Who hasn't enjoyed their summer, free from GBE drama?  It was nice while it lasted.  But GBE hadn't really gone away... it just went in hiding at the project hospital behind the corporate couch, where it licked itself extensively and dreamed evil dreams.  And, now, just in time for Halloween.... it's baaaaaaack!

Looks like Clean Line finally met the conditions precedent for the sale to complete.  Invenergy says they are in the process of finalizing the deal.  What were the conditions?  Missouri and Kansas had to approve the sale, which they did.  Kansas even went so far as to change the meaningless deadline to build the project that it set back in 2013.  KCC added 10 years onto the project's lifetime, meaning landowners in Kansas will be held in limbo for nearly 20 years.  Twenty years!  Think about that for a moment.  What if you had a cloud on your property for two decades?  Say someone threatened to take over your kitchen using eminent domain, but never actually did it.  And then the fridge broke.  Would you want to buy a new fridge that someone else is just going to take?  Of course not!  And what if your job transferred you to another state while this was going on and you needed to sell your property?  Who would buy a house where the kitchen was about to be taken by eminent domain?  Holding landowners hostage on their own property for two decades, for free, mind you, is absolutely unconscionable. 

The KCC's conditions for extending the deadline another 10 years:

Sanctions, you say?  Surely you jest!  What kind of "sanctions" could come out of a captured state agency that grants a 10-year extension when the regulated only asked for 5?  The KCC continues to demonstrate its corporate ownership by ordering meaningless deadlines that it never enforces.

Invenergy is hiring to staff up the GBE project.  Hans Detweiler's beard of unemployment has grown long waiting for this moment!  He admitted as much during testimony before the Missouri PSC, where he pretended to be a Clean Line employee with knowledge about the project (although Hans was attached to RICL throughout its life).  Poor Hans!  All hope is dashed!  Invenergy requires its new Vice President to be a degreed ENGINEER, not just a Poli Sci major who likes to masquerade as an engineer at landowner meetings.  I wonder where Hans can buy an engineering degree real quick?  Anybody know?

Alas, the job seems to be missing a requirement that this project guy have chameleon capabilities so that he's harder to find by landowners when things go wrong, but I'm sure that would be an unpublished plus.

Invenergy has a new website for Grain Belt Express.  I never thought I'd say this, but Clean Line's website for the project was much better.  Invenergy's website is pretty devoid of useful information or opportunities for user interaction.  It's almost like they haven't quite finished it yet and aren't ready to have it plastered all over the internet.  Too bad, so sad.

There's pretty much nothing for landowners on Invenergy's website.  I do note that the project is now 800 miles long, although Invenergy is using the same old project map.  Where did the extra 50 miles of project come from?  Or does the number 800 have a certain amount of luck or feng shui that 750 doesn't?  Is Invenergy just that superstitious?  Or do they actually think making the project sound longer is a good thing?  It's not a good thing for landowners, but I don't think landowners are the target audience for this website.  Perhaps Invenergy is working on a Facebook page for the project to give landowners an interactive portal?  Miss Kitty Hamm can hardly wait!

Speaking of ham, I don't see a new round of landowner meetings designed for Invenergy to introduce itself to the subservient tenants who will maintain the real estate its money making project sits on in perpetuity.  You're not even getting a ham dinner this time.  It pretty much looks like Invenergy is just going to turn right around and file eminent domain on you whenever it wants.  After all, why bother with the charade of "only as a last resort" when a state has granted you eminent domain authority?  For a company unused to having the POWER of eminent domain to site its unwanted projects, I'm sure they just can't wait to use it.

There are still numerous substantial obstacles for GBE that Invenergy fails to mention on its website.  First of all, the project has no customers!  Without customers, it will never be built.  Clean Line tried for nearly a decade to find customers (I mean real customers, not a bunch of greedy munis who think they're going to get a free lunch).  What makes Invenergy think it can find customers now?  Hey, guess what?  Offshore wind.  It's a thing.  Nobody in PJM wants Invenergy's overpriced hot air.  It also does not have a permit in Illinois and has not applied for one.  It's just not true that simply buying utility property will make Invenergy a public utility in Illinois.  If that's what Clean Line told Invenergy, the joke's on Invenergy.  Getting GBE permitted in Illinois is close to impossible (and probably very, very expensive).
And then there's the pending appeal in Missouri.  Oral arguments are coming up soon.  Don't forget that GBE must receive the assent of every county crossed by the project before construction can begin.  That's not going to be easy or cheap, either.

So, hey, Invenergy, you've got yourself a project!  But you've also bought a huge, engaged and effective opposition that will thwart you at every turn.  There's just no way to turn this "NO" into a "YES."  Clean Line has created a deep-rooted hatred of fancy pants city guys on a money-making expedition to use rural America like their own personal slot machine.  Sorry, you lose.

What's coming up for the opposition?  Of course we don't publish our strategy (oops, sorry, Invenergy) ahead of time.  Let's just say it's time to re-connect and get back to work.  Let's kill GBE for good this time!

PJM is all over the map about the value of the Transource Independence Energy Connection.  Based on PJM's last testimony to the Maryland PSC, the recent re-route of the eastern segment would result in increased costs and decreased benefits.  PJM said this when it was trying to avoid the eastern re-route.

The net benefit PJM calculated for the re-route at that time was $790M.  It barely squeaked by the 1.25 to 1 required benefit cost ratio.

Now PJM says the re-route has a cost benefit of 1.66, or maybe it's 2.10?

Was PJM lying then, or are they lying now?

PJM is using a huge assortment of mismatched numbers to re-evaluate the benefit to cost ratio.

In Transource's settlement agreement with eastern route parties, it uses these numbers.

These new numbers are supposedly based on a PJM analysis from September 25, 2019.  What happened to the $790M estimate?  How did it get to $844?  Isn't that convenient?  Suddenly, the eastern re-route provides more value now that PJM is desperate to get this project approved by hook or by crook.  And it looks like the new costs of the project are more than PJM estimated.  It went from a high estimate of $466M to an actual estimate of $478M.

But we're not done yet.  PJM recently made a presentation at a meeting that claimed the cost of IEC, with the re-route, was $383.63M as of September 2019.  And the benefits number has blossomed as the costs fell.  The benefit number now is $855.19M.  This now brings the benefit-cost ratio to 2.10.  PJM claims these numbers are from a September 2019 re-evaluation. 

Is this the same September re-evaluation where Transource got the numbers it plugged into its settlement agreement?  How did the benefit magically go up $10M if PJM and Transource were using the same set of numbers?  And why is Transource using a different cost figure (nearly $100M more) than PJM is using in its calculations?

What are the real numbers?  We may never know because PJM seems to be using magic math to justify whatever it wants to do on any given day.  Because PJM wants this project so badly, the re-route is suddenly cost effective, when it wasn't before.  The benefit has ballooned to provide a new cushion for increased costs.  Isn't that convenient?

Who believes PJM?  Not me.  They've contradicted themselves too many times over the life of this project.  Either they were lying when they said the re-route couldn't work, or they are lying now when they say it could.  I'm going to go with PJM was lying both times.  This project can no longer be economic.

It was inevitable.  FERC slapped down another one of Public Citizen's frivolous complaints on Thursday.  What a complete waste of time and money.  And I'm not talking about Public Citizen's time and money, I'm talking about YOUR money wasted both by FERC evaluating the complaint, and PJM having to spend time responding to it.  YOU paid for that.

Public Citizen was complaining that PJM was making political contributions and lobbying on the ratepayer dime.  Sounds awful, right?  However, it was nothing but a trumped up cloud of innuendo completely disengaged from FERC accounting policy and precedent.  Like much of Public Citizen's FERC work, it was just crap on a self-aggrandizing bun of politics, liberally smeared with ignorance sauce.  But, FERC is hard, you say,  impossible to figure out, and therefore Public Citizen's effort was honest.  No, it's not.  I'm not even a lawyer, and I managed to figure out FERC.  Sure, it took a lot of effort and time, something Public Citizen doesn't seem to want to invest, preferring its drive-by and dump strategy of being a persistent pain in FERC's ass.  Fabulous.  Whatever.  But it's costing ratepayers a bunch of money responding to this unfounded crap.

So, why was Public Citizen's complaint denied?  It claimed that PJM had made payments to both the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association.  Said associations being political associations therefore made the payments campaign contributions, according to Public Citizen.  PJM answered that the payments were for membership in the associations so that PJM could attend association functions and interact with state officials to educate same.  It's pretty cut and dried and rooted in precedent that's at least 15-years old.  This particular argument has been done and overdone in ISO New England, 117 FERC ¶ 61,070 (2006).  Regional transmission organizations may recover their informational and educational costs, even when it enters the realm of politics.  A court has found such expenditures reasonable given the “potential impingement of government action on all stakeholders” and the need for legislative access to information regarding RTO activity.  RTOs enjoy this status due to their lack of a profit motive.  RTOs are profit neutral.  There's no way an RTO can put extra money in its pocket through political activity.  In FERCenese, "...because an RTO lacks a profit motive, it is easier to see that the ISO/RTO is pursuing activities that benefit its ratepayers, when the RTO seeks recovery of costs associated with state policy monitoring." Agree with it or not, it's set in stone.  A lightweight like Public Citizen has no chance in hell of overturning it.

Public Citizen also whined about money paid to lobbying companies.  FERC found the expenditures were related to educational and informational activities and therefore recoverable.

The only request Public Citizen made that could hold a tiny bit of merit was asking that PJM's political activities be publicly posted so that they may be monitored by stakeholders.  Sunshine is a lovely thing!  However, the Commission slapped that down too, saying that PJM's finance committee already combed through these expenses to make sure they were recoverable and that we should trust them.  I'm not so sure about that, but it may have been more about Public Citizen's approach that caused FERC to shoot the messenger.

Another federal energy legal gaffe by Public Citizen comes to a close.  Public Citizen published a whiny press release full of drama that no news outlets bothered to pick up, although a couple had run earlier articles touting Public Citizen's complaint.  Blah, blah, blah... and then there's this:

Oh, for goodness sake!  No utilities think that.  They know better (much better than Public Citizen, apparently).  Public Citizen acts like their actions here set some sort of precedent prohibiting the recovery of political expenditures.  That precedent has been in place for more than 50 years!  It was most recently enforced in Opinion No. 554 issued in 2017.

Public Citizen fails to understand the distinction between RTOs and utilities that FERC made in its order denying its complaint.  Although an RTO may technically fall under some definitions of "utility," they're not actually a utility.  They don't own any utility infrastructure, they merely operate the infrastructure of real utilities.  Real utilities have profit motives that can be satisfied through political activities.  RTOs do not.  All RTO money comes from ratepayers.  They have no other source of funds.  There's no place to put any profits.

Utilities are already prohibited from recovering the costs of their political activities and rejection of Public Citizen's frivolous complaint didn't change that one bit.  It's been tried before by much better lawyers than Public Citizen, based on the same precedent, and it failed.  Spectacularly failed.  No utility is going to use that decision as precedent to say that they believed FERC gave them permission to collect political activity costs from ratepayers.  Honestly, Public Citizen's hubris is stunning.

Why does this matter?  Because Public Citizen has also been engaged in a continual whine that FERC establish an office of the public advocate and provide taxpayer funding to "public interest organizations" like Public Citizen.  They want to be funded by someone else to do even more of this worthless, costly filing of frivolous complaints.  I object.  I spent my own time and money on a successful FERC complaint.  Nobody gave me one thin dime for what I did, however PJM ratepayers received more than $20M in refunds.  I never asked for money.  I did what I did because it was the right thing to do.   And I found that utilities (not RTOs) actually DO wrongly recover the costs of their RGA and DGA memberships and lobbying expenditures.  PATH was ordered to refund those to ratepayers, however even though utilities should be on notice as a result of that decision, I'm pretty sure they still do it.  They do it because nobody is minding the store.  FERC does not normally audit utility rate informational filings, and other utilities and state agencies don't have the expertise or funding to do it.  Utilities get away with it all the time because no one investigates and challenges them.  If, perchance, they do get the hairy eyeball from FERC, a customer, or ratepayer advocate, the utility simply claims it was a mistake and makes a refund.  This game works because the chance of anyone actually discovering the utility "mistake" is slim to none and definitely worth the risk to the utility, who fattens its own bottom line the majority of the time.

Perhaps Public Citizen should spend more time investigating the political expenditures of utilities, instead of taking the easy road of making off the cuff complaints on rate matters it doesn't understand in order to grandstand for the media?  They could actually save ratepayers buckets of money and do something useful for a change.  In no instance should the public, or ratepayers, financially reward Public Citizen for this counterproductive, wasteful behavior.

I haven't written about the Transource Independence Energy Connection transmission project in quite a while, but now news articles are being cranked out about a possible settlement with Maryland state agencies and some landowner parties (including Harford County, Maryland, which technically isn't an affected landowner, but a stakeholder none-the-less).

A settlement may indicate that all parties have negotiated to come to a reasonable agreement on all issues.  A partial settlement indicates that all (or some) parties have negotiated to come to a reasonable agreement on some of the issues presented.  The talked-about settlement seems to fall into the latter category.  There seems to be one Maryland party missing from the proposed settlement, the Maryland Office of People's Counsel.  The OPC represents the interests of electric ratepayers in Maryland as a collective group.  The OPC has opposed the project because of its cost to ratepayers compared to its benefit.  The OPC has not agreed that the Transource project is a good deal for ratepayers.  I agree, it's not.  Not at all.

Early this summer, I watched much of the Maryland PSC Transource hearings (thank you, archived video!).  It became clear to me (and I'm sure to Transource as well) that the Maryland PSC Commissioners were set to deny the project Transource had applied for.  The big stumbling block appeared to be a Maryland law that requires existing assets to be considered before taking new right-of-way for a transmission line.  Commissioners appeared to be considering opposition arguments that the project could be successfully constructed using existing transmission lines and rights-of-way.  The problem with Transource in Maryland became crystal clear.  The project was on the fast track to denial.  The only way Transource was going to ever get this project approved was to fall on its sword and change the route to use existing transmission assets as much as possible.  It was either that or denial.  Take your pick, Transource.

Transource sucked it up and walked back all its baloney about how such a use of existing assets couldn't work.  PJM went along for the ride.  And the next thing you know, Transource and PJM had worked out the alternative suggested by state agencies and landowners to route the project on existing infrastructure.  Next, Transource worked a cloak and dagger settlement process with individual parties that were concerned about routing.  Routing was a huge issue, but it wasn't the only issue.  Keep that in mind as the future unfolds.

Who could fault targeted landowners from accepting a guarantee that Transource would amend its application to prefer a new route that used existing rights-of-way that did not cross their properties?  This is a victory for them, although not a victory for everyone.  These landowners worked hard to highlight the fact that there was a better route for the project that spared their properties, and nobody, even Transource, can deny that fact.  The landowners got part of what they worked for... a better route!  They also set a very important precedent that will affect all PJM transmission projects in Maryland in the future!  PJM had been ignoring Maryland's law about using existing infrastructure, paying it bare lip service in transmission applications.  That is over for good now.  A solid opposition strategy for any future transmission plans emerges from the rubble -- find an alternative that uses existing infrastructure.   Because there's always an alternative.  PJM has moaned and complained that the routing alternative could cost up to $100M more than the original route, and also reduce the savings for ratepayers by hundreds of millions of dollars.  But, in the end, PJM seems to want this project so badly that cost and benefit don't matter all that much.  Price and benefit are no obstacle.  Will PJM be more mindful to give preference to use of existing assets before approving new greenfield projects in the future?  It would be foolish not to, now that opposition has a new tool in their toolbox.

But routing wasn't the only concern of affected landowners on the eastern segment.  They also objected to the economic reasoning for the project, doing much work to expose PJM's self-serving analysis and magic math supporting the project, and once exposed, these factors cannot evaporate.  The routing change, being more expensive and less economically effective, hurts rather than helps PJM's continued support of this project.  The routing change also does nothing for the OPC's position.  The OPC doesn't represent landowner interests, it represents ratepayer issues, and those issues have only been magnified by the proposed settlement.

Another factor here is that no landowner parties from the western segment opposed the project at the Maryland PSC.  Transource's route through western Maryland was very short, and snaked artfully through properties owned by individuals who would or could not oppose the project due to religious reasons.  Transource thinks it has landowner opposition in Maryland tackled.  The OPC is the one remaining wild card.  What does Transource have to offer OPC in settlement?  Even more costs for ratepayers with less benefit?  The settlement isn't a good deal for Maryland ratepayers.  If and how OPC will oppose the settlement remains to be seen. 

The settlement isn't a guarantee that the Maryland PSC will approve it.  It's just Transource's last hope for success in Maryland.

But wait!  Transource must also receive approval from the Pennsylvania PUC before it may build the project.  There is landowner opposition on the western segment in Pennsylvania, where the route hasn't changed, and Transource has nothing to offer these people, except a handful of grease to make it a little less painful.  Kind of insulting, don't you think?

Transource must also update its preferred route in Pennsylvania, and bluster its way through the claims about reliability it lamely tried to raise as a shield against denial before seizing on the routing change necessitated by Maryland's law.  And here's the huge brick wall staring them in the face... the Transource project will cause hundreds of millions of dollars of increased electric costs for Pennsylvania ratepayers while providing them no benefit at all.  Routing is much less of an issue in Pennsylvania, where the PUC may only be put in the precarious position of choosing whether to toss one group of landowners under the bus in order to favor another group of landowners who are satisfied with a changed route.  Routing is a sideshow in Pennsylvania, mere lipstick on a pig.  Pennsylvania also has a powerful and dedicated consumer advocate representing its state's ratepayers, and those ratepayers aren't getting any benefit from the proposed settlement.  In fact, they're not even getting a handful of grease.  They're getting nothing at all.

Increased costs and decreased economic benefit is going to do a number on PJM's cost/benefit ratio.  PJM's magic math was called into question in the original application and evidence was introduced showing it was unrealistic.  A second look may reveal even more magic math as PJM struggles to absorb the additional costs of the re-routed project and decreased economic benefit.  PJM's math is going to go under the microscope.  How does a project using existing rights-of-way (no new land costs, no major environmental studies, no siting issues) and even existing transmission structures (fewer new towers) end up costing more?  And how much money has Transource wasted, just completely wasted, on trying to route and engineer its original route?  Remember, Transource has spent the past several years harassing landowners along the original routes with surveys, turtle hunts, right-of-entry lawsuits, and easement options.  It wouldn't surprise me to find that Transource's pursuit of its original route has wasted more than $100M.  Why was this money wasted?  Because PJM and Transource imprudently failed to follow Maryland law and thought they could bully their way through approvals.  Ratepayers paying for the Transource project will pay all of Transource's costs for its botched original route, in addition to re-routing and re-application.  How could this project still possibly be economically beneficial?  How far down the tunnel are PJM and Transource, and will they ever come out to take a breath and acknowledge what a colossal waste of time and money this project has become?

There is no benefit from the Transource project.  It should be rejected by both state utility commissions because its entire premise of market efficiency has become a costly joke.  Pretending it's not because Transource fell on its sword regarding a routing issue is nothing more than lipstick on a gigantic, gluttonous pig.

Congratulations to the eastern segment landowners who successfully saved their farms and taught PJM a valuable lesson that will benefit everyone in the future!  And renewed support and encouragement to the western segment landowners who will continue to fight for their own interests (and mine as a ratepayer on the hook for this porcine boondoggle)!

It isn't over until it's over.  Just remember, canceling this project outright benefits EVERYONE.  Fight on!

Addendum:  While I was writing this, the proposed settlement was publicly filed at the MD PSC.  You can read it here.

I like chocolate.  It makes me happy.  When I'm happy, everyone else is happy.  Therefore, providing me with chocolate provides a benefit to others and so they shall pay for my chocolate.

What?  You think that sounds stupid?  Of course it's stupid!  But it saves me money on the cost of chocolate.  The same could be said for big wind's effort to shift the costs of connecting new wind generators onto captive ratepayers that don't need the "benefit" of the wind project, or expanded transmission to serve it.

It's subtle, but I picked it up a while ago, and the fun appears to be only beginning with the latest big wind scam.  North Dakota Public Service Commissioners were recently the targets of this scam at a meeting reported in the media.

What's the problem?

If you plug something new into an existing system, it's going to affect the system.  The operators of the electric system require necessary studies to determine the effect of plugging in the new generator.  The cost of plugging in the generator is the responsibility of the generator, just as if you built a new home in the middle of the woods and requested electric service.  You would pay the cost of running the service drop from the nearest pole because it's only serving you.  A generator must pay the costs of connecting, plus the costs of any changes that must be made to the system to accommodate the connection and the additional amount of electricity flowing through the system coming from the new generator.  This has been standard procedure for years because it makes sense.  Generators are merchants who sell the power they produce into regional markets.  The cost of producing the power is borne by the generator.  The generator keeps all of its profits.

But now big wind wants captive ratepayers to pay for the cost of upgrades to the grid caused by the addition of new wind generators.  This can amount of hundreds of millions of dollars for a single project.  If big wind can get someone else to pay these costs, then the generator spends less to connect and can therefore discount the price of the power it sells to customers.

Big wind is trying to convince regulators that upgrades to the grid made necessary only by the connection of new wind generators provide some kind of "benefit" to ratepayers.  Because grid upgrades have to be made to connect wind, they believe they can concoct some kind of "benefit" for all grid users.  Not hardly.  It is not a "benefit" if you don't need it, and the grid works just fine without the upgrades caused by connection of big wind generators.  To do this would completely upend the way interconnections to the existing grid are paid for and shift cost from the generator to the ratepayers.  If the scheme is changed so that wind generators don't have to pay the cost of upgrades they make necessary, shouldn't we also extend that to new gas generators, new nuclear generators... even... *gasp* new coal generators?  Of course, it would apply to all.  And it would raise your electric bill significantly.  But what does big wind care, as long as they get their piece of the pie?

But why?  Because big wind is freaking out over the end of the federal production tax credit, which gives them tax credits for all the electricity they generate.  Without that income stream in the future, the price of wind is going to increase... a lot.  Big wind is looking for its next subsidy -- avoiding the cost of upgrading transmission to serve it.  It wants to shift those costs on to everyone else.

Adding insult to injury, much of the new wind generation in the queue is planned for export, however the cost of upgrading the grid to enable the new connection would be charged to ratepayers in the generation region.  The ones using the "cheap" new power in other regions would avoid the costs they would have to pay if the upgrades were the responsibility of the generator and therefore included in the price of their electricity.

Big wind's subsidy gravy train needs to be derailed.  Perhaps they think they're fooling the general public with this hogwash, but are they really fooling regulators?  Probably not, but if none of the general public objects to this nonsense, it could be just a wink and a nod away.

A couple weeks ago, an NPR producer started contacting opponents to the Grain Belt Express, trying to find someone in Kansas to interview for what was dubbed a story about wind energy in Kansas.  Enthusiasm = zero.  Nobody wanted to waste the time on an NPR story that probably contained bias before it was even recorded.  In addition, it set off my radar that NPR seemed to be looking for a NIMBY to round out its story.  NPR wasn't really interested in GBE, per se, but in opposition to it.

After really stretching to consider "someone who happens to be right on the Kansas/Missouri border," the reporter got hooked up with experienced Block GBE spokeswoman Jennifer Gatrel and visited the ranch she owns with her husband, Jeff, 45 minutes outside Kansas City, Missouri.

And yesterday, this aired.

(Funny, Jennifer seems to also be starring in today's story about rural "brain gain," which was a surprise to Jennifer.)

Jennifer and Jeff spent 2 hours with the reporter at their ranch, which resulted in roughly a 3.5 minute segment in the hour-long story.  The reporter seemed charmed by the bucolic setting and thrilled with the animals, but uninterested in the actual GBE project, except in how it would have personally affected the Gatrels, both by destroying their land and future.  The Gatrels did a fantastic job trying to stay on their talking points.  This isn't their first rodeo, they did the same when the New York Times came to interview them several years ago.  But at least the NYT was actually interested in the project itself.  NPR simply glossed over all the issues with GBE, such as the fact that the project doesn't have enough customers to make it financially feasible, the fact that the project lacks a permit to cross the state of Illinois and has not applied for one, and that it still faces a brick wall in Missouri, with an ongoing legal appeal to the permit and a requirement to get the assent of each county it crosses.  GBE is barely treading water.  Seems like Invenergy doesn't want to waste any money on it at the moment, possibly related to its lack of customers who would finance the project.

So, how did NPR fill the rest of their hour-long show?  They interviewed three guys in Kansas, but that didn't last much longer than the Gatrel's segment.  Interesting that the fellas profiting from Kansas wind turbines state that they would never want to have a transmission line across their own properties, due to its "like eminent domain" nature.  If hosting turbines is voluntary, why is a transmission line to enable the turbine involuntary?  Of course, NPR didn't bother to explain.  It was all about fluff and glitter, not substance.  The story was cleverly designed to appeal to emotion, not logic.

The bulk of the hour was taken up by the pro-wind opinions of Russell Gold, who wrote a fantasy book about Clean Line Energy Partners, and Amy Farrell of big wind trade group American Wind Energy Association.  Our friend Russell kept referencing concern about the Gatrels personally, while stabbing them in the back with statements about how somebody has to sacrifice for energy.  And he was quick to get the word "NIMBY" in at the end of the show for good measure.

Except nobody has to sacrifice at all!  A truly sympathetic transmission line developer could bury new transmission on existing rights of way, such as alongside rail or highways.  But NPR isn't interested in that.  It was too busy trying to convince its listeners that big wind is somehow "necessary."  Preaching to the choir, boys and girls!  NPR listeners don't need to be convinced.  They already believe or they wouldn't be listening.  NPR convinced nobody with that story.  It wasn't true journalism, it was story-telling designed to give an audience what it wanted to hear.  Listen, my children and you shall hear... the biased opinions that you hold dear.

Jennifer and Jeff Gatrel will continue to fight on, even though their ranch is no longer affected.  And so will thousands of others.  Victory is within their grasp, happening in venues ignored by NPR.

In case you missed it, Pennsylvania's Governor recently signed an Executive Order leading to the state joining RGGI.  What's RGGI?  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a voluntary market-based "cap and trade" program intended to limit carbon emissions.  The initiative sets a regional "carbon budget" and member states auction off a set number of carbon allowances that correspond with the budget.  All carbon emissions must be offset with allowances purchased at state auctions.  The regional carbon budget is incrementally reduced each year, shrinking the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.  The states auctioning off the carbon allowances use the proceeds for whatever they like, such as energy efficiency programs, low-income energy assistance, or subsidies for new "clean" generators.

Does it work?  Depends on who you ask.  Some say it has reduced carbon emissions and electric prices.  Others say it has had no effect on carbon emissions and has raised electricity prices in member states.  And all opinion on the matter is political.

One thing I found interesting is that RGGI fans claiming reduced emissions and prices are giving RGGI credit for factors it had nothing to do with, namely cheap natural gas and the huge shift from baseload coal to baseload gas electricity generation.  In order to properly evaluate RGGI, you must do it in a vacuum.  Our complicated regional electricity markets don't allow such a vacuum, therefore it is truly impossible to determine whether RGGI works or not.

Another interesting tidbit is that RGGI caused emissions "leakage" to non-participating states.  If it's too expensive to emit carbon generating electricity in a participating state, the same generation can happen cheaper in a neighboring, non-participating state.

One thing unavoidable is that requiring generators to purchase carbon allowances creates revenue for a state, and that revenue creates a whole new cost for generating electricity.  Who pays for that?  Electric consumers.  Whether RGGI works to lower prices to offset the new costs gets into a lot of complicated stuff that can be used to bolster claims of success or failure of RGGI.

Pennsylvania is the biggest exporter of electricity.  Generators in the state produce much more than Pennsylvanians use.  Enter Transource.

The Transource transmission project was dreamed up to export cheap energy from Pennsylvania.  Energy in Pennsylvania is cheap because there is a surplus.  Transource will export Pennsylvania electricity to Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC.  Maryland and Virginia import a lot of electricity, instead of generating their own.

Transource will essentially take from the land of plenty and give to the land of scarcity.  Cheap power into expensive markets.  This lowers prices in Maryland and Virginia, while raising them in Pennsylvania.  This fact was proven during state utility commission hearings on Transource's application to build its project and is no longer debatable.  It's reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

So, how might RGGI affect Transource's already fragile cost-benefit ratio if it is implemented in Pennsylvania?  Will it lower the amount of electricity Pennsylvania exports?  Will reductions in the amount of electricity produced in Pennsylvania raise its electricity prices?  If the price of electricity in Pennsylvania rises, will Transource actually save money for electric customers in Maryland and Virginia?  What purpose will the transmission line serve if the electric price differential it's based on evaporates?  There's going to be lots of geeks at PJM Interconnection hunched over their abacuses trying desperately to continue the charade that the Transource project serves some purpose other than to provide parent company American Electric Power with a double digit return on its investment.

The answer is a wishy-washy "who knows?"  What is certain is that the Transource project is going to cost regional electric consumers hundreds of millions of dollars in increased electric bills.  Cost = certain.  Benefit = uncertain.

Just one more reason to halt this dated project.

So, there were these people who were disappointed that they weren't selected to host a utility solar farm.  They decided to build their own.

It becomes a cute little media story when you add in some sheep lawn mowers.  However, the story gets lost there.  It was too expensive for this DIY solar power plant to connect to the grid in order to sell its product.  Farming the sun for profit maybe isn't as easy as it looks.

There's nothing stopping these folks from erecting a solar array to serve their own property.  The problem comes from building more than they need and trying to sell it to others via the electric grid.  The freight is too expensive.  I'm not sure what message this story is trying to serve?  The rules for connecting to the grid are bad?

The rules for connecting a new generator to the grid require the generator to pay for the connection and any changes to the grid made necessary to serve their generator.  Who else should pay for it?

Oh, utilities!  Utilities are supposed to pay to upgrade the grid so that a new entrant generator can sell its product?  Why?  Where do you suppose utilities get the money they "invest" in building the grid?  Ratepayers, consumers, people who pay an electric bill, that's who.  So what they're really saying here is that other people are supposed to pay for the infrastructure necessary to connect their DIY power plant?  Why?  Not all of those people will even be using the power.

The correct answer is that the customers of the DIY power plant (although I don't see mention of any customers in this article) should pay the cost of connecting in their contract to purchase the power.  But that's going to make the cost of the power too expensive!  And that's why this location is not suitable for a power plant and probably why it was not selected by a utility in the first place.

Utilities do their homework before siting new generators.  The cost to connect (in conjunction with the cost that customers are willing to pay) is a big part of that homework.  They don't just build generators willy-nilly and believe that the connection fairy will fly in with a sack of gold and make connecting free or cheap.

Of course, trying to create a fairy before siting generation in inappropriate places is in the renewable generator toolbag.  No wonder these folks thought there was a fairy.  A group of "clean energy advocates" want MISO to make changes to the way it plans grid upgrades.  One of the changes they want is a re-evaluation of interconnection upgrade cost allocation.  In other words, they want ratepayers to cover some of the costs of new generator interconnections.

All those "benefits" the ratepayers didn't know they needed!  Because they didn't really "need" them in the first place.  The new generators need them to make money.  If generation is at a level adequate to serve load (and it is), then we don't "need" any new generators!  Add in the fact that many of the new generators being built in MISO are intended as exports to other regions.  The "advocates" want MISO ratepayers to pick up the tab for unneeded new generators that won't even serve MISO customers.  What a fairy tale!

In reality, this will just end up creating higher transmission rates in MISO while lowering the cost of new generation so that it can survive once the federal tax credits disappear.  Do they think MISO is stupid?

The only difference between the DIY power plant's thinking and that of the "clean energy advocates" is that the advocates should know better.

I saw this petition to the Securities and Exchange Commission in my morning utility dreck.

Some outfit calling itself the Energy and Environment Legal Institute has filed several requests to the SEC asking that it prohibit corporate greenwashing.  The latest is a great read about Amazon's greenwashing, and so is its original request featuring greenwashing by such companies as Apple, Exxon, and Exelon.

All these companies make big claims to their investors about how much they're contributing to stopping climate change.  Except, they're not.  Not really.  Their contributions are, quite literally, a green fart in a climate change windstorm.  Their emission reductions average less than 1/10th of a percent of the 53.5 billion tons of carbon emitted annually.

The requests also highlight such sleight of hand as shifting emissions on to other parties.  Example:  Exxon claims it will reduce flaring.  This means that it captures methane and sells it to others that burn it.  In addition, many companies have shifted their manufacturing overseas in order to claim that their U.S. operations are "clean."  The latest request highlighting Amazon's climate claims hit my amusing irony button.  Amazon claims it will meet the Paris Climate Agreement 10 years early.  Except corporations aren't part of the agreement, and the agreement has no deadline.  Amazon makes a big deal out of its electric vehicle fleet... except where does the electricity come from that powers the fleet?  Carbon.  No corporation uses 100% "clean" energy.  The electric grid doesn't work that way.  These corporations are merely purchasing the "right" to claim they use renewable energy, while the actual renewable energy is used by others who purchase the actual energy, not some separately marketed make-believe right to make greenwashing claims.

So, if corporations are pulling their investors' legs about how environmentally sustainable they are, they're pulling the legs of their customers even harder.  If these corporations were honest with investors, they'd tell them that greenwashing sells.  The silly people who no longer eat meat or drink with straws are eating it up, believing they're making a big difference by buying the products of greenwashed companies.

But if these companies themselves aren't making a difference, how much difference did I make last week when my waitress disdainfully sniffed, "We don't have straws," and I had to gingerly drink out of a sloppy bar glass?  Ew.  Did I save the planet that afternoon?  The climate hysteria has gone way beyond "I'm making a difference" to "I'm going to make you make a difference."  And that's where it's about to run aground.

Greenwashing is nothing more than expensive PR.

So, just remember, you're not really making a difference.  You're just paying more to pretend that you are.  The only way you can actually save the planet is by ceasing to exist (because eating babies is cray-cray).

Is it a "political" thing when somebody doesn't want invasive infrastructure that doesn't benefit them in their backyard?  By its very nature, NIMBY-ism is supposed to be a selfish thing - Not in My Back Yard.  My, me, it's all about me, right?  I'm pretty sure it's all about me's sense of place, not me's politics.  Why, then, does E&E News file this story under "Politics?"

Is it because the NIMBY in this story has a career as a political lobbyist?  What if she was a brain surgeon?  Would E&E file it under Health & Science?  NIMBY this and NIMBY that - NIMBY is enjoying a new liberal media renaissance.  But it's all about NIMBY resistance to "clean" energy projects.  I haven't seen any NIMBY gas pipeline stories filed under politics.  Is it simply about turning NIMBY into a political issue, where NIMBYs are sorted by their political affiliation into "good" NIMBYs we support, and "bad" NIMBYs we revile?  Do some NIMBYs deserve to host invasive infrastructure due to their political views?  Is there some political chess master somewhere who decided to seize upon NIMBY and use it as a political tool?

Here's the thing... NIMBY isn't political at all.  Groups who oppose invasive infrastructure in their communities are politically blind.  It's about the community, not the politics.  Opposition members who try to draw politics into their battle are routinely shunned from the group.  Opposition works because the group is non-political.  Trying to make opposition political in order to disband or disperse it doesn't work.

Nobody wants invasive infrastructure in their community, especially when they don't benefit from it.  And opposition is working to delay and cancel projects. 

What's wrong with NIMBY?

So what indeed!  If it doesn't go in her back yard, would it go in someone else's back yard?  Would it turn into back yard hot potato until it ends up in the back yard of someone who wants it, or someone without the knowledge or resources to successfully oppose it?  That's the glittering generality being attached to the NIMBY renaissance.

Fossil fuel plant neighbors didn't have an option or opportunity?  Of course they did.  It's just that they were crushed by the politically connected who didn't want those things in their back yard.  Where were these political folks back then?  So now we want to "socialize" the misery by releasing fossil fuel plant neighbors from their burden and placing it elsewhere, preferably in "red" states.  Is it their turn?  Or just because they're not part of the political elite who drive the liberal media?  How about we stop with the utility scale renewables and make every community responsible for their own energy burdens and avoid sacrifice for benefit of others entirely?

Adding to the false political narrative are political front group "investigators" such as the "...Energy and Policy Institute, which tracks opposition to clean energy nationwide."  It's only about opposition to clean energy?  What about opposition to dirty energy?  Does nobody care where their funding comes from?  It comes from mysterious dark money organizations who provide grants and donations to "clean energy" fronts, like the Energy and Policy Institute (hey, there's even mention of this mysterious group's founder "having ties to" Tigercomm).  Hmm... what is that smell?

Oh my, tied to?  You don't say!  Because Anderson can't find any money changing hands, it's now all about conservative "influence."  As if being NIMBY is a choice that is influenced by politics?  It's either your back yard or it's not!  Energy and Policy Institute loves to find "ties to" things and associations between unrelated groups in order to make up stories about who is behind the front groups this front group gets paid to expose.  It's a front group hall of mirrors! 

Bad guy once bought something from WalMart, and WalMart makes political donations to a party I don't like, therefore, Bad Guy is working for the political party I don't like and must be a really bad guy.  That's how "ties" work.  What a load of baloney!

What is the common denominator in all of these bad NIMBYs against "clean energy" project stories?  I'm not fooled.  Are you?  Maybe it depends on your political affiliation.