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

Transmission "Community Benefits" Don't Help Impacted Communities

10/24/2023

1 Comment

 
Picture
I've written a lot about the new pot of money the DOE was granted by Congress that is supposed to provide "benefits" to communities impacted by the construction and operation of new transmission lines.

​Now here's this... a new proposal to do the exact same thing from some clueless congresscritter, and backed up by some lovely astroturf.
Protect Our Winters, a group formed to safeguard outdoor recreation from the effects of climate change, is advocating a draft bill that would increase fees on Energy Department loans for transmission lines, with the new revenues going for infrastructure projects in communities where the new lines are built.

In doing so, the group is hoping to dispel a “not in my backyard” mentality that has been common in some rural communities, where transmission lines were seen as detriments to the aesthetics of the wilderness frequented by skiers, climbers and outdoor enthusiasts.

The group’s staff, along with outdoor athletes, are seeking support for the draft they partnered on with Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, D-N.H., hoping that it will garner bicameral, bipartisan support when it’s formally introduced. The group came to Washington last week to drum up support.
First of all, who do you think paid for this D.C. party?  Do you think the "athletes" paid for it out of their own pockets?  I doubt it.  There's someone behind this who paid for the whole party, probably a someone who would benefit financially if this legislation is passed.  That's how astroturf works.  The corporate interests behind the scheme fund all sorts of free parties for anyone who will participate.  The participants rarely know anything about what they are "supporting", they're just there for the party to make it look as if "regular people" support the idea.  Has anyone actually asked a community impacted by the construction and operation of new transmission if they would drop their "NIMBY" opposition if there was some new infrastructure somewhere nearby?  Of course not, because this idea does not work!  It didn't work before, and it's not going to work now.  It's just a waste of money.

Do these gladhanders think that the actual people affected by new transmission won't continue to speak up for themselves and make their concerns clear?  As if they can be smothered into silence by a bunch of puppets pretending they are "helping" the community?

This new legislation shouldn't even see the light of day.  It has zero chance of ever being passed.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy has extended its deadline to apply for the current "Economic Development Grants" for communities impacted by the construction and operation of new transmission projects.  Probably not because they got so many applications, more like they didn't receive any worthwhile applications and are hoping if they extend the deadline some will magically appear.

The problem with these "community benefit" bribe payments is that the "community" impacted by a new transmission line is narrow and linear.  It never coincides with a traditional cluster "community."  Only those persons who are forced into hosting a new transmission lines, and those living very nearby, are actually affected or impacted.  This linear community doesn't need economic development and it would be impossible to site anything like that in the affected linear community.  The impacted landowners are the ones who oppose new transmission and prevent projects from being built.  They will not be affected one bit by the offering of community benefit bribes.  They just want the transmission to go somewhere else... like buried on existing rights-of-way, such as highway or rail.

Landowners directly impacted by new transmission must receive just compensation for property taken from them to site a new transmission line.  Nearby communities do not share in the compensation, and that's because they have not had something taken from them.  It is outrageous to suggest that people who have made no sacrifice get paid for the sacrifice of others.  There's going to be a hard day of reckoning for this at some point in the future.

So, back to the DOE mess.  I asked DOE how it defines a "community affected by the construction and operation of a new transmission line."  Here's the (non)answers I received:
I saw and heard many statements today that a grant project must “be connected to”, “nearby”, or “have a nexus to” a transmission project.  In order to determine if applying for funding is even worthwhile, I need to have this explained.
  1. DOE has not specifically defined a geographic distance from the project for eligibility purposes.  We anticipate that each project may differ in its scope and impact, therefore we have requested that each applicant should explain how their proposed project is eligible for support under this program. In addition, please note that the merit review criteria listed in the FOA at Section V states that applications for economic development activities will be assessed in part based on, “The extent and clarity of the connection described in the Application between the proposed activities and economic development benefits in communities that are likely to be impacted by a covered transmission project.”

How will “communities that may be affected by the construction and operation of a covered transmission project” be defined for eligibility purposes?  How far from the centerline of the transmission project does such a community extend?
  1. As we anticipate that impacts may vary by project and by community, DOE has requested Applicants for Area of Interest 2 address how the project will promote economic development in areas that may be affected by the construction and operation of a covered transmission project. See Section IV.E.iii of the FOA.

What is considered an “affect” of construction and operation of the project?
  1. For an understanding of how grants will be awarded, please refer to the merit review criteria for Area of Interest 1 (siting and permitting) and Area of Interest 2 (economic development) listed in the FOA at Section V. You may also refer to the “Standards for Application Evaluation” and “Other Selection Factors” including “Program Policy Factors” that are also referenced in Section V of the FOA. 

How will an economic development grant be expected to speed up siting and permitting?
  1. While the funds associated with an economic development grant can only be disbursed once either the siting authority has approved the covered transmission project (if the applicant is a siting authority) or construction has commenced (if the applicant is a state, local, or Tribal governmental entity other than a siting authority), DOE may select awardees for economic development grants prior to a decision to site and permit the relevant transmission project and obligate federal funds for such awardees.  To the extent that the activities, if awarded, would accelerate transmission siting timelines and/or increase the chance that a transmission project would be developed, DOE will consider that as part of the established Merit Review Criteria.
DOE has no criteria to determine whether the applicant for the funds is actually "affected by the construction and operation of a transmission project" as directed by the enabling statute.  DOE is simply going to make it up based on the applications it receives in order to give the money away.  What's going to happen when these awards end up in court?  The money is going to be clawed back, that's what, unless it is only given to "communities" affected by the construction and operation of the transmission project.

Such a complete waste of time!  But that's not stopping Representative Kuster from being a good puppet and adding to this illogical give away.
Kuster, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted in a statement that the U.S. may need to triple energy transmission capacity by 2050 to meet the target of net-zero carbon emissions by bringing more renewable electricity generation on line.

“In order to make that a reality, we must ensure that communities where transmission projects will be built are excited to host these lines,” Kuster said.  “By securing tangible benefits for the towns and cities that host these projects, like new schools, roads, or outdoor recreation facilities, in addition to improved electricity reliability, this legislation will help build support for transmission projects across the country.”
"Excited"?  They're going to be so "excited" that they show up on her front lawn in the middle of the night armed with torches and pitchforks!

And you know what the best part is going to be?  The "athletes" in the crowd who thought the party was such a good idea when it didn't affect them, but ended up with a new transmission line in one of the places they hold dear.  NIMBY happens to everyone, as soon as the party is over.
1 Comment

Electric Subsidies Destroy Markets and Upend Long Standing Ratemaking Tenets

10/24/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
Washington D.C. is in love with your tax dollars.  It is on a spending spree to see how fast it can spend them, perhaps even faster than you make them, plunging our country into even more debt than future taxpayers can dig their way out of.  But there's another reason to stop the subsidies -- they are destroying the electricity markets we depend on to keep the rates we pay for service just and reasonable.

Check out this thoughtful piece from the Cato Institute, The Inflation Reduction Act Could Turn Electricity Markets into Subsidy Clearinghouses.
The piece starts out with a quote from FERC Commissioner James Danley:
“There’s been this move afoot in which markets have become something closer to a mechanism by which to harvest … subsidies, rather than what they were intended to do, which is ensure least cost dispatch of available resources and to incentivize new investment.”
The article warns,
For the most part, RTOs have embraced the goal of economic efficiency for the past 23 years (since Order No. 2000). However, some RTOs have begun to include the “clean‐​energy transition” and “environmentally sustainable power system” in their mission statements. Advocates of economic efficiency should be concerned that the IRA will push RTOs further into a new era in which the goal of economic efficiency is secondary to environmental goals or ignored entirely.
Also the goal of reliability, which is increasingly imperiled by the retirement of baseload generators before replacement renewables come on line.  It doesn't take an energy market expert to realize that if you reduce the supply of electricity, prices will increase and there won't be enough to go around.  The rule of supply and demand is one we all learned in elementary school.

Renewable energy subsidies create negative pricing in electric markets, where the generator is paid less than it costs to produce the electricity.  But contrary to ordinary logic, these generators seemingly operating at a loss continue to thrive.  Why?  Subsidies.  Often the subsidies are greater than the price of power in the market, allowing a generator to sell its electricity for less than it cost to produce and still make a profit.  
The value of the PTC today is $27.50 per megawatt‐​hour. In the price contour map above, several of the indicated hubs were trading below that amount (in the range of $25–26 per megawatt‐​hour). Again, in most other industries, a federal subsidy larger than the price of the commodity would be unimaginable—people familiar with the industry would sound alarms about the distorting effects of large subsidies. People would be justified in losing their temper, for example, if Congress implemented a new federal subsidy of $70–90 per barrel of crude oil produced in the United States (the going rate over the last year or so). With subsidies larger than the commodity price, will RTOs trade as much (or more) in federal subsidies as they do in electricity?
Fossil fuel generators cannot play this game because they do not receive subsidies.  They cannot offer their generation at below cost for long, instead they shut down, go out of business, and stop providing electricity to the market.  Fossil fuel provides 60% of our current electric supply, and in some areas the average is much higher (for instance, here in WV our supply of electricity generated by coal is north of 90%).
Coal and natural gas are dispatchable generation resources that presently provide 60 percent of our electricity. They are also essential if grid operators are to maintain reliability. Subsidies for intermittent generation will lead to the retirement or bankruptcy of dispatchable resources, which will not only create challenges in maintaining grid reliability but will open the door for subsidies for dispatchable resources (whether or not they are truly needed for reliability). Such a subsidy spiral could be endless and could pit federal subsidies in the IRA against state subsidies for preferred resources, all paid for by American taxpayers or electricity customers one way or another.
The solution is to stop the subsidies. The author of this piece admits, 
Counting the many reasons to repeal the energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has become my favorite activity.
Me, too!  But my reasons are rooted in the long-standing regulatory and ratemaking principles that are being trashed by the new subsidies.  Last week, the U.S. DOE announced it was giving away $3.5 Billion of your tax dollars to various utilities to "upgrade" our supposedly failing electric grid and bring 35 gigawatts of "clean" electricity online.   

First of all, I have to state that our grid is not failing, or "creaking", as the propagandists perpetuate.  We have numerous reliability organizations working continuously to ensure our grid is reliable.  It's nowhere near as fragile as the misinformation tries to lead you to believe.  It's the world's largest machine, there when you need it nearly 100% of the time.  The propagandists are simply attacking the grid's reliability because they want YOU to think it's about to fail so you won't mind paying an outrageous electric bill for new transmission solely for the purpose of connecting new wind and solar generators in out of the way places.  Current rules require the new generator to pay for the cost of transmission to connect with the existing system.  The propagandists want to shift that to electric consumers so it doesn't eat up any of the generator's subsidies.  In fact, the propagandists are even subsidizing transmission now, as last week's give-away proves.

Our utility system is based on "beneficiary pays".  That means that we all pay our own way in our utility bills.  We pay to build and maintain the system from which we receive service.  Everyone pays for the system they use.  This ensures rates for service are just and reasonable and that we are not forced to pay for a system that benefits others and not us.  This is how we pay for electric transmission in this country.  Transmission is not paid for by taxes, as some folks wrongly believe.  It is paid for by ratepayers... the customers who use the system.  If you don't use the system, you don't pay for it, even though you still pay taxes for other governmental services you may or may not use.  For example, I pay for the electric system that brings power to my house here in West Virginia.  I do not pay for the electric system that brings power to Gavin Newsome's house in California because I receive no benefit from it.

But think a bit about the DOE's giveaway last week.  It's billions of taxpayer dollars being doled out to certain lucky communities to expand and improve the electric system that serves them.  Now I am paying not just for my own system, but the 58 systems in 44 states that I don't use.  And what about those people in those lucky systems?  They are getting a free lunch courtesy of our tax dollars.  There's a reason their electric systems did not make these improvements and expansions that will now be paid for by federal largesse!  If these improvements were needed and cost effective, the local electric system would make them and add the costs to the beneficiary bills.  However they did not, possibly because the economics of the improvements did not pencil out.  Perhaps they cost more to build than they would provide in benefits.  But, hey, no worries, the local systems can afford them now because they have been subsidized by taxpayers all over the nation who will never draw any benefits from the improvements!

We've got a huge problem in Washington, D.C.  We have a bunch of clueless elected officials being directed by a bunch of clueless lobbyists who don't have the foggiest idea how electricity markets or utility ratemaking operates.  Congress has run amuck.  It no longer listens to the geeks and nerds who run and regulate the utility system, it only listens to the lobbyist named Johnny Subsidyseed, who is dumber than a box of rocks.  As a result, our existing utility system is slowly being eroded.  There's your real "creaky" problem.  It's not the grid, it's Johnny Subsidyseed working for greedy corporations who don't care if they destroy the system as long as they can fill their pockets.

We've got to get Johnny Subsidyseed out of Washington before the lights go out!
0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Asks For Loan From Shady DOE Office

10/22/2023

2 Comments

 
During a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley questioned Jigar Shah, Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Loans Program Office.  Senator Hawley's questions revolved around Mr. Shah's apparent conflict of interest in attending pay-to-play invitation-only industry conferences where he was accessible to companies that wanted to get loans from his office.  At one point, Senator Hawley rendered Mr. Shah speechless.  Watch this brief exchange here:
Senator Hawley's questions stemmed from this Congressional report which revealed that Mr. Shah founded a clean energy trade group called The Cleantech Leaders Roundtable  before he was appointed Director of the Loans Program Office.  Once he was appointed, he continued to attend and speak at the group's private functions.  These are the paid conferences that Senator Hawley was referring to.  The Cleantech Leaders Roundtable is a shady organization that keeps its membership secret, and its functions are invitation-only for members.  Who attends these functions in order to hobnob with Mr. Shah, who controls the purse strings of billions of dollars of taxpayer-backed government loans?  Do you think Grain Belt Express parent company Invenergy is a member?  It would be odd if it was not.

After Mr. Shah went from CleanTech Leaders to the DOE's Loans Program Office, the organization made this social media post:

Picture
It appears to me that this group was positively chortling over its good fortune to have one of its insiders in charge of doling out billions of taxpayer dollars for "clean energy" loans.  Hundreds of Billions $$$$$$ of your tax dollars!  

Senator Hawley was spot on with his questioning.  But what Senator Hawley seemed to miss was Mr. Shah's connection to something happening in the Senator's own backyard in Missouri.  Grain Belt Express has applied to Mr.  Shah's office for a government-guaranteed loan for up to 80% of its cost to build the project.  With GBE's costs estimated to be around $7B, this means a $5.6 BILLION dollar loan to Grain Belt Express backed up by your tax dollars, if Mr. Shah approves.

Furthermore, Grain Belt Express currently only has one customer for less than 5% of its project capacity, and that customer received below-cost pricing.  Grain Belt Express does not currenty have the revenue needed to make necessary payments on a government-backed loan.  

Senator Hawley should demand that DOE make sure that Grain Belt Express has the necessary signed customer contracts to provide enough revenue to pay back any loan it receives, and under no circumstances should the DOE loan money to GBE before it has sufficient revenue in place in the form of signed and verified contracts.

If DOE loans money to GBE based on its PLAN to sell its service at some time in the future it could turn into a nearly $6B boondoggle, 12 times worse than Solyndra!

While Senator Hawley's questioning of Jigar Shah made great theater, it is up to you to make sure he takes the next step to tie Mr. Shah to the loan application of Grain Belt Express that is currently under Mr. Shah's review.  Help Senator Hawley make this connection by contacting him here or by calling his office at 202-224-6154.
2 Comments

GBE FERC Amendment Questioned by Missouri Landowners Alliance

10/21/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Grain Belt Express has a long way to go to actually make its project a reality.  GBE needs approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to negotiate rates with potential customers.  Only through this process can GBE sign up customers who will pay the costs of constructing its transmission line.  Without customers, GBE is nothing but a PLAN.

Clean Line applied for, and received, Negotiated Rate 
Authority from FERC way back in 2014 based on Clean Line's corporate structure, investors, and the project it was planning to build at that time.  Once it was approved, Clean Line proceeded with an Open Solicitation.  An Open Solicitation is a fair and transparent process by which a merchant transmission line like GBE negotiates with potential customers and awards capacity on its project through the signing of contracts.  The company needed to provide wide notice of its project and the capacity it was offering so that interested potential customers could make offers and negotiate to use the project.  A company like GBE must offer the opportunity to bid and negotiate to ALL potential customers.  Customers responded to GBE's Solicitation and GBE began negotiations with them.  Except, no contracts actually resulted from that process.  At some point, Clean Line engaged in what some thought was a shady deal with MJMEUC (the 31 cities) to purchase 200 megawatts of GBE's capacity.  Was the offering widely noticed?  Were negotiations based on fair principles?  Nobody knows because Clean Line never submitted the required Compliance Filing to FERC explaining how it conducted the process that resulted in the MJMEUC contract.  Clean Line just sort of walked away from the process and never closed its Open Solicitation or made the required filings with FERC.  That was in 2016.

Since that time, Invenergy bought the project.  It should have made a filing notifying FERC that it did so and find out what it needed to do to transfer GBE's Negotiated Rate Authority to its new project.  But it didn't.  Invenergy did nothing with its NRA either.  It just simply sat there collecting dust.

Finally, just before the MO PSC approved GBE this month, GBE got inspired to file an "amendment" to its Negotiated Rate Authority with FERC.  GBE's FERC application was sort of like the one it filed at the MO PSC -- a simple "amendment" that skims over all the changes to the project and asks for approval based on stale information filed by Clean Line.  GBE was trying to pull the wool over FERC's eyes by not informing them of all the changes to the project.  They might have succeeded, but...

The Missouri Landowners Alliance filed a Protest on GBE's NRA amendment docket at FERC yesterday.  MLA's comments blew me away!  It seems that perhaps GBE has violated a bunch of FERC's rules with its actions since it bought the project, such as negotiating with potential customers without an Open Solicitation.  MLA also contended that the MJMEUC contract should be void because Clean Line never made the required Compliance Filing that required FERC's approval before the contract was valid.  GBE said that it was prepared to make the required compliance filing at some time in the future, but the MLA opined that may be difficult since it has been over 7 years since the contract was negotiated and signed by Clean Line.  Where are the records necessary to make a detailed compliance filing?  Did they go into a dumpster in Houston 5 years ago?

Read a copy of MLA's Protest here.
​
20231020-5079_mla_protest_er24-59_final.pdf
File Size: 2096 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Thanks to MLA's comments, FERC now knows that there are problems with GBE's "amendment" that are going to require a little more work and contemplation by the FERC Commissioners.  It's no longer a matter of a quick and simple rubber stamp.

Keep your eyes on this one!  GBE's ability to negotiate with customers is riding on it!  And, remember, no customers, no GBE!
0 Comments

PJM Selects New Transmission Scenarios

10/15/2023

0 Comments

 
On October 3, PJM Interconnection revealed its preferred scenarios for new transmission to connect coal-fired electric generation plants in West Virginia and southwestern Pennsylvania to the unabated build out of new data centers in Northern Virginia that are making our grid unreliable.

PJM narrowed the 72 proposals it received down to just 3 preferred scenarios shown in this presentation on pages 41-43.  PJM says it included the proposal on page 41, identified as NextEra 175, because it was a non-incumbent solution.  PJM went on to indicate that this proposal really doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being the final selection.  PJM is favoring the 500 kV or 765 kV scenarios on pages 42-43.  PJM said that it will select one of these two for an immediate recommendation for approval and build, and select the other as a long-term scenario.  From what PJM said, and from browsing the submissions in PJM's next competitie proposal window, I surmise that the 500 kV scenario is the "right now" project and the 765 kV scenario is the long term solution it will recommend next.  Therefore, we can expect that PJM will approve and assign BOTH of these proposals to be built within the next 5-7 years.

Let's concentrate on the 500kV scenario.  PJM says that this scenario is part of proposal number 853 submitted by NextEra.  NextEra is a competitive transmission developer based in Florida.  It's not your local utility.  NextEra 853 looks like this on PJM's map:
Picture
The portions of this proposal that affect Jefferson County, West Virginia and Loudoun County, Virginia look like this:
Picture
There are two connecting route segments in Jefferson County, West Virginia and Loudoun County, Virginia.  The following is PJM's narrative description of where these routes will go.  The brown text indicates portions where NextEra will wreck and rebuild the existing 138kV transmission line (wooden H-frame poles) as a double-circuit 500/138 kV line that will require at least an additional 30 feet of right-of-way.  The green text indicates portions of the project that will be on new 165 ft. wide right-of-way.  For the Loudoun County portion, the new 500 kV line will be routed in areas without existing transmission lines.

Segment 1
General route description: Route is approximately 22 miles long. Starting at a new dead end structure at the new Woodside substation, the line routes east along the existing Stonewall - Feagan's Mill 138kV transmission line ROW for 11 miles with the entire Stonewall - Feagan's Mill 138kV transmission line rebuilt under the new greenfield transmission line. The new line routes around the existing Feagan's Mill substation and then resumes using the existing 138kV transmission ROW between Feagan's Mill and Millville, for about 2 miles where the 138kV transmission ROW separates from the existing Bismark - Doubs500kV transmission ROW. The line routes adjacent to the existing 500kV transmission ROW for almost 4 miles before resumes using the existing Millville - Lovettsville 138kV transmission line. The line uses the Millville - Lovettsville 138kV transmission line ROW for approximately 4 miles to the east before deviating from the existing 138kV transmission ROW to create a new ROW. It is advantageous to rebuild the existing 138kV transmission circuits underneath the new 500kVtransmission line to minimize viewshed impacts, reduce ROW acquisition costs, reduce residential land infrastructure impacts, and reduce tree clearing requirements, especially for the furthest east section where the new line crosses the Appalachian Trail. This line component ends east of the Appalachian Trail, where a different line component begins to continue the route to new Gant substation.
The new right of way will be an expansion of an existing transmission line corridor for approximately 80% of the route length, where a 30 ft additional width will be required beyond the existing, assumed, ROW edge. For approximately 20% of the route length, the right of way will have its own corridor with a width of 115 ft (10%) and 165 ft (5%).
The majority, approximately 80%, of the proposed structures will be single circuit 500kV lattice towers with 138kV (TTVS-500-138) in a horizontal conductor configuration. The 138kV line to be underbuilt is an existing line. Approximately 20% of the structures will be single circuit 500kV lattice towers (TTVS-500) in a horizontal conductor configuration. Any proposed deadend structure will either be lattice tower or a 3-pole, one phase per pole structure type.
​

Segment 2
Route is approximately 25 miles long. The component begins as a continuation of the 500kV -138kV underbuild from the new Woodside substation. The line continues to follow the existing Doubs - Bismark 500kV transmission ROW for about 0.5 miles before turning south. The line maintains a predominately south-southeast direction for about 17 miles, with minor shifts in route direction to reduce impacts to existing structures, residences, and vegetation. The new line shifts east around Leesburg, Virginia, for about 5 miles, before reaching the Dulles Greenway. The line routes alongside the Dulles Greenway ROW for about a mile before turning north and terminating at the new Gant substation.
The new right of way will have its own corridor and will have a width of 165 ft.
The proposed structures will be single circuit 500kV lattice towers (TTVS-500) in a horizontal conductor configuration. Any proposed deadend structure will either be lattice tower or a 3-pole, one phase per pole structure type.
PJM has indicated that it will make its final selection on October 31.  If you even think you may be affected by this proposal, you need to make PJM aware of your concerns now.  You can send your comments on this proposal to PJM by emailing [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected].

If you do nothing, your next notice may be a postcard in the mail indicating that NextEra is routing the transmission line through your property and requires you to sign over a right-of-way across your property.  Don't be a sitting duck!
0 Comments

Missouri PSC Speculates On GBE

10/15/2023

0 Comments

 
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride!
The Missouri PSC issued an Order last week speculating on the Grain Belt Express transmission project.  I don't know when I've seen an Order so full of mistakes and baloney before.  This is apparently what happens when a utility regulator is turned into an avenue to award political favors.  None of the current Commissioners have any knowledge or experience with the electric utility industry... and it shows!  I felt stupider after reading the Order.  Much of it was copied and pasted from the PSC's last Order approving GBE, such as:
Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of Project structures.
The Order also says:
The Project is designed to have a minimal impact to land.  In Phase I for the HVDC Main Line approximately 9 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. For Phase I Tiger Connector approximately 0.2 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. And for the Phase II HVDC Main Line, approximately 7 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. 
How much land will be taken out of production?  A 200 foot wide strip across more than 200 miles of Missouri, that's how much.  The PSC obviously has no clue!

And then there's this ridiculous quote taken out of the original GBE Order that's like biting on something rotten.
There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources. We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement toward renewable energy. The energy on the Project provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally-friendly energy that will increase resiliency of the grid. The Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, with the conditions set out below, in the public interest. 
There can be no debate?  Of course there is debate!  There is debate about everything, especially the failure of "clean energy" to keep the lights on despite trillions of our tax dollars being poured into this empty well.  Anyone who states that "there can be no debate" is a totalitarian lunatic!

And here's the non-debatable and speculative part...
Grain Belt has a viable plan for raising the capital necessary to finance the cost of constructing the Project on a project financing basis. Specifically, 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 will enter such contracts with interested parties that satisfy necessary creditworthiness requirements. Grain Belt will then raise debt capital using the aforementioned contracts as security for the debt.


Grain Belt anticipates utilizing a combination of commercial and governmental sources of financing, and, at this time, is still evaluating all potential options for financing. Options for governmental sources of financing include the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP); and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Transmission Facilitation Program; Department of Energy loans to non-federal borrowers for transmission facilities pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act and potentially other government funding options. Additional equity capital may also be raised to help finance construction of the Project, or Grain Belt’s existing investors may make additional equity investments in the Project.
Grain Belt Express has only one customer for just 5% of its project capacity.  It also does not have approval to finance its project on the backs of American taxpayers.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  It's going to be a long journey to having GBE fully subscribed, especially since GBE does NOT even have FERC's approval to negotiate rates with potential customers.  After being asleep at the switch since it bought the project from Clean Line Energy Partners in 2019, Invenergy has suddenly become inspired to "amend" the negotiated rate authority FERC granted to Clean Line Energy Partners in 2014.  Just like GBE "amended" its permit from the Missouri PSC when what it really did was create a totally new project that wasn't sufficiently reviewed.  Just because the uneducated PSC Commissioners in Missouri fell for that ruse doesn't mean FERC will as well.

Perhaps the best part of GBE's FERC "amendment" is this claim made by Invenergy:
Consistent with the Commission’s requirements for obtaining and maintaining negotiated rate authority, Grain Belt Express’s negotiated rates will continue to be just and reasonable. In the context of negotiated rates, the Commission considers whether the merchant transmission developer has assumed the full market risk for the cost of constructing its proposed project, and is not building within the footprint of the developer’s (or an affiliate’s) traditionally regulated transmission system. The Commission also considers whether the merchant transmission owner (or an affiliate) owns transmission facilities in the same region as the project, what alternatives customers have, and whether the merchant transmission owner is capable of erecting any barriers to entry among competitors, and whether the owner would have any incentive to withhold capacity.
Here, Grain Belt Express has assumed, and will continue to assume, the full market risk for the cost of constructing the Project. Grain Belt Express has no captive pool of customers from which it could recoup the cost of the Project. ​
No customers.... just captive American taxpayers who would foot the bill if GBE defaulted on a government loan, and who would pay GBE for its capacity under DOE's Transmission Facilitation Program.

There's also the matter of GBE's pending Environmental Impact Statement that won't even be in draft form until sometime later this winter.  Only after that document is finalized will DOE make a decision on whether to grant a taxpayer-backed loan.  What's a taxpayer-backed loan?  It's the same as any loan with a co-signer who is responsible for repayment if the borrower defaults.  In this case, the co-signer would be every taxpayer in the country.  GBE has applied to shift all risk for its project onto captive taxpayers.

So, the Missouri PSC approved GBE?  Big Flipping Deal.  Grain Belt Express is going nowhere without customers that will pay to build it.  There can be no debate that GBE's financing plan is a house of cards.
0 Comments

    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.