For the 39 municipalities in Missouri signed up to buy power off the line, it’s an estimated $12.8 million in annual savings.

As stated in the rebuttal testimony of Duncan Kincheloe, MJMEUC’s president and general manager, our current arrangement with Illinois Power Marketing Company (“IPM”) for 100 MWs of energy and capacity will expire in 2021, and that contract currently serves the needs of the Missouri Public Energy Pool (MoPEP). We have been actively considering sources to replace this energy and capacity.

In 2021, a contract for 100 MWs of energy and capacity with Illinois Power Marketing Company (IPM) (former Ameren coal plants in Illinois, now owned by Dynegy) will expire. That energy and capacity will need to be replaced. That contract currently serves MoPEP, a group of 35 Missouri cities for which MJMEUC provides full requirements for wholesale energy, capacity and ancillary services. The TSA with Grain Belt and the power purchase agreement with Infinity Wind would allow the MoPEP to replace the current 100 MWs of purchased power in MISO with more affordable energy. John Grotzinger will explain in his rebuttal testimony that while the TSA and corresponding contract with Infinity Wind will not by themselves replace the IPM contract, these contracts will form the cornerstone of the resource mix to replace the IPM contract.

In a press conference after Thursday’s meeting, Glick said that active state involvement could help forestall state conflicts like those that have arisen in Missouri, where state lawmakers are seeking to pass a law that would threaten the viability of the Grain Belt Express, a massive proposed transmission project that would deliver power from Kansas across Missouri to the Illinois-Indiana border. 

The NOPR is ​“aimed at bringing the states together and hopefully developing their own approach to cost allocation,” Glick said. For example, ​“it might determine that State A and State C should pay for that line, not State B.”

The United States desperately needs new power lines.

Our transmission standstill has a number of consequences. First of all, it raises consumer prices. As this post at CanaryMedia makes clear, bad transmission hasn’t raised utility bills despite generation being cheaper than ever.

A 2018 report by the nonprofit Americans for a Clean Energy Grid identified 22 shovel-ready projects that had been in existence for a decade or more. To get such projects off the ground, the report’s authors suggested streamlining project siting and permitting, passing a tax credit for transmission projects, and direct investment by the federal government. 

Despite recent noise from the Biden administration about speeding up the sitting process, the same problems are still knocking off and slowing down transition projects. 

The most recent and notable example is that of the Grain Belt Express. The transmission line, which would span nearly 800 miles across four midwest states, from Kansas to Indiana, connecting into the PJM Interconnection LLC grid, is at risk of being thwarted by House Bill 2005. The bill, brainchild of big ag groups across the region, would give any county in the line’s path the right to block construction. 

The project represents a special economic opportunity for the region’s rural communities which have struggled in recent times. The cheap wind power would provide significant savings to the small municipalities. What’s more, emissions would be brought down as well. 

Cumbersome regulations and NIMBYISM are mostly to blame for the nation’s stagnant transmission system.

The same article includes quotes from advocates of bill 2005: ‘“Grain Belt is currently working towards condemning our land,” Henke said in written testimony. “They have told us they will not negotiate with us and the price they tell us is what we get. This line will take out our shade trees in our pastures and cut through several fences. They are not willing to move the line at all to avoid some of these things that will greatly impact our farm.”’

I don’t want to completely disregard people like Henke’s misgivings, but no decision comes without a cost. At some point, we’re going to have to accept some of the costs associated with big transmission projects to reap the important benefits: Cheaper, cleaner electricity.

Coordinating with utilities to deploy buried HVDC transmission in the highway ROW offers several benefits, including increased resilience and significant carbon emissions reductions without changing the viewscape. Expanded transmission will be vital for electrifying transportation in the most cost-effective manner.
The traditional thorny issue of building linear infrastructure on private property can be mitigated with undergrounding the transmission along existing highway and rail corridors. Burying HVDC transmission can be done at a similar cost to conventional overhead AC transmission while providing critical reliability and resilience benefits. Furthermore, the potential for accelerated permitting timelines for buried transmission projects would be worth billions of dollars in avoided carbon emissions.
The findings from this study demonstrate that buried HVDC transmission is cost-effective and can be feasibly sited in interstate and highway ROW after making appropriate consideration of existing and future transportation system needs. While the study identified challenges, none appear to pose insurmountable barriers.

The development of transmission and fiber lines often requires the ability to acquire or lease significant lengths of ROW – this is especially true for interregional transmission. Utilities often prefer to use a ROW they have developed and own. However, obtaining new ROW is challenging and the optimal route is not always possible. (Footnote:  A number of overhead interregional transmission projects have been successfully blocked by public opposition in recent years.)  Access to a portion of existing ROW in interstate or highway could offer significant benefits in the development of new transmission and fiber lines. Existing ROW along interstate highways would be especially valuable for the interregional transmission lines needed to cost-effectively decarbonize the grid while improving its reliability and resilience.
If interstate and highway ROW were made available for transmission development, a typical transmission project would likely use a portion of the highway ROW while also using existing utility and rail ROWs. The transmission line would not be fully sited within the highway ROW alone. In these circumstances, siting of the transmission line within the ROW would be done in close collaboration with the existing ROW owner (e.g., the DOT) and would take into account current and future transportation needs.
While not all highway ROW is suitable or available for electric transmission (siting within urban corridors can be particularly challenging), ROW in rural areas can be suitable (see figure 7). In rural areas, the ROW is often 300 feet wide, and other utilities and land uses are not as competitive.

By building a buried HVDC transmission system alongside our interstate network of roads and rail lines, the country can overhaul and expand the transmission network more quickly, cost-efficiently, and easily than developing a new ROW through private land. Benefits of this approach accrue to landowners, electric customers, and the grid itself.
Siting, permitting, and building a traditional overhead HVAC transmission line typically takes at least 10 years and often much longer because of challenges related to cost, environmental permitting, and siting on private land. Using highway and rail ROW means working with fewer property owners – potentially just a handful instead of many hundreds. It also largely removes the threat of eminent domain to take land from private owners.

Thus, the five-year reduction in the transmission development timeline that the NextGen Highways Team believes is possible (for a typical interregional transmission project) would translate into $1 billion of societal value.
It is worth noting that a 2GW, 300 miles-long, buried HVDC transmission line would cost roughly $2.5 billion. As such, $1 billion of societal value would equate to 40 percent of the transmission line’s cost.
Scaling the societal benefits from a single interregional transmission line to meet estimated interregional transmission needs yields about $150 billion of societal benefits from coupling buried HVDC transmission with our existing transportation ROW.

Buried HVDC transmission costs have declined and become competitive with traditional overhead AC transmission. The technology for buried HVDC transmission has matured, and the industry has gained experience designing and building projects across the world. Figure 8 compares transmission coston a capacity-normalized basis (dollars per gigawatt-mile of transmission capacity) for a few representative transmission projects in the United States. The figure shows that buried HVDC projects are cost-competitive with overhead AC transmission projects. 

Historically, utilities have discounted the use of underground transmission because buried AC line costs were often 7 to 10 times more costly than overhead lines. Today, some utilities will still cite those cost comparison numbers without considering the technological advances of HVDC cables and converter stations over the past decade.

Buried HVDC transmission is cost-competitive with traditional overhead AC transmission projects.

Buried HVDC transmission is roughly 2-4 times the cost of overhead HVDC transmission. (Footnote:  This assumes that the overhead HVDC transmission can be permitted and built. Over the last decade, a number of overhead HVDC transmission projects across the US were unable to be successfully built, including Northern Pass, New England Energy Connect (still active), Plains and Eastern, Grain Belt Express (still active).

Given the positive findings from this Feasibility Study, the NextGen Highways Team is planning to launch a NextGen Highways Coalition to support the co-location of buried fiber and transmission in highway and interstate ROW.

PSC spokesperson Matthew Sweeney said the commission “has unique obligations and could have different interests and duties relating to transparency than former Commissioner Huebsch would have in his capacity as a private citizen,” which could have created a conflict of interest for PSC attorneys.

Huebsch, a former state legislator who served in Gov. Scott Walker’s cabinet before joining the PSC in 2015, says the messages were purely personal exchanges with old friends and that he never discussed PSC business outside of official proceedings.

Regardless of the results of the litigation the governmental unit, if it does not provide legal counsel to the defendant officer or employee, shall pay reasonable attorney fees and costs of defending the action, unless it is found by the court or jury that the defendant officer or employee did not act within the scope of employment.

The public service commission is authorized by s. 196.85, Stats., to charge any public utility, power district, or sewerage system the expenses attributable to the performance of the commission's duties.

Through his attorney, Huebsch blamed the plaintiffs for running up the tab on utility customers who will ultimately absorb the costs of defending the PSC’s decisions.

“The best outcome for ratepayers in Wisconsin and across the country would be for this unfounded ‘bias’ claim to be dismissed as soon as possible,” Huebsch said. “Every dime they have had to pay until now — including for the co-owners’ numerous law firms and PSC legal staff — is because of the plaintiffs and their choices.”

Huebsch said if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw out the bias claim, ratepayers will end up paying to litigate an “untold number of copycat ‘bias’ lawsuits.”

“Food is going to be more valuable than ever in the world we live in now,” Tagg said. “We can’t eat solar panels.”   

Specifically, the researchers analyzed whether rooftop solar, along with small solar parks on urban, potentially polluted land called Brownfields, could meet San Diego’s energy demands. It could, Leslie said, but it might not be economically feasible. 

“We’ve got millions of acres of perfectly suitable land in the desert,” Hamby said, referring to the area east of Imperial’s fertile plain, much of which is federally controlled land. 

“If you’re a developer … there’s all kinds of federal red tape you could go through, but it’s easier to go and buy out a farmer,” Hamby said. 

Still, procuring renewables from Imperial Valley is one of the few ways San Diego could reach its projected energy demand by 2050, the researchers say. The cost of generating energy there is relatively cheap, from $31 to about $42 per megawatt hour, according to the county’s study. And there’s existing infrastructure built by San Diego Gas and Electric to get it to San Diego.  Joe Bettles, who teamed up with Leslie on the study, said though the cost of rooftop technology – the solar panels themselves – has dropped significantly over the years, labor costs are higher as well as the cost of permitting each project.
  
“You need a really big sales machine to go door to door and convince building owners one at a time,” Leslie said. 
 
It’s cheaper, they say, for a utility to build a large solar project on flat rural land.

There are big new sales machines entering the marketplace. San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance are government-run public power companies with the sole purpose of providing 100 percent renewable energy at a cheaper rate than SDG&E. It’s San Diego Community Power that secured the contract for JVR Energy park, and a 150 megawatt solar project in Imperial near Holtville called the Viking Energy Farm.
 
“Our philosophy is that it’s going to take all of the above. It’ll take rooftop solar, smaller scale and distributive energy systems and utility scales to reach renewable energy goals,” said Cody Hooven, San Diego Community Power’s chief operations officer.
 
Right now, San Diego Community Power doesn’t decide where renewables should be built. The governing documents of San Diego Community Power show there’s a preference for local power, but its boundaries aren’t explicitly defined. In the case of the Viking and JVR project in Jacumba, the public utility basically told the marketplace how much renewable energy it wanted to build, and it’s up to private developers to pitch a project. 

“Down the line we could eventually build our own projects,” Hooven said. 

Imagine this: A 150-foot (half a football field wide) right of way that extends continuously for 89 miles through five counties in Kansas, for a 345-kV electric transmission line. The physical structure — poles and wire — for a 345 kV transmission line, is much larger than most Kansans have ever seen.

The transmission line construction and operation would affect the private property of many homeowners, but the primary physical impact of this transmission project would be on hundreds of farms and ranches in Allen, Anderson, Bourbon, Coffey and Crawford counties Kansas.

NextEra, however, must acquire 89 miles of right of way in Kansas to construct and operate the transmission line. This is likely impossible without a KCC order to permit NextEra the power to condemn the private property of those landowners who do not want a large transmission line on their property.

The private property rights of Kansans may be condemned for the benefit of consumers in other states. This is a big step.

A subsidiary of one of the largest U.S. providers of renewable energy pleaded guilty to criminal charges and was ordered to pay over $8 million in fines and restitution after at least 150 eagles were killed at its wind farms in eight states, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

NextEra Energy subsidiary ESI Energy was also sentenced to five years probation after being charged with three counts of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act during a court appearance in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The charges arose from the deaths of nine eagles at three wind farms in Wyoming and New Mexico.

They came to Missouri’s capital from small cities and towns such as Marshall and Lebanon, Odessa and Shelbina.

They’re not activists or lobbyists but city administrators and public works directors from deep red Missouri counties. They drove hours this week to push back against big agriculture and urge the majority Republican Legislature not to spike the largest energy infrastructure project in the state — the $2.5 billion Grain Belt Express transmission line.

The capacity will provide access to wind power that will cumulatively save the cities $12.8 million annually over 25 years.

If the promise of helping small cities save money doesn’t appeal to Missouri legislators, the threat of litigation might.

Peggy Whipple, an attorney representing Invenergy, said the retroactive nature of H.B. 2005 would put the state at risk of paying the company millions of dollars in legal damages for expenses it has already incurred.
The bill violates state and federal law on at least four grounds, Whipple said. Invenergy has already invested $52 million in the project and voluntarily obtained easements for the line across 1,200 of 1,700 parcels in Missouri and Kansas, she said. In addition, the company has executed $76 million in contracts with landowners and paid out $10 million upfront.

H.B. 2005 would require 50 percent of transmission capacity from a project to be dedicated to Missouri and it would give any county in the line’s path the power to block the project for any reason.
The provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s dormant commerce clause that prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce, Whipple said.

Invenergy spokesman Patrick Whitty slammed the House bill, calling it “an astonishing move in the wrong direction” at a time when global energy is in a security crisis.

“Among its many other impacts, the bill would unconstitutionally and retroactively kill Missouri’s largest energy infrastructure project, the Grain Belt Express, a project essential to American energy security that will connect millions of consumers to domestically produced, affordable, and reliable clean energy,” Whitty said. “The energy from the Grain Belt Express is the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil annually, produced and delivered right here in the Midwest.”

The Missouri Supreme Court earlier ruled that Grain Belt be granted public utility status because the $2.3 billion project is in the public interest.

The project also has garnered the support of Sen. Bill White, R-Joplin, who says it will invest millions of dollars in the state’s rural areas, boost the local energy supply and help ensure energy independence.

White said Monday he had not yet reviewed the latest House bill, which moved out of the House last week on a 102-41 vote. But, he said retroactively targeting the company after it has already started buying land would be unconstitutional.

Labor unions, environmental groups and the Missouri Association of Municipal Utilities oppose the changes.

Jake Hummel, a former state senator from St. Louis who now oversees the Missouri AFL-CIO, said the project will create jobs as it crosses the property of 570 landowners in eight northern counties.
“The quest for American-made energy, while creating 1,500 Missouri jobs, is an opportunity our state cannot afford to pass up,” Hummel said.

Michael Berg of the Sierra Club’s Missouri chapter said the legislation is short-sighted in a time when energy production is evolving.
“More legal barriers for wind energy transmission give an unfair advantage to the highly polluting fossil fuel industry,” Berg told members of the House Judiciary Committee.
In addition, Berg said more than a dozen communities have signed up to purchase power from the line, including Kirkwood, Columbia, Hannibal and Farmington.
“The power delivered along this line is expected to save dozens of rural Missouri communities more than $12 million annually,” Berg said.
As an added benefit, Invenergy says it will use the power lines to also offer broadband service that could bring improved internet to over one million rural Missourians, including 250,000 within 50 miles of the transmission line.