StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Omission Creates Fantasy in Kansas

3/20/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
No surprise that the Kansas Corporation Commission is still having vanilla panna cotta in bed with Grain Belt Express owner Invenergy.  In an application to make its permit less restrictive, Invenergy says:
Grain Belt Express has kept Staff apprised of the updates that are the subject of this Motion, including as recently as March 1, 2023.
Of course they have.  Invenergy needs to keep feeding and petting the KCC so it will continue to be Invenergy's lapdog.  Only a lapdog would believe that having private property taken via eminent domain to build a dangerous, ugly, obstructive high-voltage transmission line across private property somehow "protects landowners."  Invenergy says the most outrageous stuff that nobody with an I.Q. above 70 would believe.  And KCC continues to lap it up and beg for more.  Get this:
How will the Amended Financing Requirement protect landowners?

The Amended Financing Requirement will prevent any possibility that Grain Belt Express begins construction of the Project and installs structures on easements but later abandons them because of insufficient funds to complete the Project.
KCC can "protect" landowners by making sure they are harmed by GBE.  It completely skips over the harm from the project itself to purport that finishing the project is better than not finishing it.  That's a conclusion, not a fact backed up by evidence.  But read a little further to find out who KCC would really be protecting:  Investors and lenders.  And "customers," as if GBE actually had real customers.

When the KCC approved GBE way back in 2013, it placed several conditions on its approval.  Since then, Invenergy has systematically demolished the conditions that were designed to protect the citizens of Kansas.  First, the KCC removed the sunset condition that required GBE to exercise its permit by a certain date or reapply.  This put landowners into a never-ending limbo of not knowing what could happen to their property in the future.  It also may have locked some into compensation at yesterday's low real estate prices for easements that haven't actually been paid for yet.  It's like someone agreeing to buy your property in 1980 at 1980 prices, but not bothering to actually pay you for it until 2020.  We can all agree that allowing the permit to exist in perpetuity does not protect landowners, but yet the KCC lapdogs barked their approval.

Now it's the financing condition.  The original permit contained a condition that GBE have sufficient financing for the entirety of the project before beginning construction.  But now GBE wants to split the project into two phases and only provide proof of financing for part of the project.  Of course, this does not meet the condition so Invenergy has proposed throwing that out the window.

But, maybe the worst part of this is the lies by omission the GBE witness perpetrates in his testimony.  In Sane's testimony says that all the reasons KCC approved GBE are "still valid."  How would he know?  He's an investment banker, not a transmission engineer.  This is his first electric transmission rodeo.  He knows less than you do about transmission.  But maybe not less than the KCC lapdogs. 

In Sane's testimony, he says that the earliest the project could begin construction is the end of 2024.  He pretends that's due to more work needing to be done on engineering, component acquisition, land acquisition, road crossing agreements, and "environmental permitting."  What's that, exactly?  He doesn't actually say... like it's not important why GBE is going through environmental permitting at this point, and why it can't begin construction until late 2024.  I bet YOU know why, but do the KCC lapdogs??

How about this whopper?
Constructing the Project in two phases is in the public interest of Kansas because it will allow the benefits of Phase I to accrue much earlier than would otherwise be possible. The regulatory approval process in Illinois had been subject to extensive delays because of now resolved appeals of the ICC’s 2015 decision to grant a CPCN to Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC in ICC Docket 15-0277.
There were no delays in Illinois except those Invenergy created.  The appeals of the ICC's 2015 decision were finalized in 2018.  GBE could have refiled at any time since then.  "Now resolved?"  It's been resolved for 5 years!  The big hold up was schmoozing the Illinois legislature enough to pass unconstitutional special purpose legislation that inappropriately deemed GBE a "public use" and required the ICC to approve GBE, without the taking of evidence.  Only after changing Illinois laws did Invenergy reapply.  All delays were of Invenergy's own making, therefore this isn't a reason for two phases.

And then there's this:
Grain Belt Express will use project financing as previously approved in this Docket. As a reminder, after advancing development and permitting activities to a status at which developers of wind and solar generation facilities and other potential customers of the transmission line are willing to enter into commercial agreements for an undivided interest (purchase or lease) or long-term contracts for transmission capacity on the Project, Grain Belt Express will enter such contracts with interested parties that satisfy necessary creditworthiness requirements. Grain Belt Express will then raise debt capital using the aforementioned contracts as security for the debt. Grain Belt Express may also raise additional equity capital.
In addition to obtaining state regulatory approvals, Grain Belt Express will need to enter contracts for a portion of the transmission capacity on each Phase prior to obtaining full financial commitments for the Project. The exact percentage of capacity that needs to be under contract prior to obtaining full financing commitments for each Phase will depend on the price, counterparty creditworthiness and terms in years of the signed transmission contracts.
That's right... Grain Belt Express would need customers before a financial institution lends it money to build the project.
Phase I being independently economically viable ensures that Phase I will be completed. Phase I is independently economically viable because, upon completion, it will be operational and capable of delivering power into Missouri. As described above, Phase I will be capable of delivering power into Missouri via its interconnections with the MISO system along the Ameren 345 kV AC transmission line connecting the McCredie substation and the Montgomery substation and with the AECI system at the McCredie 345 kV substation. Not only do these circumstances ensure that Phase I will be completed, they also ensure that Phase I by itself will allow large amounts of renewable energy to be built in southwest Kansas and to access the MISO markets and AECI system and compete to serve customer load without impacting Kansas ratepayers.
But where are the customers, Invenergy?  It won't actually be delivering any power anywhere if Invenergy doesn't get more customers in Missouri.  It only has customers for up to 200 MW of its 2500 MW offering in Missouri.  Without customers, there's no need to build generators in Kansas.  That is NOT "economically viable."

And that trail of awkward claims leads to perhaps the biggest omission in this whole thing.

Where's the information about the unsecured multi-billion dollar loan from the U.S. Department of Energy?  Although the DOE has already determined that GBE "qualifies" for this loan even though it doesn't have enough customers to repay the loan (cough*Solyndra*cough), DOE has started an Environmental Impact Statement that won't be complete until at least the end of 2024.  That seems to be missing from this filing entirely.  Don't tell me it wasn't in Sane's testimony because he "forgot."  It was omitted for a reason.

Proof of financing without proof of customers means exactly what the KCC's conditions were trying to prevent... a half-finished project that never becomes operational.  If the U.S. DOE gives GBE billions of dollars to build, but GBE never does find any customers, then the line will never be operational.  GBE could abandon the project at any time and walk away from the whole mess.

If KCC thinks removing the financing condition "protects" Kansans, it has another think coming.  Removing this condition actually increases the risk that GBE will be abandoned as a half-finished mess.  Perhaps the KCC needs to think of new conditions that actually protect Kansans, like requiring GBE to have customers for its entire 2500 MW offering in Missouri for Phase I, and customers for the entire 5000 MW offering for Phase II.  Only paying customers can assure GBE will become operational.
0 Comments

About As Sneaky As A Herd Of Elephants

3/18/2023

2 Comments

 
Picture
Well, hey now, what's that noise?  Is it a herd of elephants thundering through private property across the west?

This lovely article says:
John Arnold, a billionaire from Houston, is making a big bet on modernizing the outdated transmission infrastructure in the United States to transport electricity to areas where it is needed, including the distribution of wind and solar energy to towns and cities nationwide for the clean-energy transition. 
Arnold told Bloomberg he has invested "several hundred million dollars" into Houston-based Grid United, a company he co-founded with transmission line developer Michael Skelly, to purchase land, easements, and the necessary permits for constructing electric highways that can stretch hundreds of miles.
Mikey's got a new sugar daddy!  You might be wondering how he found another mark to give him a couple hundred million dollars to play transmission.  If you figure it out, let me know.

Here's the plan:
Arnold and Skelly are planning long-haul transmission lines across multiple states on private land that might be very difficult to achieve because failing to win over every landowner could quickly scuttle the entire project.

"We are trying to break this chicken and egg cycle by acquiring the land position first."
How do you acquire the land first if you're honest with landowners about what you intend to do?  If they want to sell their land, they'll do it.  And if they don't, they won't, no matter how "early" you plan to hustle them.  Does Skelly think he can sneak up on landowners and acquire their "land position" before telling them he plans to build a ginormous overhead transmission line on it?  That's about as subtle as a herd of elephants.  The landowners aren't stupid.  That was Skelly's problem last time... he thought landowners were "just a bunch of farmers" that he could easily bamboozle.  And the next thing you know, he'd pissed away $200M of investor's money and his company folded.  Good times!

Maybe Skelly doesn't know that eminent domain exists for a reason?  It is so that land can be acquired for public use, particularly for long, linear infrastructure that requires the buy-in from hundreds or thousands of landowners.  There's bound to be a fly or two thousand in the ointment.

And, hey, would you look at that?  Skelly is "developing" five new projects, just like last time.  It's like throwing spaghetti on the wall and hoping a few pieces stick.  Didn't work last time.  It just wasted a whole bunch of money that could have gone to better use.

And what do either of these yahoos know about where power is "needed"?  Their knowledge thimble may be only half full.

You'd think after his last spectacular transmission failure Skelly would have learned at least something... like burying transmission on existing highway rights of way is faster and cheaper and doesn't require any landowner participation.

How much money is going to be wasted this time?  Keep your ear to the ground... there may be a herd of elephants approaching.
2 Comments

Who's Ready For A New Game of Whack-a-Mole?

3/18/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
This idiotic news article proclaims that "Grain Belt Express Has Positive Update."  For now, but things can change, just like they did last time the Illinois Commerce Commission approved GBE.

Just take a look at the ICC's Order:
The Landowner Alliance and YTI both assert that Section 8-406(b-5) constitutes special legislation in violation of Article IV, Section 13 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and violates the Equal Protection and Separation of Powers Clauses of Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution. The Landowner Alliance notes that Intervenor Bradley Daugherty filed the Lawsuit in the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Clark County, Illinois which asserts that Section 8-406(b-5) is unconstitutional for the same reasons outlined by Landowner Alliance and YTI. The Landowner Alliance agrees with GBX’s position that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to declare the special legislation enacted for GBX unconstitutional and that this challenge is properly before the Circuit Court in Clark County. Cinkus v. Vill. of Stickney, 228 Ill.2d 214 (2000); Bd. of Educ. of Peoria, 2013 IL 114853, ¶38. The Landowner Alliance raised the constitutional challenges under the Special Legislation Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Separation of Powers Clause of Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution before this Commission to avoid any challenges based upon exhaustion of remedies or waiver raised by any party who asserts that Section 8-406(b-5) is constitutional.

The Landowner Alliance argues that determining whether a law runs afoul of the Special Legislation Clause requires a determination of whether the statutory classification discriminates in favor of a particular group, and second, if it does, whether the classification is arbitrary. Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328, ¶34, appeal allowed, 163 N.E.3d 713 (Table). The Landowner Alliance asserts that “arbitrary” can mean motivated by caprice, politics, or bias. Foreman v. Civil Service Comm’n of the City of Chicago, 7 Ill. App. 2d 122 at 126 (1st Dist. 1955). Also, “arbitrary” can also mean whether it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Moline School District v. Quinn, 2016 IL 119704, ¶26.
The Landowner Alliance states that prior to the enactment of Section 8-406(b-5) a non-public utility like GBX with no ownership or control of assets to be used for the production, transmission or furnishing of electricity could not utilize the rocket docket process available only for public utilities under Section 8-406.1. The Landowner Alliance argues that after GBX failed to obtain its CPCN as a non-public utility in 2015 and the Third District Appellate Court held that Rock Island Clean Line’s project did not satisfy the public use requirement, Invenergy Transmissions, L.L.C. lobbied the General Assembly, which enacted the new Section 8-406(b-5), which allows the Commission to issue a CPCN to a “qualifying direct current applicant,” defined as “any entity” that “seeks to provide direct current bulk transmission service for the purpose of transporting electric energy in interstate commerce.” 220 ILCS 5/8-406(b-5).
The Landowner Alliance points out that if the qualifying direct current applicant has a “qualifying direct current project,” the certificate can be issued “without the taking of additional evidence on these criteria.” Id. The Landowner Alliance states that it is obvious that the amended section tracks the application of GBX almost exactly. The Landowner Alliance argues that while GBX did not have to put forth any evidence relative to Section 8-406(b), every other entity or utility has that obligation. It goes on to argue that Section 8-406(b-5) essentially states that GBX does not need to meet the requirements of Sections 3-105, 8-406(b), or 8-406.1(f)(1) and does not need to meet the public use requirement to offer services in a non-discriminatory manner.
The Landowner Alliance argues that if GBX is allowed to side-step the public use requirement, the asset ownership requirement, and Sections 8-406(b) and 406.1(f)(1) and proceed with its “qualified direct current project,” on or before the arbitrary date of December 31, 2023, the door closes, and no other entity will qualify under Section 8-406(b-5).
The Landowner Alliance further argues that Section 8-406(b-5) arbitrarily discriminates against landowners, including the Landowner Alliance, that own land within Pike, Scott, Greene Macoupin, Montgomery, Christian, Shelby, Cumberland, and Clark Counties, Illinois (the “Enumerated Counties”), to the benefit of landowners that own real estate outside of the Enumerated Counties. Section 8-406(b-5) arbitrarily and unfairly subjects the landowners within the Enumerated Counties to the possibility of the Project traversing through their property without the same level of review by the Commission that is afforded landowners in non-Enumerated Counties.
The Landowner Alliance argues that there is no rational basis for this legislative purpose, and Section 8-406(b-5) is arbitrary and unreasonable. The classification created by the statute is not based upon reasonable differences in kind or situation, and whether the basis of the classification is insufficiently related to the statutory purpose. Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328, ¶36, citing Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 394 (1997).
The Landowner Alliance concludes that GBX is the only entity that will be using 8-406(b-5) for its project. Section 8-406(b-5) was passed for the benefit of only one entity, GBX, to enable it to bypass the requirements of Sections 3-105, 8-406(a) and (b) and 8-406.1.
The Landowner Alliance asserts that this special legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution. The Landowner Alliance argues that under the new legislation, Section 8-406(b-5), landowners in the nine counties are deprived of their right to a full evidentiary hearing and were forced to participate in the rocket docket process, which is available only to public utilities, before a CPCN is granted to a non-public utility merchant transmission line developer. The Landowner Alliance claims that no other project falls within the qualified direct current project designation and that both the qualified direct current applicant and the qualified direct current project are elements of the same denial of Equal Protection.
According to the Landowner Alliance, the legislature looked at the requirements that GBX and Rock Island Clean Line failed to meet under the Act and Illinois common law, and then passed special legislation custom tailored to make sure that GBX could obtain a CPCN. As a result, the Landowners are being treated differently from all similarly situated individuals in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The Landowner Alliance further asserts that Section 8-406(b-5) violates the Separation of Powers Clause of the Illinois Constitution. It is the Landowner Alliance’s position that the General Assembly’s purpose in enacting subsection (b-5) was to expressly order the Commission to approve GBX’s Project and grant it a CPCN. The Landowner Alliance states that the portion of Section 8-406(b-5) declaring the Project a public use violates Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution because, by arrogating to itself the power to declare something a public use, the General Assembly is exercising the judicial power to determine whether a particular use is public or private. The Landowner Alliance argues that it is well settled Illinois law that the determination of whether, for purposes of exercising the power of eminent domain, a proposed use is a public use is a decision for the courts, not the legislature.
The Landowner Alliance further argues that if this portion of Section 8-406(b-5) is allowed to stand, the General Assembly will have acquired sole power to define what the term "public use" means in Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution. According to the Landowner Alliance, the General Assembly's eminent domain power would then be left unchecked because there would be no branch of government that could review its public use decisions. The General Assembly would have eminent domain power by fiat: it could merely declare something a public use in order to affect the involuntary transfer of private property from one party to another, which has never been the law in the State of Illinois. The Landowner Alliance concludes that in the public use declaration in Section 8-406(b-5) the General Assembly unconstitutionally usurps the judicial power. The Landowner Alliance contends that GBX’s Application should be denied due to these constitutional concerns, along with the other arguments that it has raised in this proceeding.
To sum it up, GBE's special legislation for its project is unconstitutional.  The Landowners' arguments are sound.  Let's see what a court does with it now.  Get your hammer ready to pound GBE back in its hole.

And then, back to that ridiculous article...

The project does not have all the necessary siting approvals in all states.  It is still trying to get siting approved in Missouri.  And there are some problems in Kansas that need solving.  And GBE needs a favorable Environmental Impact Statement from the U.S Government in order to get an unsecured loan from the taxpayers.

And then it spits out some completely unverified numbers of energy savings, jobs and economic activity.  Who is going to measure this to see that it actually happens?  NOBODY, that's who.  It's all just magic math.

The only thing I'm positive about is that this isn't the end. 
0 Comments

Smells Like Propaganda

3/6/2023

1 Comment

 
Picture
Propaganda rag Bloomberg article about four long-stalled transmission projects, including Grain Belt Express, that the reporters claim are "inching ahead."  Ahead of what?  These projects have been bumping around for more than a decade without success.  Only one is actually being built, and that's the one buried on existing rights of way and underwater.  Coincidence?  I think not.

But that's not the stinkiest part.  The propaganda oozing from this article claims:
The fact these long-in-the-works projects are reaching similar milestones appears to be coincidence; no single policy is moving them forward. They are, however, advancing at a time of increasing understanding by local communities and even traditional opponents — including some conservation groups — of the need to move clean energy from rural outposts and to build more durable electric systems after a series of weather and climatic events have felled grids in recent years.
Who are these "communities" and "traditional opponents"?  Doesn't say, but it also "includes conservation groups" so perhaps we have our culprit right there.  Conservation groups are pretending they speak for landowners. Conservation groups like Sierra Club and all those other big green organizations that like to intervene in state siting and permitting proceedings to support the destruction of your community and property.  They speak for you about as much as former Missouri Governor Jay Nixon did when he negotiated "landowner protections" on your behalf without consulting you.  Now you've got posturing, sanctimonious swamp creatures claiming that you "understand" how you must sacrifice your home to the Gods of Climate Change that they worship.

Nobody affected by new above-ground transmission rights-of-way taken under threat of eminent domain "understands" this  idiocy.  That's a bold-faced LIE designed to make the hoi polloi believe that you don't mind being thrown under the wheels of the "clean energy" bus that they're driving so that they can all cheer about how they have saved the planet (that was never in any actual danger).  This is gas  lighting.  This is mainstream media propaganda.

These reporters also doesn't realize that what has "felled grids" in recent years is the retirement of baseload coal and gas electric generators and a failing attempt to replace them with intermittent industrial wind and solar generators.  It's not the weather.  It's the generation sources.  See how they did that?  "Not enough power?  Build more wind and solar and transmission lines!"  When their agenda causes a problem, they pretend you need to continue with their agenda to solve the problem that's being created.  They are doubling-down on the cause of the problem instead of finding a solution.  What is it going to take to stop this craziness?  Do we have to wait for these low-information fools to crash the grid?

Tell the reporters they are quite mistaken in their unsupported presumption.  We do care and we will continue to resist.
1 Comment

Repeating Big Mistakes

3/3/2023

4 Comments

 
What happens when we erase history?  We don't learn from it.  And when we don't learn from history, we repeat the same mistakes over and over, like a dog chasing his own tail.
Picture
I've written about this over and over during the past decade... entities with horrible ideas seem to think if they can present manipulated polls to idiotic elected officials and the uninformed masses that they can suppress any opposition to their stupid idea.  In fact, these push polls rely on the reality that the masses are uninformed about many, many things.  Case in point:  electric transmission.

This "new" poll blares that Voters support building electric power transmission infrastructure... in their own communities!
Not really.  The last pollsters who made a similar claim had to roll it back with something closer to the truth:
Polling indicates the public’s feelings about a number of various topics on any given day. But it can also be misleading if viewed out of context — especially when it comes to land use issues.

How is it, for example, that most Americans support wind energy in general, but emotive opponents can block transmission lines delivery wind energy or wind farms in some local communities?

So, the jury’s in, right? Everyone loves renewable energy projects. But wait.

But the emotional opposition appears to fly in the face of surveys and polls showing national support for clean energy generation and transmission. What’s going on? Do these polls and surveys lack credibility? No. In fact, they are spot-on in terms of reflecting how Americans feel about renewable generation and distribution projects and how they may positively impact our communities given the perceived global threats of climate change, greenhouse gases and negative impact to wildlife over time. Today, based on a solid campaign by climate change advocates, the renewable energy industry, the current Obama administration and constant media pounding, the threat to our economy and the environment posed by carbon-emitting generation sources is very real and frankly easy to grasp. The arguments have been made and, let’s face it, many Americans are buying in.

But it’s easy to support a wind energy project without a real wind turbine or transmission line literally staring you in the face. That’s where rational thinking ends and passionate “defense of the community” (or defense of the children for that matter) campaigns begin.

...shop for a home in a community of interest and share the rumor of a new 765 kV transmission line going across the property down the road, in front of the view of the mountain range. What’s the survey say then? Chances are you may not find majority support, even from residents who responded in the poll you fielded yesterday.

Perhaps at best, polling identifies the size of the silent majority you have on your side when they are under no local threat of changing their daily lives. Winning hearts and minds in a poll won’t necessarily win you a permit at town hall.

Renewable energy is great in our public opinion, just not when it gets in the way of our personal point of view.
These are the actual words of the PR geeks who did a poll about wind turbines and transmission lines circa 2009.  Sadly, this PR shop seems to have gone out of business and the evidence has been removed.  Maybe that's why some new PR shop has attempted to essentially re-invent this wheel? 

Here's the facts:  People willing to take telephone surveys will say whatever they think signals their virtuous nature, or repeat canned political talking points they have adopted without critical thought.  Sure, renewables are supposed to be good and we are virtuous if we like them.  Therefore, the polled will say they support this crap, even "in their community."  Of course "the community" doesn't include THEIR back yard or any place within sight of THEIR castle, it's supposed to happen to someone else, some place else.  When it happens in their own back yard (a question the pollster conveniently forgot to ask) it's not such a good idea after all.  In fact, it's horrible.  Not one person actually faced with a transmission line in their back yard has ever supported it, no matter what it's carrying.

And those questions about whether "voters" support speeding up transmission by giving authority to the federal government?  They contain presumptions that are not facts (such as the notion that giving authority to the federal government could speed ANYTHING up!) in order to steer the response in their desired direction.

I don't see the words "federal eminent domain" used anywhere in these questions, although that's the goal of federal permitting authority.  What if you asked people if they would support federal government authority to use eminent domain to condemn land in their back yard and use it to construct new high voltage transmission lines?  They are asking a question based on limited information.  When full information is provided, the response changes dramatically.

THIS POLL IS GARBAGE!
Of course, this poll isn't for us.  It's for our elected officials, who would have to make legislative changes to remove state authority over electric transmission in its entirety.  They have already made changes in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that allows the federal government to give itself authority over any transmission project that can be dreamed up.  They just have to work for it a bit.  What's the point of this anyhow?  It's just more trash aka "inflation reduction" that doesn't actually reduce inflation but makes it worse through more outrageous government spending.  Tell your elected officials today that you do not support "permitting reform."
4 Comments

The Blackouts Are Coming!  The Blackouts Are Coming!

3/2/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
It seems not even Paul Revere could alert our biased mainstream media to cover a recent paper from PJM Interconnection that reports major grid reliability problems on the horizon if we continue down our current path toward the Emerald City of Green Energy and Unicorn Farts.

When the biggest electric grid operator in the country reports
For the first time in recent history, PJM could face decreasing reserve margins should these trends – high load growth, increasing rates of generator retirements, and slower entry of new resources – continue. The amount of generation retirements appears to be more certain than the timely arrival of replacement generation resources, given that the quantity of retirements is codified in various policy objectives, while the impacts to the pace of new entry of the Inflation Reduction Act, post-pandemic supply chain issues, and other externalities are still not fully understood.
What this means is that big energy generators that can run any time they are needed are being shut down and they are not being replaced with new generators that can keep up with demand.  Eventually, this hot potato is going to land and the lights are going to go out.

Maintaining an adequate level of generation resources, with the right operational and physical characteristics, is essential for PJM’s ability to serve electrical demand through the energy transition.
Our research highlights four trends below that we believe, in combination, present increasing reliability risks during the transition, due to a potential timing mismatch between resource retirements, load growth and the pace of new generation entry under a possible “low new entry” scenario:

The growth rate of electricity demand is likely to continue to increase from electrification coupled with the proliferation of high-demand data centers in the region.

Thermal generators are retiring at a rapid pace due to government and private sector policies as well as economics.

Retirements are at risk of outpacing the construction of new resources, due to a combination of industry forces, including siting and supply chain, whose long-term impacts are not fully known.

PJM’s interconnection queue is composed primarily of intermittent and limited-duration resources. Given the operating characteristics of these resources, we need multiple megawatts of these resources to replace 1 MW of thermal generation.
Well, thanks a lot, policy makers!  Electricity is soon going to be a commodity only for the moneyed elite, coincidentally the same people who have created this certain Armageddon.

And the only people interested in reporting this clarion call of impending doom were bloggers, trade press, and media outlets designated biased and unacceptable.  Where were the mainstream media?  They were too busy pretending that a whole bunch of new transmission would allow regions like PJM to "borrow" power from neighboring regions to keep the lights on.  Except those regions are also struggling with the same issues and were expecting to borrow from PJM.  Or maybe they were making up stories about how the grid is failing.  Or that the weather is getting worse.  Or that we need lots more wind and solar to stop climate change.  Or maybe there are too many plastic straws?

What happens when the blackouts start?  We almost had one in PJM on Christmas Eve.  And because we were short on generation here, and the Tennessee Valley Authority could not borrow from us, they actually DID have blackouts.  And still the policy idiots who have never even seen PJM's control room, much less talked to the heroes who work there, blathered on about needing more wind + solar + batteries + transmission.  My eyes are wide open and I'm seeing that the independent entities whose responsibility is keeping the lights on are increasingly concerned that we're on the path to disaster.  In this day of cancel culture, many walk on egg shells to issue a warning without ending up fired, with 100 filthy protestors littering in their front yard and preventing their neighbors from sleeping.

It's real.  It's happening.  Faster and faster and faster every day.  We are retiring too much fossil fuel generation and not replacing it with anything.  Let's hope it doesn't damage the grid and plunge us into months or years of darkness before these idiots wake up.

The blackouts are coming!
0 Comments

And You Get Transmission, And YOU Get Transmission, And....

3/2/2023

1 Comment

 
Picture
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

The U.S. Department of Energy released a draft of its new "National Transmission Planning Study" last week and, surprise, surprise, surprise, every last place in the continental U.S. needs a whole bunch of new transmission lines.

As our pals at PJM Interconnection stated in a comment to the DOE about this study:
PJM cautions against approaching this analysis based on a ‘top down’ analysis based on what appears to be an attempt at optimizing the deployment of renewables across the nation.
That's right, DOE has stepped outside its statutory playpen and tried to make a study of transmission congestion and constraints about building a new transmission system to support an unbelievable and unachievable number of industrial wind and solar installations, mainly in the Midwest and Plains.
New transmission advances clean energy goals by enabling greater access to clean energy resources, which can be in remote areas, far from load and the existing transmission system.
And, of course, all those "remote" clean energy resources planned for your back yard need new transmission to get the electric harvest to those that "need" it in the big cities that don't want to look at ugly energy infrastructure in their own neighborhoods.
Transmission projects also frequently face public opposition or “not-in-my-backyard” concerns for various reasons. These challenges can lead to increased costs, schedule delays, or even project cancellations.
Damn straight, Skippy!

But what's the goal here?  This biased study created from other studies paid for by "clean energy" special interests and "clean energy" special people who now all seem to work for the DOE for some weird reason, is a precursor to DOE designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, or NIETCs.  Once an NIETC is designated by DOE, then permitting authority for transmission projects proposed within the corridor passes to FERC.  DOE proposes that NIETCs be generated for very narrow corridors requested by transmission developers on a project-by-project basis.  And FERC proposes that it shall begin its permitting work right away, even before state utility regulators have a chance to approve or deny the project.
This is a whole of government effort to flatten you and take your property in the name of "clean energy."

There's plenty wrong with DOE's study, both from a technical and a legal perspective.  I'd like to buy a drink for the commenter from Reliability First (one of the NERC reliability organizations) who pointed out every incorrect presumption and crazy unicorn dream in the study.  Obviously it goes without saying... if the independent professionals who make sure the lights come on when we flip the switch is skeptical of this "study" then perhaps we should also question it.

The study suggests that we need to build huge transfer facilities between regions to enable "sharing" of resources.  However, such a scheme could also create kings and serfs -- where certain regions do not build enough generation to meet their own needs, even on low use days, and then develop increasing reliance on other regions to keep pumping out more power for the King's use. 

There's nothing in here that is even remotely useful.  DOE's findings of "congestion" aren't even real, as demonstrated by their finding of "congestion" between Pennsylvania and DC/Northern Va. in the PJM region.  PJM says:
A significant portion of the higher congestion noted in the Report is associated with multiple transmission outages in support of approved upgrades. As a result, the congestion listed should not necessarily be considered a persistent level of congestion in the Mid-Atlantic.
Great job, DOE!  Your study as about as useful as a couple puddles of cat puke.... kinda looks like that, too.
Picture
Here's a news article that is a lot easier to read than the actual report, although it may gush just a little too hard.  Media bias is a real problem these days.  The article tells us how very much Invenergy loves this "study" as it relates to its "Green Belt Express" project.
The study was warmly welcomed by Chicago-based Invenergy LLC, developer of the proposed $7 billion Green Belt Express line that could help carry up to 5,000 MW of Great Plains wind power to Great Lakes and mid-Atlantic population centers.
A key 530-mile segment of the line, running from Kansas to central Missouri, is a candidate for a federal loan guarantee, according to DOE — one of the new or strengthened transmission initiatives provided for DOE in the infrastructure act.

“We are encouraged by the findings of the draft study which underscore the critical need for interregional transmission to deliver cost-effective generation, meet projected demand growth and usage shifts, and improve reliability and resilience, especially in the face of increasing extreme weather events, cybersecurity risks, and physical threats,” said Shashank Sane, Invenergy executive vice president for transmission, in a statement.
“The draft study rightly focuses on identifying market barriers to interregional transmission development to accelerate deployment of clean energy,” he added.

Sure, right... as if Grain Belt Express has anything at all to do with electricity markets and isn't just going to sell its project off to be used as a private tie line to proposed generation.

Anyhow... the article also plays up the fact that the public can comment on the "study."

And you're all invited to ASK QUESTIONS at DOE's "study" webinar tomorrow afternoon!  Sign up now and don't miss all the fun!

Be sure not to lose sight of the fact that all of this complete and utter nonsense is costing you millions that can only be paid for by higher taxes.
1 Comment

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.