically reluctant to interconnect with other systems since it seeks to avoid FERC regulation, ERCOT's interconnection with Mexico would not subject it to FERC regulation since cross-border electric trade is not interstate commerce falling under the jurisdiction of the FPA.
Additionally, there are a great number of benefits that both the United States and Mexico could receive by increasing cross-border electrical infrastructure, including greater reliability of the grid; reduced capital, operations, and generation capacity costs; and the opportunity to meet clean energy standards.
Not only have the benefits of cross-border interconnection been demonstrated on the Canada–United States border, but the trend is also catching on worldwide. Examples of other existing and planned international cross-border interconnection projects include the Bangladesh–India Electrical Grid Interconnection, the Sweden–Finland interconnection, and most recently, a France–Spain underground interconnection, which according to its developers, will "lead[] to greater security and stability in the two systems," which will work to "improve the quality of power supply . . . and allow the integration of a greater volume of renewable energy into the grid, especially wind energy."[75]
However, growth and development of cross-border transmission in the United States and Mexico are greatly impeded by the permitting process on the U.S. side of the border. Several case studies indicate the extent of these problems. The Bi-National Electricity Transmission Task Force published a white paper that included a case study indicating its frustration with the extensive permitting process. The paper stated that in 2000, Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) wanted to make a 345-kV interconnection between Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora.[76] Then the permitting process began.
First, TEP had to get a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility from the Arizona Corporation Commission to approve the transmission route. This took a year. Then, TEP had to file for an Environmental Impact Statement to receive a presidential permit from the DOE. This took four and a half years because the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and several other agencies had to change the route. At the end of the process, the Environmental Impact Study was a whopping 353 pages in length.[77] TEP spent $9 million alone on the permitting process, and the project was never completed.[78]
Though U.S. procedures have made it burdensome to get permission to export electricity, Canada made a net revenue of $2.8 billion Canadian dollars in 2015 from exporting 68.4 terawatt-hours (TWh) of excess electricity to the United States.[79] The United States, in return, only exported 8.7 TWh to Canada.[80] Acknowledging these economic benefits then begs the question of what can be done to improve these processes.
IV. The Architecture of Abundance
A. Jurisdictional Uncertainty
Commentators who have examined the authority of the executive branch to regulate cross-border electric transmission have done so in part through statutory analysis comparing Executive Order 10,485, which governs electric power and natural gas facilities and takes its authority from both the FPA and the Natural Gas Act of 1977, to Executive Order 11,423 and Executive Order 13,337, which govern petroleum pipeline facilities, but do so without referencing any constitutional authority.[81] Between these orders, there is a disparity in the origins of power that enables the President to control the permitting process. Since presidential power is derived from the Constitution itself or is granted by Congress through legislation, it is worth noting the difference between these orders as it may provide insight into the reasoning—or lack thereof—behind this presidential authority, and the opportunity to change the permitting process.
Under the Constitution, Congress is granted the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."[82] With this plenary power, Congress has three options: (1) to use this power; (2) to delegate this power; or (3) to abstain from the use of this power altogether.[83] Several courts, asked to determine the legitimacy of the President's authority to issue presidential permits in cross-border facilities, have decided in favor of the President's authority, based upon his constitutional authority over foreign affairs[84] or by Congress's failure to claim exclusive authority over the permitting process.[85]
What the opinions indicate, however, is that should Congress choose to take action, it will have the power to change how permission is granted for cross-border facilities,[86] particularly since such an action is more accurately described as "foreign commerce" than "foreign affairs." Such a solution would be helpful, in part because one problem with regulations derived executive orders is that the orders can easily be reversed or modified from one Presidency to the next. Legislation passed through Congress, however, means that it is more likely to be permanent—a situation which would lead to greater certainty for developers.
There are consequences to Congress not creating legislation that would fill this gap—that is, that executive orders have largely shaped the law. This has led to even more uncertainty. For example, in the Energía Sierra Juárez case previously mentioned, the Southern California District Court was tasked with determining whether or not, as the Plaintiffs asserted: (1) The DOE had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not conducting a proper NEPA environmental review; and (2) whether the APA was at all applicable to the presidential permit process since, as the defendants asserted, "the Complaint . . . challenged presidential action undertaken by the agency pursuant to an express delegation of executive authority, which is not 'final agency action' subject to APA review."[87] Defendants had support for their contention, since other district courts had held "issuance of a permit by a federal agency pursuant to an executive order is presidential action, not agency action, and therefore not subject to judicial review under the APA."[88] Nonetheless, the Court was not convinced of the defendants' arguments, and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
In Detroit International Bridge Co. v. Government of Canada,[89] a subsequent case relating to cross-border bridges that have a similar presidential permitting process, the Washington D.C. District Court held that contrary to the rationale in Protect Our Communities, presidential authority delegated to an agency was still presidential—and thus not subject to review under the APA. Addressing the policy implication that agencies could avoid judicial review by hiding behind presidential authority, the court in Detroit International Bridge replied, "Congress is fully capable of preventing such a result."[90]
This jurisdictional issue—and the power to grant presidential permits—was largely ignored. Recently, however, the presidential permitting process has been questioned in the above cases and also in congressional hearings. More attention has been brought to the issue because of developments in clean technology, such as wind and solar power, which have led to an increased interest in siting along the border of the United States and Mexico. But what drew the most attention to the issue was the Keystone XL Pipeline case—a controversy that dragged the topic of presidential permitting onto the national stage.[91]
B. Congressional Attention
The presidential permitting process was largely ignored until, in 2015, the Department of State, the agency that issues presidential permits for petroleum pipelines, and the equivalent of the DOE for electric transmission lines, denied a presidential permit for TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline after concluding that the project was not in the national interest.[92] Several bills passed through Congress attempting to amend the presidential permitting process, including Senate Bill 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act, which passed through Congress but was vetoed by President Obama the same day it was sent to his office.[93] Another bill also passed through Congress, but this one had a broader aim—not just to ease the permitting process on one project, but to eliminate the presidential permitting process altogether.
During the 113th Congress, Representatives Fred Upton, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Republican Gene Green of Texas presented a bill that the two had coauthored:[94] the North American Energy Infrastructure Act (NAEIA). The representatives presented the bill with a strikingly bipartisan group of cosponsors: twelve Republicans and eight Democrats. The majority of the cosponsors from border states hailed not from the Canada–United States border but from the Mexico–United States border, indicating that it is, indeed, the southern border that suffers the most from the permitting processes since, in part, they continue a cycle of growth stagnation (where there is no infrastructure, there is no development; where there is no development, there is no need for infrastructure).
Upton, in his opening statement in the hearing before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, characterized the bill as an effort "to construct the architecture of abundance to realize [the] Nation's newfound energy potential."[95] The Bill was sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who recommended that the Bill pass with an amendment.[96] The primary purpose of the Act was to "establish a more uniform, transparent, and modern process" for developing energy infrastructure—including the transport of oil and natural gas and the transmission of electricity—on the Canada and Mexico borders "in the pursuit of a more secure and efficient North American energy market."[97]
NAEIA proposed that presidential permits for border-crossing facilities be eliminated entirely and replaced with "crossing certificates." These crossing certificates would differ from the presidential permits in several ways. First, they would be issued by the Secretary of State for oil pipelines and the Secretary of Energy for electric transmission facilities, and would not require the complete concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Defense.[98]
The bill also removed any requirements for public notice or comment.[99] Significantly, the permitting process would have a time cap; agencies would be required to issue the certificates within 120 days of the findings of the NEPA review.[100] Moreover, granting a permit to a cross-border facility would no longer be considered a "major Federal action" that automatically triggered NEPA review.[101]
And in this bill too, there was a subtle linguistic shift relating to the emphasis on the "public interest": past legislation had required the applicant seeking a permit to prove that the project was either in the public interest or consistent with the public interest. In this new legislation, the default position was toward granting the certificate, rather than denying it, unless the facility "[wa]s not in the public interest."[102] This is a subtle, but significant change. Instead of laying a positive burden on the applicants, they were free to operate as they wished so long as the crossing did not hurt the public interest.[103]
The bill also nixed electric transmission facilities' requirement to get FERC authorization for the crossing.[104]
The bill drew the greatest opposition from those who feared, like Representative Henry A. Waxman from California, that the bill would be a "rubber stamp" to tar sands projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline and would increase the risk of projects that adversely affected climate change policies.[105]
The bill passed in the House on June 24, 2014.[106] It moved on to the Senate, where it was introduced by Senators Joe Donnelly, a Democrat from Indiana, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, and Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.[107] The bill had already passed the House with bipartisan support and had even been recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.[108] The bill was read twice in the Senate on September 16, 2014, and then referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.[109] It did not make it through the 113th session but had a second life in the 114th.
The bill was introduced in the 114th congressional session as Senate Bill 1228[110] and recommended for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to be heard five days later on May 14, 2015.[111] Unfortunately, this Committee had no Senate representation from any of the southern border states besides Arizona,[112] which has no existing electric transmission links to Mexico.[113] California and Texas, those states most keen on cross-border transmission facilities, had no representatives on the Committee at all. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing—which was set to address energy infrastructure as a whole—hardly touched on the issue. In a 287-page document recording the proceedings, the word "border" was mentioned only four times, "Mexico" not once.
Parts of the original NAEIA resurfaced in other iterations, including the North American Infrastructure and Security Act of 2016—a monstrously large omnibus bill that passed in the Senate 85–12 on April 20, 2016, and in the House 241–178 on May 25, 2016.[114] Luckily, it died at the close of the session as the two versions of the bill were being reconciled.[115]
What began as beautiful legislation intended to ease permitting processes and minimize regulations lost its teeth and became incorporated into a bill that proposed far more red tape than it sought to cut through. The spirit of the original bill—eliminating presidential permits altogether, streamlining permitting processes, and fostering neighborliness that provided benefits on both sides of the border—was destroyed.
In the 115th Session, the bill lives again—and this time, it may prosper. Indeed, H.R. 2883, "Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act," an act identical to H.R. 3301, passed 254–175 in the House on July 19, 2017.[116]
There is also reason to believe that this time, when the newest version of the NAEIA passes in the House, it will be approved by the Senate. In 2013, when NAEIA first made its way through Congress, there was a split between the House, which was Republican, and the Senate, which was Democrat.[117] Since the bill was largely bipartisan, this should not have been of much significance, but the bill was associated with the Keystone XL pipeline and all of its political baggage. Now that the Trump Administration has approved the Keystone XL by issuing TransCanada a permit on March 23, 2017,[118] the bipartisan support that NAEIA had will likely be even stronger, since it is less likely to be lumped in with the Keystone controversy.
Additionally, now that Republicans control both the House and the Senate, it is likely that they will try to use their collective clout to push through NAEIA legislation. A Congress that is trying to please President Trump would do well to support NAEIA, particularly since President Trump has demonstrated his approval of such permit-expediting procedures, both through his approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and the recent Executive Order Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals For High Priority Infrastructure Projects.[119] What's more, these changes would perhaps work in tandem with President Trump's planned renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).[120]
Though the renegotiation of NAFTA is now politically loaded, in its current form, the NAFTA provisions relating to cross-border electricity trade are outdated, as they still require that any generating facilities selling to Mexico sell all of their output to CFE, a stipulation that would have become moot after Mexico's Energy Reform.[121] Given this set of circumstances, there is a significant chance that NAEIA reform is on the horizon.
Given the case examples presented above, a well-apprised power investor should not touch cross-border infrastructure with a ten-foot pole (nor a 2.7-mile transmission line). The costs are too great, the permitting process too protracted, and the rewards minimal or nonexistent if the project becomes stranded behind miles of red tape. As such, to encourage cross-border development, Congress should seek to ease permitting processes in order to encourage cross-border electric transmission development that will lead to greater grid reliability and cost efficiency as well as improved relations with Mexico. After all, as the great American poet Robert Frost once wrote, "[s]omething there is that doesn't love a wall."[122] Because it is not good fences, but good transmission, that makes good neighbors.
Elizabeth Furlow
.NBC News, The Third Presidential Debate: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (Full Debate), YouTube (Oct. 19, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smkyorC5qwc [https://
perma.cc/VS4U-AJY9]. ↑
.U.N. Dep't Econ. & Soc. Affairs, Multi Dimensional Issues in International Electric Power Grid Interconnections 61 (2005), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
content/documents/interconnections.pdf [https://perma.cc/6FZN-7RYU] (indicating that increased competition between domestic and foreign firms in the market could lead to a "reduction in the price of electricity for end users," resulting in further economic benefits and more robust local economies). ↑
.Canada Week: Integrated Electric Grid Improves Reliability for United States, Canada, U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (Nov. 27, 2012), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=8930 [https://perma.cc/C5GQ-LRWK]. ↑
.Mexico Week: U.S.–Mexico Electricity Trade Is Small, with Tight Regional Focus, U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (May 17, 2013), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11311 [https://perma.cc/LV9W-2KXV]. ↑
.Richard H. K. Vietor & Haviland Sheldahl-Thomason, Mexico's Energy Reform, 4, 10 (Harv. Bus. Sch., Working Paper No. 717-027, 2017), https://www.hks.harvard.edu/hepg/Papers/2017/
Mexican%20Energy%20Reform%20Draft%201.23.pdf [https://perma.cc/MA4X-6BFA]. ↑
.Id. at 4. ↑
.U.S. Installed and Potential Wind Power Capacity and Generation, WINDExchange (2017), http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_installed_capacity.asp [https://
perma.cc/P6LQ-DZWJ]. ↑
.Richard Martin, The One and Only Texas Wind Boom, MIT Tech. Rev. (Oct. 3, 2016), https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602468/the-one-and-only-texas-wind-boom [https://perma
.cc/W3XK-TULH]. ↑
.Daniel Gross, The Night They Drove the Price of Electricity Down, Slate (Sept. 18, 2015), http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/texas_electricity_goes_negative_wind_power_was_so_plentiful_one_night_that.html [https://perma.cc/LM39-WXUE]. This phenomenon also frequently occurs in California on the spot market thanks to a great increase in utility-scale photovoltaic capacity. Chris Namovicz, Rising Solar Generation in California Coincides with Negative Wholesale Electricity Prices, U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (Apr. 7, 2017), https://
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30692 [https://perma.cc/TH5R-6FC6]. ↑
.Federal Water Power Act, Pub. L. No. 66-280, 41 Stat. 1063 (1920) (recodified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 791–828 (2000)). ↑
.Philip L. Cantelon, The Regulatory Dilemma of the Federal Power Commission, 1920–1977, 4 Fed. Hist. J. 61, 64 (2012). ↑
.Even in its time, the Federal Water Power Act received flak from critics for its potential to dampen the growth of hydroelectric power and for jurisdictional issues between federal and state governance. See, e.g., Moses Hooper, Some Views Respecting the Federal Water Power Act, 8 Marq. L. Rev. 1, 7 (1923) (arguing that Congress overreached its authority by regulating water-powered facilities—even those on streams—when it was only empowered to pass regulation that directly affected the navigability of waters, resulting in a negative effect on development of hydroelectric power in the region). ↑
.Federal Power Act, ch. 687, § 33, 49 Stat. 838, 838 (1935) (amending § 201). ↑
.Id. § 213, 49 Stat. 838, 847–48 (amending § 201(b)). For an analysis of the history behind these gap-filling efforts, see Jim Rossi, The Brave New Path of Energy Federalism, 95 Texas L. Rev. 399, 408–10 (2016) (analyzing the case that spurred gap-filling legislation, Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Attleboro Steam & Elec. Co., 273 U.S. 83, 84 (1927), which barred receiving or forwarding states from regulating the price of electricity sold between their states). ↑
.See Rossi, supra note 15, at 400–10. ↑
.Federal Power Act, ch. 687, § 213, 49 Stat. 803, 848–49 (amending § 202(e)). ↑
.See, e.g., Bi–Nat'l Elec. Transmission Task Force, Ariz.–Mex. Comm'n Energy Comm., Bi-National Electricity Transmission Opportunities for Arizona and Sonora 4, 43 (2013) [hereinafter Transmission Task Force] (describing how the permitting process for an interconnection project between Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora took over five years and cost $9 million to complete, even though the project was never completed). ↑
.Exec. Order No. 10,485, 18 Fed. Reg. 5,397 (Sept. 3, 1953); see Adam Vann & Paul W. Parfomak, Cong. Research Serv., R43261, Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Energy Facilities 3 (2013). ↑
.Exec. Order No. 10,485, 18 Fed. Reg. 5,397 (Sept. 3, 1953). ↑
.See 42 U.S.C. § 7172(f) (2012) (limiting FERC's permit-issuing abilities); Vann & Parfomak, supra note 19, at 3–4 (noting that when the FPC was eliminated, its permitting functions were transferred to the DOE). ↑
.Exec. Order No. 10,485, 18 Fed. Reg. 5,397 (Sept. 3, 1953), as amended in Exec. Order No. 12,038 (Feb. 3, 1978). ↑
.16 U.S.C. § 824a(e) (2012); U.S. Dep't of Energy, Presidential Permits and Export Authorizations – Frequently Asked Questions, Energy.Gov, https://energy.gov/oe/services/
electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/international-electricity-regulatio-6 [https://
perma.cc/VPX4-RM3R]. ↑
.U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 24. ↑
.NEPA Cooperating Agency, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.5 (2017); NEPA Environmental Assessment, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9 (2017). ↑
.NEPA Timing of Agency Action Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 1506.10 (2017). ↑
.NEPA Record of Decision in Cases Requiring Environmental Impact Statements Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2 (2017). ↑
.See Transmission Task Force, supra note 18. ↑
.U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 24; Exec. Order No. 10,485, 3 C.F.R. § 970 (1949–1953). ↑
.U.S. Dep't of Energy, Presidential Permits–Procedures, Energy.Gov, https://energy
.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/international-electricity-regulatio-9 [https://perma.cc/AX73-ZYDH]. ↑
.16 U.S.C. §§ 791–828c (2012). ↑
.Mark Chediak et al., Blackstone to Export Texas Power to Newly Opened Mexican Market, Bloomberg (Mar. 24, 2015), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/blackstone-to-export-texas-power-to-newly-opened-mexican-market [https://perma.cc/QLD4-4P98]. ↑
.10 C.F.R. § 205.323(b) (2017) (limiting the transferability and assignability of presidential permits under Executive Order 10,485 and their coordinate facilities). ↑
.Presidential Permit, Order No. PP-11-2, Fraser Papers Inc. (U.S. Dep't of Energy, Sept. 29, 1999). ↑
.T.R. Goldman, How Mexican Wind Lights San Diego Homes, Politico (Feb. 16, 2017), http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/mexico-wind-farms-renewable-energy-san-diego-border-214789 [https://perma.cc/VQ2F-7RWY]. ↑
.Presidential Permit, Order No. PP-334, Energía Sierra Juárez U.S. Transmission, LLC (U.S. Dep't of Energy, Aug. 31, 2012). ↑
.Backcountry Against Dumps v. Chu, 215 F. Supp. 3d 966, 972 (S.D. Cal. 2015); Protect Our Cmty's Found. v. Chu, No. 12cv3062 L(BGS), 2014 WL 1289444, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014). ↑
.Backcountry, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 978. ↑
.Jean Guerrero, First U.S.–Mexico Wind Energy Project Sees Legal Challenge, KPBS (Oct. 13, 2015), http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/oct/13/first-us-mexico-wind-farm-sees-legal-challenge [https://perma.cc/5YN5-X98G]. ↑
.Goldman, supra note . ↑
.U.S. Dep't of Energy, Transforming the Nation's Electricity System: Enhancing Electricity Integration in North America, 2 Quadrennial Energy
Rev. 6–8 (Jan. 2017), https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/Quadrennial%20Energy%
20Review—Second%20Installment%20%28Full%20Report%29.pdf [https://perma.cc/VR23-YQFD]. ↑
. Id. ↑
.The North American Energy Infrastructure Act: Hearing on H.R. 3301 Before the Subcomm. on Energy and Power of the H. Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 113th Cong. 138–39 (2013) (statement of Jim Burpee, President & CEO, Canadian Electricity Association). ↑
.Sapna Gupta, North American Electricity Primer, North Am. Process 1 (2016), https://www.northamericanprocess.org/sites/default/files/primer_electricity_-_gupta.pdf [https://
perma.cc/MGJ2-4JBE]. ↑
.Can. Electr. Ass'n, The North American Grid: Powering Cooperation on Clean Energy & the Environment 6, 7 (2016), https://cea-ksiu6qbsd.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/
uploads/2016/01/CEA_16-086_The_North_American_E_WEB.pdf [https://perma.cc/5X2U-D5WX]. ↑
.U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note , at 6. ↑
.Alejandra Núñez-Luna, Private Power Production in Mexico: A Country Study 3 (The Program on Energy and Sustainable Dev. at Stanford U., Working Paper No. 47, 2005). ↑
.Lois Swanick, Comisión Federal de Electricidad, in Mexico and the United States 216, 216 (Lee Stacy ed., 2003). ↑
.Richard H. K. Vietor & Haviland Shedahl-Thompson, Mexico's Energy Reform, in HBS Case Collection 717-027 1, 3–4 (Jan. 23, 2017). ↑
.Int'l Energy Agency, Mexico Energy Outlook, World Energy Outlook Special Report 92–93 (2016), https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
MexicoEnergyOutlook.pdf [https://perma.cc/L6S9-WZPT]. ↑
.Transmission Task Force, supra note , at 3. ↑
.Ryan Triolo, Integración Eléctrica en la Región Fronteriza: Beneficios y Barreras, 79 Energía a Debate 26, 27 (2015). ↑
.Transmission Task Force, supra note , at 2, 5. ↑
.U.N. Dep't Econ. & Soc. Affairs, supra note 2, at 61 (stating that increased competition between domestic and foreign firms in the market could lead to a "reduction in the price of electricity for end users"). ↑
.Kristen Mosbrucker, Mission Gas-Fired Plant Will Pump Electricity into Mexico, Monitor (Sept. 29, 2014), http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/mission-gas-fired-plant-will-pump-electricity-into-mexico/article_005badd4-476d-11e4-a986-0017a43b2370.html [https://
perma.cc/X6AZ-JPYC]. ↑
.U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note , at 6–12. ↑
.Spain–France Underground Interconnection, Red Eléctrica España, http://www.ree
.es/en/activities/unique-projects/new-interconnection-with-france [https://perma.cc/58U9-79KR]. ↑
.Transmission Task Force, supra note , at 43. ↑
.U.S. Dep't of Energy, DOE/EIS–0336, Tucson Electric Power Company Sahuarita–Nogales Transmission Line Final Environmental Impact Statement 1.5, 2.2.104 (2005). ↑
.2015 Electricity Exports and Imports Summary, Can. Nat'l Energy Board (June 2, 2017), https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lctrct/stt/lctrctysmmr/2015/smmry2015-eng.html [https://perma.cc/Q8Q4-7AV4]. ↑
.Vann & Parfomak, supra note , at 1, 6–7. ↑
.U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. ↑
.Rossi, supra note 15, at 404 n.24:
Plenary power is absolute and comprehensive, but an entity with plenary power may or may not choose to treat that power as exclusive. It may choose to delegate power, as Congress often does in areas where it possesses plenary power (such as the Commerce Clause), or not to exercise it at all. ↑
.Vann & Parfomak, supra note , at 7 (citing Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate v. U.S. Dep't of State, 659 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1074–75, 1078, 1078 n.5 (D.S.D. 2009)). ↑
.Id. (citing Sierra Club v. Clinton, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1151–52, 1162–63 (D. Minn. 2010)). ↑
.Protect Our Cmtys. Found. v. Chu, No. 12cv3062-L-BGS, 2014 WL 1289444, at *4–5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014). ↑
.Id. at *6. ↑
.189 F. Supp. 3d 85, 104–05 (D.D.C. 2016). ↑
.Aamer Madhani & Susan Davis, Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline from Canada to Texas, USA Today (Jan. 18, 2012), https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-18/obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline/52655762/1 [https://perma.cc/WGE2-P6R8]. ↑
.Linda Luther & Paul W. Parfomak, Cong. Research Serv., R44140, Presidential Permit Review for Cross-Border Pipelines and Electric Transmission 3 (2017). ↑
.Hearing on H.R. 3301, supra note 55, at 1 (opening statement of Rep. Ed Whitfield). ↑
.Id. at 5 (statement of Rep. Fred Upton). ↑
.H.R. Rep. No. 113-482, pt.1, at 1 (2014). ↑
.North American Energy Infrastructure Act, H.R. 3301, 113th Cong. (2013). ↑
.Id. § 3(b)(1)–(2). ↑
.See id. § 8(b)(1) (the only mention of notice of any rule changes in the Act is the requirement that the Act itself be published in the Federal Register within 180 days of its enactment). ↑
.Id. § 3(b)(1). ↑
.See Luther & Parfomak, supra note 92, at 4 (explaining that a "major Federal action" includes any project that requires federal agency approval via permit or otherwise); see also id. § 3(b)(1) (saying that NEPA or other necessary permit approval shall be granted unless it somehow runs contrary to public interest). ↑
.H.R. 3301 § 3(b)(1) (emphasis added). ↑
.This distinction drew dissent among some representatives advocating for the bill, including California Representative Jay McNerney, who stated that he "didn't understand why projects that are not in the public interest should be approved" and believed that, contrarily, energy projects should be in the "broad public interest." Hearing on H.R. 3301, supra note 54, at 3–4 (statement of Rep. Jay McNerney). ↑
.H.R. 3301 § 6. ↑
.Hearing on H.R. 3301, supra note 54, at 8–9 (statements of Rep. Jay McNerney and Rep. Henry A. Waxman). ↑
.North American Energy Infrastructure Act, H.R. 3301, 113th Cong., 160 Cong. Rec. H5687–88 (2014) (enacted). ↑
.North American Energy Infrastructure Act, S. 2823, 113th Cong. (2014). ↑
.#RecordOfSuccess, House Energy and Commerce Comm. (current through Jan. 23, 2018), https://energycommerce.house.gov/recordofsuccess/ [https://perma.cc/Z4UD-N8LC]. ↑
.S.2823 – North American Energy Infrastructure Act, Congress.gov (Sept. 16, 2014), https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2823/text [https://perma.cc/89VT-TA96]. ↑
.See Hearing on Energy Infrastructure Legislation Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Nat. Res., 114th Cong. (May 14, 2015). ↑
.See id. ↑
.See Michel Marizco, Cross-Border Power Grid in the Works for Arizona, New Mexico, Ariz. Pub. Media (Aug. 16, 2017), https://news.azpm.org/p/news-splash/2017/8/16/115386-arizona-mexico-cross-border-power-grid-in-the-works/ [https://perma.cc/RLU3-SJFY] (reporting that planning for the power grid between Arizona and Mexico was not finalized until 2017). ↑
.All Information (Except Text) for S.2012—North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, 114th Cong., https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2012/all-info [https://perma.cc/DBL9-UY4L]. ↑
.S. 2012 (114th): North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, GovTrack (2016), https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2012 [https://perma
.cc/R2BM-GBG9]. ↑
.Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act, H.R. 2883, 115th Cong., 163 Cong. Rec. H6010, H6023 (2017). ↑
.Jennifer E. Manning, Cong. Research Serv., R42964, Membership of the 113th Congress: A Profile 1 (2014). ↑
.Notice of Presidential Permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., Public Notice 9941, 82 Fed. Reg. 16,467 (Apr. 4, 2017). ↑
.Exec. Order No. 13,766, 3 C.F.R. § 8657 (2017). ↑
.Jill Colvin, Trump: NAFTA Trade Deal a 'Disaster,' Says He'd 'Break' It, Associated Press (Sept. 26, 2015), https://apnews.com/982f8146e10942b2b7f6a07e2077576d/trump-nafta-trade-deal-disaster-says-hed-break-it [https://perma.cc/WV3J-HETW]. ↑
.North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289, 364–68. ↑
.Robert Frost, Mending Wall, in North of Boston 11, 11–13 (Henry Holt & Co. 1917) (1914). ↑


HomeBlogSEOPaid, owned or earned media, where should you spend your money?
While each facet of marketing, paid owned and earned, has its own benefits, is there one – or a combination that's guaranteed results?
While each of the above terms each has numerous aliases, many of which you'll be familiar with, it is in this format (paid, earned or owned media) that you may well have come across this question. In the past, though the answer was never easily found, there were factors that could be weighed and measured and definitive answers given as to the correct mix of the three channels to use which could be given with reasonable certainty.
This is no longer true except on an individual campaign basis – each offers its own unique benefits to a business and while there is no doubt that owned media (done skilfully) can earn results as far as rankings are concerned, there is always the chance that a competitor's well executed PPC campaign could pip your brand to the post at the moment query becomes intention, and the same could be true of the PPC campaign pipped by a recommendation from a trusted influencer.
As the internet age advances, and consumers and search engines become savvier, each of the three main pillars of search marketing has developed its offering in direct competition with the other, so that a successful brand strategy can little afford to ignore any of the others.
In truly Ronseal fashion (doing what it said on the tin), paid media refers to any exposure for which you have paid – including PPC ads, native content, remarketing etc.
The paid media offering, however, is far from simplistic – it has developed an awful lot, as you would expect from a service that has now been around for almost 20 years.
The levels of personalisation and the varieties of ads that can now be served to consumers are so great, and native advertising and sponsored content so well embedded in the mainstream media (and invulnerable to adblocking software) that the paid media offering is capable of reaching people effectively at all stages of the buyers journey.
Earned media is a term applied to any content or conversation surrounding your brand which is earned through your activities in the paid and owned media disciplines and through outreach.
Earned media is slightly more diffuse in description, but insofar as narrowing it down to a particular marketing activity, could most easily be applied to content marketing and outreach activities, which – with the rise of influencer marketing – is increasingly important to brands of all sizes and is an area that is seeing a lot of growth as a result.
Owned media is any content or conversation disseminated through channels your brand owns – i.e. your branded blog, website content and social channels.
You only have to look as far as the brands you enjoy yourself – it would be surprising if they did not maintain a presence on every applicable social channel as well as a branded blog. It is no longer a bonus interaction with consumers as it may have been less than a decade ago; it is almost a minimum requirement. For this reason, the demand for high quality output has never been higher.
The truth is, there is no longer a single route or strategy for success and there has never been. Every brand has specific needs and wants regarding their marketing, and so the particular strategic blend is, more often than not, going to be different. What has become apparent, however, is that it is a blend that is required.
What we're looking at is (as I've argued elsewhere) is a shift toward an holistic industry with sub-specialisms rather than three distinct practices.
Interest in SEO has levelled from its historic high in 2011 (at the release of Panda, with which the industry would become familiar).
PPC interest has levelled after seeing a steady downturn for a few years. This would, I imagine, relate to the amount of separate paid offerings which are searched for independently – such as remarketing, display etcetera – cannibalising the paid search interest.
While content marketing (the closest service term to earned media, as stated) is showing a steady increase over time.
While these charts, from Google Trends, don't deal in volume but comparative interest over time, what you can see are peaks of novelty – SEO at the implementation of Panda, PPC when Google implemented a small business PPC offering and, latterly, in content marketing.
In conjunction with this, however, is a steady increase in interest for the term 'digital marketing' (or 'search marketing' as we like to call it), with peak interest having to be redefined regularly (and again with the latest data point).
Increasingly, brands are looking to agencies and in-house teams for full service digital marketing – operating across skillsets – and the reason for that is that each of the skillsets has become indispensable to the creation and execution of a successful online marketing strategy.
Think of your brand as a platform with three uneven legs – each of these categories, paid, owned and earned media are wedges which can help stabilise that platform and render it secure enough to build upon.
Your brand will, of course, have its plans and projections – outlines of strategies and ambitions for growth; it should also have some idea what it requires to achieve these ambitions. It is these requirements that will determine how you apportion your budget to each of your paid, earned and owned media endeavours.
Clearly, for the majority of brands, the primary aims are growth and revenue increase – but these can be achieved in multiple ways.
Paid media (as all three of these methods do) has some overlaps with the other two, but insofar as broad brush strategy preparation is concerned, paid media can be viewed as the best method for converting your current audience. It offers a substantial number of opportunities to be present at each of their levels of purchase intention and, while it obviously has the capacity to reach consumers far beyond your own, the ability of conversion rate optimisation to improve efficiency, or remarketing and other cookie based personalisation make it a powerful tool for earning the most from your present consumer base.
Earned media (as above – in broad brush terms) can be seen as the best method of building your consumer base. With strategic content dissemination and outreach, PR, influencer marketing and the like, you can look to extend your reach beyond that which you've already built. It also, as mentioned earlier, has the benefit of building on work done in each of the other areas, helping it to fill the top of your sales funnel.
Owned media, therefore, is best viewed as a method of building relationships, earning trust and will generally be the main injection of impetus into your earned media. By creating unique, high quality and audience relevant content for your owned media channels, you can inspire your audience to become brand ambassadors and build a rapport and relationship with your consumer base – allowing you to not only maintain good relations, but also ensure that your brand is first in their mind when they have further need of your products or services.
This hopefully demonstrates the need for an holistic approach to search marketing – with paid, earned and owned media each playing a part, to greater or lesser degrees, in a successful strategy, represented as a point at the intersection of all three disciplines in the Venn diagram of branding.
Click Consult has been involved with search marketing for almost as long as there has been search marketing. For more actionable advice, check out our resources – or find out what we can do for your brand by contacting us today.