Lollipops... cherry pie... ice cream... treacle tarts... broadband...  ALL FREE TODAY!

Today, Invenergy's Grain Belt Express announced its plans to include broadband capability on the project infrastructure at no additional cost to Missouri communities or taxpayers.

So, hey, guess what?  Missouri communities and taxpayers won't have to pay to build it but they will have to pay to use it.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... or lollipop... or broadband.

Discussions are underway with Missouri internet service providers who could use the infrastructure to provide internet for nearly 1 million underserved Missourians.

Yes, they could use it, once they pay Grain Belt Express a fee for the service.  And then they'll charge end users a fee to use it as well.

Invenergy will seek permission from landowners to consolidate this infrastructure in project easements along the Missouri Public Service Commission approved route.

Ya mean when they take the property using eminent domain, now extended for the use of broadband, too?  Does this mean that anyone who wants to build broadband in Missouri can use eminent domain just like Invenergy?

I'm gonna spare you the rest of the garbage about how wonderful Invenergy thinks they are and how much they just love, love, love you and your community!  I simply can't type when I'm retching.

If you see the Child Catcher in your neighborhood, it is recommended that you hide in your basement and don't come out, no matter how delicious the free treats are today.  You don't want to end up in his cage.

There's a new tool in the tool box, transmission opponents!

The people of Maine have refused to accept the political approval of the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project by unelected bureaucrats.  And they did something about it!

Yesterday, a grassroots citizens group, No CMP Corridor, delivered more than 75,000 signatures to the Secretary of State on a petition to invalidate the Maine Public Utility Commission's approval of the transmission project through referendum.  Now the proposal will be voted upon by the people of Maine when placed on the ballot in November, 2020.  If it passes, goodbye NECEC!  This issue is going to be decided by the people, not politically by unelected bureaucrats.

This represents an awesome effort by a grassroots group opposed to the transmission line.  In order to place a referendum on the ballot, the group was required to collect more than 63,000 signatures in just a few short months.

THEY DID IT!

This demonstrates enormous citizen dissatisfaction with Central Maine Power, a once local utility that is now owned by a foreign corporation.  CMP has been embroiled in a billing fiasco that overcharged customers over the past several years, at the same time it has been trying to pull off the approvals necessary to build the NECEC.  The transmission project is for the purpose of connecting existing hydroelectric generators in Canada with utility customers in Massachusetts.  Massachusetts sought "cleaner" generation to meet a state mandate.  Massachusetts wants cleaner power, but it doesn't want to make a sacrifice to get it.  Instead, it first proposed new transmission through New Hampshire to make the connection, but that proposal was not approved by New Hampshire.  Next, it considered the CMP proposal to use Maine as its doormat, running a new line through that state's last remaining wilderness.  The people of Maine don't like it anymore than the people of New Hampshire did.  You wouldn't like it either if someone in another state wanted to trash your place to hook up their designer "clean" energy for the purpose of virtue signalling.  It's hypocritical, at best, for Massachusetts to pretend they are helping the environment in their own state by destroying the environment in another.

Over the past several years, No CMP Corridor has built an amazing citizen army, and they're not backing down.  In fact, they're taking action!  After the Maine PUC approved the project at the behest of the Governor in the wake of a $258M payoff of gewgaws for the state, the citizens went to their legislature to pass new laws to slow down the project and give the people a voice in their own destiny.  Although the legislation passed, the Governor vetoed it.  I guess this was supposed to discourage and stop the opposition.

But it didn't.  It only made them stronger and more determined.  Hats off to these strong and resolute citizens!  They succeeded in doing something amazing!

Now that they have met (even exceeded) their petition signature goal, the Secretary of State must verify the signatures.  CMP says they will be watching this process very closely.  Let's hope they keep their dirty fingers out of it.  The signatures have already been verified by the localities as belonging to registered voters.  What's left for the Secretary of State and CMP to complain about?

CMP now threatens that it's going to begin construction of the project "this spring" after receiving the rest of its outstanding permits.  Sounds like an empty threat to me.  Permits never happen when a utility expects.  There are always unforeseen delays.  And it would be extremely unwise for the remaining permitting agencies to approve construction that may come to a screeching halt in November if the referendum passes.  Would the agencies be putting themselves in a position to be sued for damages by CMP for giving them the go-ahead when this referendum is looming?  For its part, CMP's chest-beating is about the most imprudent thing it could do.  NECEC is a merchant transmission project.  If they don't deliver to Massachusetts, they collect zero.  Their investment would end up here.

And when is Massachusetts going to wake up to the fact that this project isn't happening anymore than the first proposal in New Hampshire?  Someone in Massachusetts needs to put on their thinking cap and find a better solution to their "clean" energy needs. 

The big energy interests are falling all over themselves now that the citizens have found a way to thwart them.  The energy firms and political interests thought they had set themselves up in a never-fail world, where political pressure and lots of cash would guarantee them the ability to run over the common people.  That world is now dead.  Dead!

But still they arch their backs and hiss like they have a natural right to power over people.  In actuality, they're probably soiling themselves while trying to desperately devise some new way to overthrow the will of the citizens.

No longer are transmission opponents the meek victims of a state's very political transmission permitting process.  They have the power to overturn it through referendum, and the people of Maine have proven that it can be done!

Keep your eye on this exciting new tool and cheer these brave, determined folks on as they walk the path to victory!

Word is that the Missouri Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment Committee voted the Senate's version of the eminent domain bill out of committee this afternoon by a vote of 6-5.

The bill, SB597 sponsored by Senator Brown, is identical to HB2033 that was passed by the Missouri House of Representatives earlier this week.

This is good news!  Hopefully the bill will be on the Senate floor soon for debate and vote.

Many thanks to all the committee members who supported this bill, especially Senator Riddle who stood strong for her constituents today!

This is Howard Cosell, signing off... until the next big game!

The more desperate someone becomes, the further their arguments stray from the truth.  When the truth isn't working, the message gets embellished.

You'd think all Missourians were head over heels for Grain Belt Express after reading this.

It's also a project that will destroy so many family farms and the rural economies they support.  Lower yields and higher costs to farm mean less income for farmers.  Less income for farmers equals less they have to put back into the agricultural economy in their own communities.  Not every rural community would "benefit" equally.

And let's talk about all those amazing savings, shall we?

Oh, c'mon!  This guy has no idea what it's like living paycheck to paycheck if he thinks that saving the price of a cup of coffee on your monthly electric bill will lift you into economic prosperity.  I think maybe he's spreading it on a little thick.

What are the savings?  And how accurate are they anymore?  How much is waiting around for GBE to be built costing municipal electricity customers?  The amazing savings claim is overblown.

I'm guessing this fella hasn't looked at the MJMEUC contract, or GBE's filings at the PSC.

GBE said it would make available 500 MW, a very small percentage of its 3,500 MW capacity.  MJMEUC only agreed to purchase up to 200 MW of the 500 offered.  The other 300 MW is going stale on the shelf because no one in Missouri wants to buy it.  Get it?  There's no need for GBE in Missouri!  If it was needed, there would be buyers willing to pay for it.

And then there's all the jobs blather.  I'm sorry, but creating jobs is not a "public use" granted eminent domain authority.  No one's right to have a job trumps another's right to own and enjoy property.

We're currently experiencing a booming economy.  Unemployment is at record lows.  Justifying the use of eminent domain for some jacked up number of temporary jobs for workers from other areas completely falls flat.

But this... this is the ultimate piece of work...

Is your land a "special interest?"  Calling landowners, voters, citizens, engaged in a grassroots effort to protect their homes, businesses, and way of life "special interest groups" is the ultimate insult.  These are honest, hardworking people defending the taking of what's theirs from out-of-state "special interest group" Invenergy, who is seeking to make money from the taking.  The only "special interest groups" here are Invenergy, and a handful of municipalities who have bellied up to the buffet to gorge themselves on the loss of others.  (Except, hey, check the menu... it's really just granola bars and water, not the feast they promised you.)

I think it's Grain Belt Express that is "hindering Missourians in rural communities" across the state.  Landowners have been held in limbo for a decade while first Clean Line bumbled its way through years of unsuccessful permitting, and now Invenergy comes after them, even though it doesn't have enough customers to make the project economically feasible.  How many sleepless nights will the landowners endure while out-of-state corporations play their corporate money-making games?  How much of the landowners' hard-earned income is being siphoned away in an effort to protect their rights?  Landowners didn't ask for this, and to continue to hold them hostage while Invenergy plays energy games is shameful.  Let Invenergy play its games in a free market where no one is held hostage!  Invenergy could build its project underground, on existing rights-of-way, and not bother anyone, but it doesn't want to.  It must believe Missouri is its doormat, as much as the author of this op ed seems to.

When other Clean Line projects were defeated, better projects emerged.  Buried transmission on existing rights-of-way is really happening!  If this guy really cared about Missouri, he'd drop GBE like a hot potato and look to the future where a project that does no harm will emerge.

Is this guy convincing anyone with his pie-in-the sky, exaggerated claims of how wonderful GBE would be for Missouri?

Not me.

But, hey, there's one point where I can agree with him!

The only way anyone is going to benefit from this project is by leaving it in the dust and moving on to better ideas.  Contact your Senators, because your voice matters!  A quick email or phone call is all it takes!  Do it today!

Congratulations, Missouri!  This evening, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of HB 2033 that would prohibit the use of eminent domain by merchant transmission developers!

The bill is now on to the Senate.  Stay tuned for ways you can help ensure this very important new law is put into place.

But what about Invenergy?  Caveat Emptor, fellas!  You bought a used transmission project with a host of problems.  It's not just a little dog-eared, it's rode hard through a briar patch with stones in its shoes and put away wet lame. 

The people of Missouri have spoken through their elected representatives.  I think the message is loud and clear.

"Americans for a Clean Energy Grid" is the work of big green dark money.  Use of the word "Americans" in its name connotes the image of patriotic citizen masses engaged in an effort to build a "clean energy grid", aka trillions of dollars of big, ugly, new electric transmission lines.  However, like most astroturf front groups, that's not reality.  Its members are corporations who would profit from building new transmission, and the big green groups who like to pretend it's all about saving the planet.  Toss in a little political theater, and it's just like any other front group... a corporate effort to appear as grassroots.  I could write a whole bunch about these pretenders, but that's not what this post is about...

The pretenders hold amusing webinars now and then and engage in political efforts to further their goals.  One such webinar was reported in RTO Insider recently as a "celebration" of 20 years of regional transmission organizations.  To make their "celebration" more authentic, they hired some former FERC Commissioners to make comments during the webinar.  And we're all supposed to

I wonder if there was cake?  Champagne?  Party favors?

Apparently, the party got so lit that the guests started celebrating an idea to lobby Congress to give transmission siting and permitting authority to FERC. 

It's all fun and games until video surfaces of a reveler dancing around with a lampshade on their head...

Transmission siting and permitting is state jurisdictional.  That is, only states may site and permit new electric transmission.  FERC's current authority only covers transmission rates, and overseeing the regional transmission organizations who order new transmission.  States still have the final say over whether new transmission may be built within their borders.

It's not like Welllinghoff didn't try to change that during his tenure, though he was ultimately unsuccessful. (Wow, deja vu... that blog written 9 years ago has striking relevance for today.  I must be ahead of my time.)  Congress has wisely preferred to leave that authority with the states.

And then former Commissioner Pat Wood piped up to make sure their scheme was clear,

Hammer?  New authority for FERC to "backstop" state transmission permitting and siting is intended to be a hammer?  A hammer is a weapon, and holding a weapon changes the dynamic to one of coercion, or just plain old preemption.

"Do what we say or we'll beat you down with our hammer!"

In this scenario, if states don't knuckle under and site and permit new transmission, FERC would do it for them.  What's the point of states having authority to site and permit if they are usurped by FERC?

This scheme failed the first time FERC tried it, using "backstop" authority granted in Sec. 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  A federal court ruled that backstop authority could not be used to overrule a state decision to deny a permit to new transmission within one year.  The only use for "backstop" power would be if a state could not issue a permit within one year, or choose not to consider the matter.  A state denial ends the application process and nullifies any "backstop" authority.  The court said that if a state considered a permit under state law and denied the permit within one year, there was no "backstop" authority that could overrule a state.  So, what makes these chuckleheads believe that they wouldn't get a similar result with new "backstop" authority?  It looks like they just want to remove state authority altogether and allow the federal government to make decisions on transmission at a national level.  If that happens, flyover states would be helpless ground zero for new transmission that does not benefit them in any way.  Essentially, they would be doormats for the wants and needs of other states, who maybe don't want to look at energy infrastructure in their own neighborhood, but sacrifice other areas for their own use.

Of course, this is unlikely to happen.  Even the moderator admitted as much.

Like this?

Electric transmission is not a warm and fuzzy thing.  Federal preemption of state authority isn't a cute teddy bear.  Any attempt to make it so will be met with swift, strong, and outspoken opposition from the thousands of actual Americans who oppose new transmission to serve the selfish wants of others with no skin in the game.

This isn't 2005.  We're fully woke now and we're watching you...

I first heard about the PATH Transmission project in the summer of 2008.  It was a horrible, unneeded idea that eventually met its fate, shelved in 2011 and cancelled for good in 2012.  Many considered that the end of the PATH project.

But it wasn't.  A formal complaint about PATH's rates had been filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in January, 2011.  I chose to stick with that complaint, even when PATH was no longer a threat.  It's been a lot of work over the past nine years, coming in fits and starts. 

We prevailed on our complaint, and PATH was ordered in 2017 to refund more than seven million dollars, plus interest and undue return it had collected for its extensive public relations campaign and lobbying carried out for the purpose of influencing the decisions of public officials considering the project's applications.  The correct precedent was set, and utilities under FERC's rate setting jurisdiction may no longer collect these kinds of costs from ratepayers.

Done!

But, not really.  Several more orders were issued since then, correcting PATH's refund filings.  Even though ratepayers officially paid off all the PATH debt in 2017, PATH has still managed to collect several million dollars a year from ratepayers while it bumbled its way through the FERC Orders and made required compliance filings.  I continued to keep an eye on what was transpiring.  Sometimes the kids get out of control if they don't have a babysitter.

The twice-yearly rate filing phone meetings and data requests continued.  And how much fun were those?  Not much fun at all.  I'm seriously over it.  Twelve years after PATH began collecting its costs through rate filings at FERC, it's time to put this thing to bed.  For good!  We've all got other things to do.

So, is it January again?  It seems like a lot of the PATH things happen at FERC in January.  New year, out with the old.  Yesterday, FERC issued its agenda for its January, 2020, public meeting.  PATH is on it.  All of the open PATH matters are on it.  They'll be settled one way or the other next Thursday.

Nobody knows what to expect until the order is issued.  But the fact that it ended up, once again, on a monthly meeting agenda indicates that the Commission sees some value in making this order more visible.  The Commission issues orders every day, but only a handful are significant enough to end up on the monthly agenda, delivered before an audience in Hearing Room 1.

I can't wait!  No matter what happens, I'm am truly thrilled to put PATH behind me, for good!

FERC gets a lot of rancor from the public and the industries it regulates.  But, in this instance, FERC has done an outstanding job sorting through everything and meting out justice.  The FERC employees I interacted with during this case have been fair, considerate, and dedicated.  I had a great experience at FERC.  I have faith that FERC works for for the citizens it serves.

Twelve years... the lingering life of a transmission proposal that was concocted in haste... and repented at leisure.  The ratepayer gravy train will now finally grind to a halt.

Here's another stupidity currently being recycled by Missouri municipalities in opposition to legislation that is currently working its way through...

Different versions of the "changing rules" myth have been hanging around for years.  It's time to put them to rest.

The legislature isn't "changing the rules," it's changing the law.  That's what legislatures do.  It's a risk all transmission projects accept when developing a project.

Laws are not a stagnant thing.  Once they're made, they're often changed.  New laws are made.  Existing laws are amended.  It's what happens in a healthy, democratic society.  If we had to keep all laws stagnant for fear of "changing the rules" on someone, there are plenty of old laws that would still be hanging around, much to our detriment.  We change laws to make them work better, for the benefit of all citizens.

To answer Lawson's question about the "signal" it sends, let's look at Iowa.  In 2017, the Iowa legislature passed a new law that declared above-ground merchant transmission lines a private development purpose that may not be granted eminent domain authority.  The Clean Line project that inspired this legislation, the Rock Island Clean Line, was faced with a choice... to build its project without eminent domain authority, or to bury it.  Nothing the legislature did actually banned or stopped the project.  It was Clean Line's choice to abandon it.

The "signal?"  Transmission is still being built in Iowa, but not above-ground merchant lines.  Instead a better project has been proposed for basically the same purpose.  SOO Green Renewable Rail proposes an underground merchant transmission project built on existing rights-of-way.  It's a much better solution to the imagined problem.  It may be more expensive, with undergrounding costing roughly twice as much as above-ground lines, but that's okay because this is a market-based project.  The market for transmission capacity will dictate the prices customers will be willing to pay in a voluntary market, free from manipulation and outside influences.  The developers of SOO Green believe their project will be marketable, despite its cost.

This is the signal the Iowa legislature sent... that projects must do better to avoid impacts to Iowa citizens.  And they all lived happily ever after.

Arkansas also passed a law inspired by a different Clean Line project, the Plains and Eastern Clean Line.  That law prevented the use of eminent domain for a transmission project that was not directed or designated to be constructed by a regional transmission organization.  What happened?  Nothing.  There's still transmission and economic prosperity going on in Arkansas, and the lights are still on.

Legislatures can and do change laws all the time.  And the one in Missouri desperately needs updating!  Public utility and eminent domain law were developed at a time before merchant transmission was proposed in the state.  Multi-state merchant transmission without contracted customers is a relatively new thing everywhere, and other states have dealt with it in the recent past, as noted above.  Nothing disastrous happened. 

The law that gives a public utility eminent domain authority is premised on a belief that a public utility is constructing regulated infrastructure.  The cost of that infrastructure and the ones who pay for it is highly regulated, whether by state utility commissions, or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Enter speculative merchant, market-based, transmission.  Its rates aren't regulated in the same way.  Its rates are negotiated between willing buyers and willing sellers.  Nobody is forced to pay for anything they don't want to.  The regulators cannot say whether a rate is too low, or too high.  They rely on the market to do so.   If a price is too high, there will be no market interest.  Market rates police themselves (assuming they were negotiated in a fair manner without undue influence or preference).

Eminent domain is not a market based mechanism.  It is the government stepping in to effect the taking of private property at a "fair," not market-based price.  If the price paid for property was negotiated without any limit, that would be a market-based price between a willing buyer and a willing seller.  The sellers are unwilling in an eminent domain situation.

Using the market interference of eminent domain on a market-based transmission project is not only unfair to the unwilling seller, it unjustly enriches the transmission project owner, who is still operating in the realm of negotiated, market-based rates.  Its market isn't affected by the price it pays for property.  In fact, if it was truly market-based, the price of property necessary for the project should be based on the same voluntary, free market in which the project negotiates its rates.

It's a legal mismatch that uses the regulated utility's eminent domain authority to boost the earnings for a market-based project.  Many states, such as Iowa and Arkansas (and Illinois, too, although this happened at the state Supreme Court) have recognized this.  Missouri has also now realized it, and that's why its legislators want to remove eminent domain authority for market-based, merchant transmission projects.

It's not to "change the rules," it's to update the law to support new development while protecting the citizens of Missouri.  Grain Belt Express could still build its project.  It just would have to negotiate property prices in a market-based environment without the government-granted power of eminent domain to limit its acquisition costs, and GBE doesn't want to assume that responsibility or cost.

A project that is truly market-based has no need for eminent domain.  GBE and its supporters are simply complaining because legislators are intent on fixing the current legal loophole they slipped through.  With the loophole firmly closed, new transmission in Missouri will be better for ALL citizens, not just a few.

More good news yesterday!  Representative Jim Hansen's bill to remove eminent domain authority from merchant transmission projects passed out of the Missouri House Rules Committee by a large margin.  It's headed to the floor for a vote, possibly as early as next week!  Be on the lookout for opportunities to support this much-needed legislation!

Also yesterday, the Senate companion bill sponsored by Senator Brown had a hearing in the Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy & Environment Committee.  This hearing was much more contentious, and the outcome is uncertain.

The handful of Missouri municipalities who remain incomprehensibly wedded to GBE showed up to blather against the bill.  Ahead of that, these folks did some kind of joint press release that resulted in a string of  substantially similar news articles that were full of pie-in-the-sky thinking and misinformation.

Let's take a look at one of them... the one from the City of Chillicothe.

These stories all contain claims of savings for municipal electric customers, Chillicothe's claimed share being $425,000 annually, spread over 9,600 customers (do the math - it's $3.69 per month, rounded).  That figure was taken from the more general $12.8 million annual savings for all municipalities participating in this game of Russian Roulette.  Except that number is historic and probably not all that applicable right now.

The $12.8M figure came out of MO PSC testimony and was calculated years ago based on GBE replacing a contract with Prairie State that is set to expire by 2021.  Prairie State was an inordinately expensive contract entered into by the municipalities years ago.  It was a bad deal, and it's cost municipal electricity customers millions in increased costs ever since.  It was probably not a smart contract to sign in the first place.

How smart are these municipalities when it comes to energy contracts?  How much do they consider the economic impacts on the customers they serve when making contract decisions?  The history here isn't very good.

Here's the thing... Prairie State will need to be replaced very soon.  What have the municipalities done to accomplish that?  Are they sitting around waiting for GBE to replace it?  That's not going to happen.  GBE won't be completed for years, if ever, so what are these customers supposed to do for energy in the mean time?  Are the municipalities entering into higher-priced, short-term contracts to fill the gap, while betting that GBE will come through to lower costs at some point?  Seems like an awful lot of money wasted now for something that is unlikely to ever happen.  If the municipalities were smart, they would have been looking for the cheapest, long-term contract they could find to replace Prairie State now.  This would be in the best interests of the ratepayers.

Signing a higher priced contract with an exit clause for the municipalities to escape in the future if GBE comes on line comes at a huge price to municipal electric customers.  So would signing a short term contract based on guessing when GBE might be available.

These municipalities should be concerned with only one objective... to provide reliable, cost effective electricity for their customers at all times.  Instead, they're hoping for two birds in a bush to replace the one in their hand.  They continue to fixate on GBE and ignore the present needs of their customers.

GBE offered municipalities in Missouri service on its proposed transmission line at a below cost rate in order to coerce them to sign a contract that was used by GBE to create the illusion of "need" for its project.  It was a gift, but it was a gift with strings attached.  The strings require the municipalities to forego cheaper replacement contracts in favor of the GBE gift happening in the future.  In order to create the illusion of "savings," GBE was compared to the municipalities most expensive electric contract, Prairie State.  At the time, its expiration was at least 5 years in the future, so it seemed a safe bet.  However, GBE has made little to no progress in that 5 year time period.  Prairie State has to be replaced before GBE could ever be built, using the most optimistic view possible.  This means that the municipal savings are actually shrinking, unless the municipalities went out and found an equally expensive contract to replace Prairie State, just to preserve the savings illusion.  Who pays the price for this kind of wishful thinking?  The municipal electric customers!  The municipalities aren't acting in the best interests of their customers, and they're probably using old data to make outrageous "savings" claims.

Contracting for electricity is part price comparison, and part risk evaluation.  Different contracts come with different prices, time frames, and risks.  A cheap contract may lock the customer into a longer term, and it may come with a lot of risk.  Another contract may be a bit more expensive, but with a shorter term, and a lower risk profile.  All of this must be balanced when contracting decisions are made.  It's not all about the price.

What's risk?  Risk is that the resource might not be able to deliver as scheduled.  GBE is a prime example of this.  In exchange for a very attractive price, the contract is long term, and about as risky as it comes.  If the resource can't deliver, the contract holder is left scrambling to find a replacement resource on a very short time frame.  These kind of resources are going to be more expensive, due to their short term, "just in time" nature.  This is what the municipalities will be facing when GBE doesn't deliver.

Why won't it deliver in time?

Where did he get his expectation?  Certainly not from GBE, whose latest claim was that it hoped the project could be ready by 2023 or 2024.  That's a full two years after Chillicothe expects.  Where's Chillicothe's power going to come from during those two years?

My estimate is that GBE is even further down the road.  Here's why:

All of these are HUGE roadblocks that make GBE's risk profile really shaky.  Having a risky profile drives customers away, hence GBE's lack of customers is a self-propelled ride to failure.

It's not happening in 2022.  It's highly unlikely to happen in 2023 or 2024.  And the longer it sits, the worse it smells to potential customers.  And we've yet to figure in time to actually build the project, assuming it's fully approved and finds customers.  How long do you suppose it may take to construct?  We're talking years, it's a very ambitious project.

So, when the municipalities continue to champion GBE, you might want to ask them why.  What contract does it expect GBE to replace?  What's the price of that contract compared to GBE?  When does that contract expire?  What if GBE isn't ready by the time that contract expires?  What contracts are waiting in the wings to fill the gap?

Is this really about saving municipal customers any money at this point, or is it more about politics and stubborn resentment?  After all, those birds flew out of the municipalities bush a long time ago.  Pretending they're still there for the taking is a fool's game. 

The municipalities need to take a step back and ask themselves if this continued hope for GBE is really in the best interests of their customers... before the customers themselves start asking this question.

Good news this morning!  Representative Jim Hansen's HB 2033 to limit eminent domain for merchant transmission sailed through a committee hearing yesterday and was approved to pass this morning.

We're on our way! 

Lots of stuff got brought up in the hearing yesterday, and two very different news articles were posted.  One was good, and one was biased opinion cloaked as news.  Do we call that "fake news" these days?  At any rate, it gives me an opportunity to clear up some misinformation that got spread yesterday.

The bad article can be found here.  Does the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have a bias in favor of the project?  I'd guess they do, after reading the article, or maybe the reporter himself is just uneducated or too lazy to get information first hand and relied too much on opinion instead of fact?

The article starts out with an apparent misunderstanding of the three branches of government.  This is something I think I learned in elementary school, and perhaps a refresher course is in order.

State regulators are part of the executive branch of government.  They carry out laws as they exist.  Judges are part of the judicial branch of government.  They interpret laws as they exist.  Legislators, on the other hand, are part of the legislative branch of government.  They MAKE laws exist.  The legislature can change laws, or make new laws, that are then carried out by the executive branch, or interpreted by the judicial branch.  It doesn't matter what judges or state regulators did with existing laws, the legislature is in the process of making a new law.  Once it does, the regulators and judges will follow the new law.  This ostensible "justification" for GBE makes no sense, because legislators can change the law.  Legislators are not beholden to the opinions of judges or regulators.  Only legislators make laws!

And now let's skip to the reported malarkey spewed by Invenergy at yesterday's hearing.

Jobs, jobs, jobs!  We've all heard this baloney before and we know that job promises rarely come true.  Their numbers are based on extrapolated numbers in a computer program, not reality.  In addition, most of the jobs will be temporary and filled with trained professionals from out of state.  Quit trying to push the "benefits" thing, nobody believes it.

And let's examine that statement about paying more than fair market value.  Who determines "fair market value" if a taking isn't challenged in the courts?  Invenergy does!  Invenergy's land agent subcontractor works to get "market study" data from past land sales in each county.  There could be some picking and choosing going on there that skews the numbers.  Then an "average" market value for land in that county is developed.  Once that figure is arrived at, individual property characteristics can be applied to either raise or lower it to arrive at a "fair" cost per acre.

We are committed to compensating landowners fairly?  Is this the landowner's idea of fair, or is it Invenergy's idea of fair?  Of course, it's Invenergy's, because they currently hold the power of eminent domain to take a property, even if the owner does not agree the compensation is fair.  There's nothing fair about this!

And, which is it, Invenergy?  Fair market value... or more than fair market value?  How much more?  Those statements, taken together, make no sense, which leads me to think that maybe the whole thing is just made up baloney.

Speaking of baloney... less than 10 acres?  So is that all that will be compensated across the state?  Why would Invenergy pay for land not taken?  The truth is that Invenergy is planning to take a 200-foot wide strip of land clear across the state, and they have to compensate landowners for all of it.  This claim is ludicrous.

This seems to be the only thing the reporter managed to come away with to represent the bill's supporters yesterday.

I'm pretty sure there was a lot more said on this topic that perhaps was just too complicated for this uneducated reporter to grasp.

The difference between merchant transmission and regionally ordered and cost allocated transmission was explained rather succinctly.  Here's my version:

Regionally ordered and cost allocated transmission comes from independent regional transmission system operators.  They order new transmission for purposes of reliability, economics, or public policy.  When transmission is ordered, the transmission organization also assigns cost responsibility for the project to regional customers based on their use of the transmission line.  Most importantly, those customers assigned cost responsibility for the project only pay for the cost of the project, plus regulated return to the owner of the transmission.

Now, the difference of merchant transmission, like GBE.  No transmission organization ever ordered GBE.  Its costs will not be collected from regional customers.  Instead, GBE has federal negotiated rate authority.  It collects its costs through rates it negotiates with voluntary customers.  Whatever price GBE can agree to with customers is the amount those customers pay, regardless of what the project costs to build.  These are what is known as "market rates," where the rate charged is supported by a free market where each party comes to the table and negotiates the price without undue influence.

Therefore, GBE's rates are independent from the cost of the project.  If GBE saves money on land acquisition due to the use of eminent domain, then that profit goes in GBE's pocket.  It won't change the rate it has negotiated with its voluntary customers.  On the other hand, when a project is cost allocated to regional customers, they only pay for what it costs to build.  If the owner saves money on land acquisition through the use of eminent domain, those savings go to the customers who pay for the transmission project.

Bottom line:  Eminent domain would increase GBE's profits beyond its cost of service.  If GBE cannot use eminent domain to keep land acquisition prices low and must depend on free market negotiation to acquire land to build its project, that eats into GBE's profits.  There are no savings that go back to customers if land acquisition costs are limited by eminent domain.  This is why merchant transmission should never be granted eminent domain authority.  And this is why the Missouri Legislature wants to change the law to exclude its use for merchant transmission.

This article about yesterday's hearing is much more balanced.  This reporter paid attention and didn't try to apply bias to sway reader's opinions.  You should read it to get a complete picture of what was said by both sides.

And here's what that Invenergy lady had to say in this report:

More of a last resort?  More of a last resort to paying a price for land that is negotiated in a free market?  Eminent domain isn't a part of fair negotiation.  It's coercion, plain and simple.  It was also reported, although not in this article, that she claimed that if a landowner didn't want to negotiate with Invenergy, the company would simply route its project around them.

So, in that case, GBE's route may look like this:

I'm not buying it.

Easement.  Sure, that's where another party has a right to use a portion of your land for their own purposes, even if you object.  Of course, you still "own" it and pay taxes and insurance on it.

Oh! 110% of market value?  Is that "fair?"  Once again, who determines market value?  Invenergy does.  They're going to pay landowners 10% more than the value they determine is fair.  Garbage in, garbage out!

A transmission company's hired land acquisition company spends several months creating a plan before they hit the streets.  They do the market studies, then create a database containing a range of values for each property.  The lowest "fair market value" in the range is what a landowner is originally offered.  The value can increase when a landowner resists, dependent upon approval from higher ups.  What's the highest value in the range for your property?  Of course, they're not going to tell you.

I heard that the Invenergy lady also told a lovely story about the company's plan to hire land agents.  It will be very selectively hiring agents in January, training the agents in February, and then sending them out to the field in March.  BALONEY!  Transmission owners don't hire individual land agents off the street and then train them.  They contract with land acquisition companies that already have teams of trained agents, such as this one, which is said to train their agents in psy ops in order to get resistant landowners to sign agreements.  What happened to the land acquisition company Clean Line was using in Missouri?  Is Invenergy going to just toss out that database and start fresh?  In that case, how could it know what a particular landowner was previously offered to make sure it's new offer was at least as much?

She also allegedly said that Invenergy would gladly deliver all the energy to Missouri, if it could.  Still can't find any customers, Invenergy?

Missouri's energy needs are met, without any part of GBE.

So, now we see where this bill wanders next.  A companion bill in the Senate is set for Committee hearing on Wednesday.  Off to a great start!

What can you do?  You could dash off a Letter to the Editor of one of the newspapers reporting on yesterday's committee hearing, just to set them straight.  Or you could send one to your local paper, or any other paper in Missouri.  Need help?  Just ask!