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

FERC's Transmission Incentives - Section 219 FPA

4/1/2019

1 Comment

 
FERC was directed by Congress in 2005 to "establish, by rule, incentive-based (including performance-based) rate treatments for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce by public utilities for the purpose of benefitting consumers by ensuring reliability and reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion."

This was one of several transmission fixes designed by the utility industry and ushered through Congress in response to the 2003 blackout.   In that instance, lack of vegetation maintenance and poor management by investor-owned utility FirstEnergy, caused a cascading blackout of much of the Northeast, including parts of Canada.  Although a joint task force was formed to investigate the issue, little blame was placed where it belonged, instead utilities used the blackout to increase their earnings through the building of new transmission.  Sec. 219 is one of the industry-led changes to come from that effort.  Others include Sec. 1221, which tasks the U.S. Department of Energy with triennial "congestion studies" that may lead to the designation of "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" (NIETCs), where federal authority to site and permit transmission in a corridor shifts from states to FERC in the event that a state cannot make a decision on a transmission proposal within one year.  Another is Sec. 1222, which allows the DOE to "participate" in transmission projects for the express purpose of using federal eminent domain authority to override state siting authority.  However, Sections 1221 and 1222 have not worked in practice.  Sec. 1221 was neutered by two separate federal court opinions, making it useless.  Sec. 1222 sat on a back burner for many years, until DOE tried to use it to help transmission for renewables get built.  That didn't work out either, as the project "selected" by DOE (coincidentally the only one that applied) couldn't find any customers and eventually went belly up.  Sec. 219 has yet to be challenged, but it's another example of a poorly-written energy statute that has been wrongly interpreted and put into practice to do things not written in the statute.

Before even thinking about the questions FERC poses in its Incentives Inquiry, let's look at Sec. 219, and discern exactly what it says (because that's how a court would look at a conflict between the statute and how it was carried out).

In Sec. (a), Congress defines the purpose of Sec. 219.  "...for the purpose of benefitting consumers by ensuring reliability and reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion."  So, any rule derived by FERC must benefit consumers by ensuring reliability AND reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion.  Not "or".  AND.  Simply ensuring reliability is not reason enough for transmission incentives, a project receiving incentives must also reduce the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion.  FERC's initial interpretation of the statute substituted the word "or" for the word "and," and FERC has subsequently granted incentives for straight up reliability projects that only increased the cost of delivered power.  There are a host of other laws and regulations that ensure the reliability of the electric grid.  These investments are mandated in other ways, should we pay a premium to have reliable electric service?  Or is this just gold plating?  Conversely, it looks like a transmission congestion reducing project that does not also ensure reliability should not receive incentives.  Keep this in mind as we move forward exploring this inquiry.

Sec. 219 says that FERC must create a rule for performance-based rate treatments.  FERC has not done this.  There are no performance standards attached to any FERC rate treatments or incentives.  Once incentives are granted, they continue on for the life of the transmission project, without another thought.  Should transmission owners granted incentives have to perform in some way?  What performance standards should be in place?

It also says incentives are for public utilities.  FERC cannot award incentives to private utilities or other energy enterprises that do not have captive customers.  There would be no one to pay them, first of all, second of all, private utility ideas are not for public benefit.  They're for private profit.


Sec. (b) (1) of 219 says the rule shall:  "promote reliable and economically efficient transmission and generation of electricity by promoting capital investment in the enlargement, improvement, maintenance, and operation of all facilities for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce, regardless of the ownership of the facilities;"  This section includes the word "generation."  That's odd.  There are no incentives for generation. So we're supposed to provide incentives for transmission that serves reliable and economically efficient generation?   What kind of generation is reliable and economically efficient?  Nuclear?  It can't be wind or solar, they're not reliable and cannot always produce when called.  It's probably not more expensive fossil fuel generation.  What kind of generation did Congress mean here?  But this section also says this incentivized transmission must for the enlargement, improvement, maintenance and operation of all facilities.  Obviously, this doesn't cover new transmission and is meant for the enlargement, improvement, maintenance and operation of existing transmission.  Any other interpretation would be sort of inapt.

Sec. (b) (2) says that the rule shall:  "provide a return on equity that attracts new investment in transmission facilities (including related transmission technologies);"  New investment in transmission is quite different than investment in new transmission, which is how FERC has designed their rule in the past.  It looks like Congress intended to attract investment in all kinds of transmission, including transmission that meets (b)(1) above.  It's also meant to encourage new technologies that make transmission more economic and reliable.

Sec. (b) (3) says that the rule shall:  "encourage deployment of transmission technologies and other measures to increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission facilities and improve the operation of the facilities;"  This requires FERC to develop incentives for technology and "other measures" to increase the capacity and efficiency of existing facilities.  "Other measures" could include simple re-builds of existing transmission to increase capacity, although FERC has never developed an incentive for this kind of efficient use of existing resources.  In fact, FERC has no incentives to improve the operation of existing facilities.  Is it time to create some?

Sec. (b) (4) says that the rule shall: "allow recovery of--

(A) all prudently incurred costs necessary to comply with mandatory reliability standards issued pursuant to section 824o of this title; and
(B) all prudently incurred costs related to transmission infrastructure development pursuant to section 824p of this title."
  So the statute says FERC must simply allow recovery of prudent costs of reliability projects.  It doesn't say it must provide incentives for reliability projects.  It also says the rule shall allow recovery of prudent costs of transmission under Section 824p.  Section 824p is also Sec. 1221, the NIETC corridors and FERC backstop permitting.  It also says "allow recovery," not provide incentives for.  So, therefore, there shall be no incentives for reliability projects and Sec. 1221 projects.

Sec. (c) of Sec. 219 says FERC must:  "provide for incentives to each transmitting utility or electric utility that joins a Transmission Organization. The Commission shall ensure that any costs recoverable pursuant to this subsection may be recovered by such utility through the transmission rates charged by such utility or through the transmission rates charged by the Transmission Organization that provides transmission service to such utility."  Incentives for each entity that JOINS a transmission organization.  A logical reading of this section would mean that the entity has to join, not already be a member of, a transmission organization (like PJM, MISO, SPP, etc.).  However, FERC has previously interpreted this to mean any transmission owner who joins or is already a member of an organization shall receive this incentive (which is an additional .5% added to the allowed return).  Sec. 219 does not provide for incentives for transmission owners who are already members of a transmission org.  This should also apply to spin-offs of companies who are already members of a transmission organization.  An additional .5% return over the life of a billion dollar transmission asset is a sizable chunk of change for a utility who is doing NOTHING in exchange for it.

And finally, Sec. (d) says that the rules are subject to the terms of other sections of the Federal Power Act that say rates must not be unduly discriminatory or preferential, particularly "make or grant any undue preference or advantage to any
person or subject any person to any undue prejudice or disadvantage."  Therefore, incentive rules shall not pick and choose among generation types to provide any advantage (or disadvantage) to certain ones.  In other words, FERC cannot provide incentives to certain transmission projects that primarily serve certain kinds of generation.

To sum it up... what has FERC done wrong in previous transmission incentive iterations:

  1. Provide incentives for straight up reliability projects.
  2. Not provide incentives to make the best use of existing transmission.
  3. Not creating performance-based rate treatments.
  4. Awarding incentives only to NEW transmission projects.
  5. Not providing incentives for new technology.
  6. Awarding existing transmission org. membership.
And what things can FERC not do this time around?
  1. Provide incentives to non-public utilities.
  2. Provide incentives to projects designed to provide advantage to certain types of generation.
  3. Provide incentives to projects designed for the express purpose of relieving congestion.
Sec. 219 is your touchstone for answering FERC's inquiry questions.  No matter the suggestion posed in the question, it's important to find some foundation for it in Sec. 219.  Familiarizing yourself with Sec. 219 will help you ground your comments so that they stay within the intent of the statute.
1 Comment

Ye Canna Change The Laws Of Physics, MO PSC!

3/29/2019

1 Comment

 
What would you rather write about on a dreary Friday afternoon?  FERC's transmission incentives or the MO PSC Grain Belt Express Order?  Choices, choices.  Need coffee.

The MO PSC Order was bad.  Not so much in the decision they made, but in the way they tried to get there.  They could have just said "we like wind energy for political reasons" or "we approve this project because the company offered to sell service to Missouri municipalities at rates so low the project wouldn't be economic if those same rates were offered to all customers."  So much subjective reasoning, when objectivity was called for.  Therefore, here's a summary of the dumbest things written in the order.
The Missouri converter station will have bi-directional functionality, allowing Missouri utilities an additional means to earn revenue from off-system sales of up to 500 MW of excess power into the PJM energy markets.
This is one of the great lies about the environmental "benefits" for Missouri.  Presuming the power on the line when it gets to Missouri is "clean," 500 MW is offloaded for Missouri's use, then 500 MW of "dirty" coal power produced in Missouri is going to be loaded onto the line for the ultimate destination of PJM.  C'mon, I think P.T. Barnum had better lines!  This is virtual hogwash.  The same 500 MW of power that was fed into the line in Kansas (or wherever this thing terminates on the west end) will be offloaded in PJM, on the east end.  The only thing that happens in Missouri is that customers make payments.  The old dirty coal power will still be used in Missouri.  You can't segregate dirty and clean electrons on the grid.  Electricity is source neutral.  So how stupid would it be to divert 500 MW off the line and then divert 500 MW onto the line, when it's all the same 500 MW?  And if we want to talk about "environmental benefits" in Missouri, cranking up the coal plants to produce an additional 500 MW of excess power for sale to PJM only increases emissions in Missouri.  Sorry, GBE is going to do nothing to clear the air in Missouri. 
Picture
The HVDC technology of the Project is the most cost-effective and efficient way to move large amounts of electric power over long distances and can transfer significantly more power with lower line losses over longer distances than comparable AV lines.
What's an AV line?  And, btw, what's efficient or cost-effective about moving large amounts of power over long distances?  The cheapest, most reliable system is the one where source and sink are close.  See Scotty above.
The Project is a participant-funded, “shipper pays” transmission line. Grain Belt would recover its capital costs by entering into voluntary, market-driven contracts with entities that want to become transmission customers of the Project.
Picture
Under FERC requirements, Grain Belt must broadly solicit interest in the Project, the rates negotiated must be just and reasonable and without undue discrimination or preference, and the service must not impair regional reliability and operational efficiency.
FERC has specifically found Grain Belt’s process to select customers and allocate capacity to be “not unduly discriminatory”.
But that was before Grain Belt Express was purchased by a generation owner.  What approved procedures are in place to prevent self dealing by Invenergy, where it "negotiates" with itself to pay a price much lower than it negotiates with other customers?  Exactly none.  Trouble ahead...
The easement agreement limits the landowner’s legal rights and use of the easement property, including prohibiting any landowner activity that would interfere with Grain Belt’s use of the easement.
And this is one of the facts supporting approval in the public interest?
In 2021, MoPEP’s contract with Illinois Power Marketing Company providing 100 MW of coal energy and capacity to MoPEP will expire. MJMEUC’s agreements with Grain Belt and Iron Star would help MoPEP to replace the energy from Illinois Power Marketing Company with more affordable renewable energy.
Oh, so now in addition to changing the laws of physics, we're also instituting a time warp.  There's absolutely NO WAY GBE will be operational in 2021.  So I guess MoPEP is going to turn off the lights in 2021 and not turn them back on until GBE is in service?  Time to open a candle store, Missouri entrepreneurs!
The annual cost savings to MJMEUC member cities that participate in the Project will be dollar for dollar and will likely be passed through to their residential and industrial customers in the form of rate relief or invested in deferred maintenance to their electrical distribution systems.
Likely?  So you mean that MJMEUC members could actually use the "savings" for other things and the actual "public" customers may not see a dime of savings?
Grain Belt has a transmission service agreement with an Illinois load-serving entity called Realgy, which has agreed to buy 25 MW of transmission service for delivery to Missouri and 25 MW to PJM.
See what I mean?  The only thing Realgy is going to do is collect cash from the price differential between Kansas and PJM.  At least they're not pretending to offload "clean" power and upload "dirty" power.  This is all just one huge money making scheme.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has established aggressive and significant renewable energy goals, including: (1) to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, and (2) by 2025, to be supplied by 50 percent renewable energy. Additionally, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has set a science-based target to reduce emissions in its operations by 18 percent by 2025 through the deployment of energy efficiency and consumption of renewable energy.
What?  (1) and (2) are conflicting goals.  Is it 100% or is it 50% by 2025?  Just stop shopping here.  This store is part of the problem.
Grain Belt currently has no employees.

Grain Belt has cash on hand, but not enough to complete either the development phase or construction of the Project.

Invenergy is not obligated to close on the Purchase Agreement unless (1) this Commission has approved the transaction proposed in the Purchase Agreement and has granted Grain Belt a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Project, and (2) the Kansas Corporation Commission has granted at least a 5 year extension of its certificate to Grain Belt and approved the change in ownership in the Purchase Agreement.

And this is the reason for granting a permit to Grain Belt Express?  Is this permit void if Kansas doesn't approve an extension?  I don't see that anywhere.
An interregional transmission line allows for low cost energy to be imported from a region with an excess of generation resources to a region with higher demand. The Grain Belt Project provides this benefit by moving wind power from Kansas (where there is an abundance of wind) into Missouri, MISO, and PJM, which will increase the supply of low- cost power in those markets.

Power prices in PJM are generally $10.00/MWh higher than prices that would be paid for the 500 MW of energy sold over the Project into the MISO market in Missouri. There is a very strong corporate demand for renewable energy in PJM, which contributes to Grain Belt being able to charge higher prices for that energy in PJM.

Where's the "demand" in PJM?  Grain Belt Express has no customers in PJM!
The wind industry will not need the federal production tax credit after 2023 because of continuing technology improvements.
Well, this is my personal favorite, bogus, unsupported statement in the whole Order.  It's footnoted to stuff Skelly said at hearing, which was nothing but his opinion and a whole bunch of malarkey.  Since when does Michael Skelly speak for the entire wind industry?  He hasn't worked in the wind industry in more than a decade.  And, obviously, his incorrect assumptions about the wind industry cost his investors $197M over the past decade.  Whoopsie!  The wind industry feeds off tax credits.  My opinion (just as good as Skelly's btw) is that once the tax credits sunset, the wind industry will blow out of town so fast it's going to make everyone's head spin.  When there's not a pot of taxpayer-financed gold to be had, the wind industry will no longer be interested in building wind.
The generation of electricity from wind energy results in no emissions, in contrast to traditional fossil fuel-fired generation. Grain Belt’s Project will provide an additional option for utilities to reduce their emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide), hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury), and carbon dioxide by purchasing cleaner renewable power for delivery on the transmission line in lieu of using existing or constructing new fossil fuel-fired generation assets.

The renewable energy delivered by the Project will reduce emissions in the Eastern Interconnection by displacing thermal generation, which emits sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide, and will decrease water usage, all to the benefit Missouri’s environmental and public health.

Except when they fire up the coal plants to generate off system sales to PJM.  In fact, they may do more of that than using "clean" power from Kansas, since coal plants run when called and wind power runs when it wants to.  This is garbage.
The Project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.
How so?  Did MISO order it for reliability purposes?  No?  Well then what use is additional "reliability" to a system that is already reliable?  And, really, how much reliability can be had from a transmission line that can only deliver 500 MW (while simultaneously exporting 500 MW from the same substation)?  HVDC is not compatible with AC, so there's only one possible interconnection.  Garbage, again.
Approximately $14.97 million in easement payments will be made in the first year of Project operation.
So, wait, you're telling me that easement payments to landowners won't occur until the first year of operation?  How many years could GBE be using people's land for free during construction before making any payments?  What if construction never gets completed, but land has been taken?  Does the landowner never get paid for what is taken from him?
Grain Belt developed the Missouri Landowner Protocol as part of its approach to right-of-way acquisition for the Project.
That's right!  The fox designed the security system for the hen house.  What protection is that to the chickens?
Grain Belt’s compensation package is superior to that of most utility companies.
I don't seem to remember any evidence of other utility company compensation packages being in the record.  What is this based on?  Someone's opinion again?
If Grain Belt obtains an easement from a landowner, the property will still belong to the landowner and can be utilized for activities such as farming, recreation, and other activities that do not interfere with the operation of the transmission line. After construction of the facilities, the landowner will retain the ability to continue agricultural production on the entirety of the easement area except for the relatively small footprint of the structures, which typically occupy less than 1% of the total easement area.
Except for that mega tower in the middle of the field that the farmer has to continually work around for eternity.  And except for anything Grain Belt says he can't do.  Seems more like Grain Belt would be in control of the ENTIRE easement, although the landowner would still pay taxes on it.
If Grain Belt and a landowner have reached agreement on the form of easement but are unable to reach agreement on the appropriate compensation, then at the landowner’s request, Grain Belt will submit the issue of landowner compensation to binding arbitration under Missouri law. The option of binding arbitration typically costs less, has more simplified procedures, and results in a final decision more quickly than circuit court litigation.
Quicker and costs less, you say?  Who would benefit from this?  Not the landowner.  Who pays for eminent domain suits?  Not the landowner.
Out of the 206 miles that the Project will traverse in Missouri, no more than nine acres of land would be taken out of agricultural production as a result of the structures installed for the Project in cultivated lands.
Who did your math here?  Certainly not a farmer.  I'd bet your math included merely the footprint of the towers, as if farming could occur right up to the structure without any safety margin.  This is just absurd.
Grain Belt has created the Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocol, which establishes standards and policies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any negative agricultural impacts that may result due to transmission line and converter facilities construction and operation.
Again, fox designing the security system for the hen house.  What does Grain Belt know about agriculture?  Does it fit in a thimble?
Grain Belt witness Richard J. Roddewig testified credibly that based on published research and Mr. Roddewig’s own research, transmission lines do not have a significant adverse impact on farmland prices and values.

The scientific weight of evidence does not support the conclusion that electric and magnetic fields cause any long-term adverse health effects, and the levels of electric and magnetic fields associated with the Project do not pose any known risk to human health.
And the scientific weight of evidence doesn't rule it out, either.  Both of these statements are industry propaganda.  Nobody in their right mind believes this.
Missouri courts have stated that for a company to qualify as a public utility, the company must be devoted to a public use for the general public. The evidence showed that when the Project is constructed and begins operation, it will transmit energy from wind farms in Kansas to wholesale customers in Missouri. In the case of MJMEUC, those customers are Missouri cities and towns that serve as electric providers to approximately 347,000 Missouri citizens. The hallmark of a public utility is the offering of utility service to the public without discrimination. Grain Belt will offer indiscriminate transmission service through an open access transmission tariff that will be filed and subject to the jurisdiction of FERC. While the Commission only has authority over facilities that are devoted to public use, an entity that constructs and operates a transmission line bringing electrical energy from electrical power generators to public utilities that serve consumers is a necessary and important link in the distribution of electricity and qualifies as a public utility. The Commission concludes that Grain Belt’s Project will serve the public use, and Grain Belt qualifies as a public utility.
Well, would you look at that?  The PSC has created new precedent!  If a private utility sells its product to a public entity, that automatically makes them a public utility?  I don't think so.  I don't think that is part of any existing precedent, so the PSC has nicely set this up for appeal like a set of bowling pins.  Great job!

I've long been of the opinion that regulatory decisions are not the product of careful evaluation of competing facts that lead to a conclusion.  Instead, it happens backwards, with the conclusion shaped by political factors, and then supported by a sifting of the evidence to find only the facts that support the previously reached conclusion.  This decision by the MO PSC is a prime example of this kind of political regulation.  How very disappointing.
1 Comment

Maine Moxie

3/29/2019

2 Comments

 
Picture
Everyone needs a little inspiration from time to time, and here's one that satisfies.

The New England Clean Energy Connect is a merchant project owned by Central Maine Power.  It's purpose is to connect hydro generated electricity in Quebec to customers in Massachusetts.  It's the product of a Massachusetts law to increase the use of renewable electricity  in the state.  When Massachusetts solicited proposals to fulfill its law, utility companies were falling all over themselves to score this huge money maker.  The owners of the ill-fated Northern Pass project to move hydro through New Hampshire to Massachusetts were the first winners.  However, they couldn't get approval from New Hampshire.  Next winner was the NECEC project, and CMP has worked tirelessly to bang it out.  But the people of Maine object to hosting this invasive and costly project for benefit of Massachusetts.

When I first started looking at this project, NECEC had a very neat list of localities that supported its project listed on their website.  It sort of looked like Maine was for this project.  But then the people found out about it.  Opposition formed.  And this opposition has plenty of moxie.  It's snatched the possibility of victory from the jaws of defeat and is slowly turning things around.

What's moxie?  A dictionary definition:  force of character, determination, or nerve.

It came from a popular New England drink.

It also describes the people of New England.  As a gal with deep New England roots, I've come to appreciate it.  These people don't take crap from anyone, and they can be incredibly stubborn.  They get things done.  I mean, look at New Hampshire... its state motto is "Live free, or die."  Die... that's some tough stuff.  So it's completely unsurprising that the people of Maine weren't going to lie down and die without a fight.  And what an inspirational fight it's been so far.

Early on in the process, CMP made a deal with some business and community interests along the transmission route to exchange cash and goodies for support.  Except these interests represented just a small portion of those affected and didn't have the political clout to run roughshod over the majority.  It was an expensive initiative that didn't really buy CMP much, it just created bad feelings among people on the route.  It may have looked like the few were selling the many down river for their own private gain.  The opposition didn't go away.  It got stronger.  It got more determined.  It got moxie.

When CMP started to think it might lose recently, it (and Hydro Quebec, who stands to make billions off this deal) offered a package of "incentives" to Maine.  Maine's new governor, Janet Mills, thinks the package will benefit the state and quickly signed on to support it.  This was the jaws of defeat, opening wide.  With political support and an incentives package for Maine on the table, many would have given up.  But not Mainers.  They took what was on the table and exposed it for what it really is... a mere pittance in cash for the average citizen coupled with a bunch of stuff they don't need, like electric heat pumps and electric car charging stations.  Hmm... "incentives" that increase CMP profits.  How generous!

And the opposition renewed its efforts to apply political pressure on the localities who had earlier issued letters of support for the project.  They have been wildly successful.  Earlier this week they reached an important pinnacle when the Town of Farmington overwhelmingly voted to rescind its prior letter of support and actively oppose NECEC.  This was notable because Governor Janet Mills is from Farmington.  She even attended the town meeting where the vote took place, and stood up to speak in favor of the project before the vote.  The people were not swayed.  Janet Mills lost the support of her hometown.

And just the other day, a bi-partisan group of Maine legislators held a news conference condemning the project.  Several bills are in play that would cripple the project or cancel it altogether.  Legislators are listening to the voters, and the voice of the people is getting increasingly loud.  It's politics at its finest, democracy at work.  If Mills and CMP want to play politics, the people will play politics, except with more moxie.

Governor Mills, CMP, and its supporters took a pretty pathetic defense.  They chose to accuse their opposition of being funded by "dark money."  Now anyone who is successful in their opposition to corporate energy interests is going to be accused of being funded by "dark money."  It's the environmentalist's ad hominem argument du jour.  And it's pure crap.   Opposition group leaders routinely joke about the paychecks from the Koch brothers that never come.  We're not being funded by outside interests, and it's insulting to try to demean us by saying we are.  There are absolutely no facts to support these "dark money" accusations.  And you know what it does?  It's like passing around a vat of moxie.  It pisses us off!  It makes us even more determined.  If any of these accusations were even remotely true, the opposition would be too scared to continue.  But they are not true and therefore only cause opposition to dig in its heels deeper and fight even harder.  Was that the effect CMP was going for? 

So, if you need a little inspiration for your own fight, keep your eye on Maine.  Here's just one of the many news stories about this battle.  The people are in it for the win.
2 Comments

FERC Wants To Know What You Think About Electric Transmission Incentives

3/28/2019

1 Comment

 
Well, here we go again, folks!  Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an inquiry regarding its transmission incentives policy.  It's been 13 years since FERC first crafted its incentives policy, and 8 years since its last review.  It's time.

This review is different than the last one.  Some of the ideas FERC gave birth to in this inquiry are pretty awful, and if implemented, could spell trouble ahead for consumers and landowners in the way of future get-rich-quick transmission schemes.  Therefore, you should participate.  It's a lot easier to prevent bad policy from happening in the first place than it is to change bad policy once it personally affects you.  Increased transmission costs affect every last one of us, and you never know when a new transmission idea will take root (route) in your back yard.  Heh, I made a funny there.  Enjoy, it's probably the last giggle you're going to get out of this.

So, here it is, in all its glory.

But, but, but... it's a beast, you say.  It's written in FERCenese, you say (FERCenese is the official technical acronym-laden gibberish spoken at the agency, incomprehensible to regular folks).  I can't possibly understand this and form coherent comments, you say.  Yes, you can!  Don't let the industry's purposeful over complication keep you out of this process, that's exactly what they hope will happen.  In addition to the brief overview provided below, I'm going to break it down into people-speak in a series of blog posts covering the different topics.  So, find something that interests you, put on your thinking cap, and try answering a question or two.  If you find that too daunting, join with others to hash it out and file joint comments as a group.  And if you're already part of a group and want to join with other groups to file a joint comment comprising an even bigger group of groups, then hit me up.

Comments are due 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.  Today is the publication date.  Initial comments are due on June 25, 2019.  Reply comments (your comments on the ideas submitted by others) are due on July 25.  This gives you nearly 3 months to brainstorm and get it written down.  Don't wait until the last minute, nothing is more satisfying than having a filing in the can well in advance of the deadline, while others scramble at the last minute.  The only drawback there could be forgetting to file it on the due date, but I won't let you forget.  I recommend against filing your comments early.  Last time, the utilities filed a last minute request to extend the deadline... imagine that, three whole months to write a set of comments and they couldn't get it done.  In addition, regulatory proceedings are like a game of poker, don't tip your hand before you have to.  It only gives them an opportunity to shape their own comments to best refute yours.  Filing comments is easy.  All FERC filings are electronic -- simply set up an account and upload your comments onto the docket.  No paper copies needed.  No service rules on an inquiry.  File and go!  It's a good idea to set up your account now, if you're interested in this docket.  Once you have an account, you can subscribe to this docket in order to get electronic notice of all filings and other information related to this proceeding (particularly last minute requests to extend the deadline).

Now that the procedural has been taken care of... let's look at what's in the inquiry.

Incentives come from Section 219 of the Federal Power Act created by Congress in 2005.  It's pretty simple, go check it out.  Pay particular attention to what Sec. 219 actually says and compare it to what FERC thinks it says.  Somehow they've gotten off track, changed a few words in their interpretation, and added a whole bunch of things that are nowhere to be found in Sec. 219.  This should be the foundational touchstone of your comments -- what does Sec. 219 say about this?

In addition, you might be interested in reading what happened last time the Commission reviewed incentives.  I wrote quite a lot about it here on the blog.  Or, you may want to wade through the old FERC docket to read everything posted (but I warn you, three months probably won't be enough time for that... maybe that's where utilities get lost?).

Let's break the inquiry down by sections, including a brief description of each.

Incentives based on risks and challenges -- this is what FERC has been doing, awarding incentives based on a project's risk.  But now the Commission poses the question if it should be awarding incentives based on a project's benefits instead.  Are those going to be the glowing, magic math, benefit possibilities floated by transmission owning utilities, economic development types, and regional transmission organizations that never actually happen?  Or will they be realistic benefits with some sort of true-up after project completion, where any "benefit" claims that don't happen come out of transmission owner pockets?  FERC says they may be "benefits related to reliability and reductions in the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion."  How might one measure "reliability" benefits?  How might one measure "transmission congestion" benefits, considering the fact that relieving congestion in one area may just increase it elsewhere?  Are we going to include both increases and decreases in rates to come up with this figure, or will only decreases count, such as PJM tried with its Transource project?

Or might the Commission award incentives based on project characteristics, such as "
transmission projects located in regions with persistent needs, interregional transmissions projects, or transmission projects that unlock constrained resources"?  Why are these projects so special?  Either we need them or we don't.  Why goldplate transmission for certain generation, or simple overbuilding, just because it's big?  And who is going to determine what is a "persistent need?"  I've got a persistent need for chocolate.  Maybe FERC needs a chocolate supply incentive to make sure I'm supplied to my heart's desire?

And there's also the suggestion that FERC should award incentives "automatically."  Or should they continue to look at each request individually?  It's sort of like doing away with bankers and allowing transmission companies to make automatic withdrawals from consumer wallets whenever they wish.  Is this a good idea?

Here's a stunningly bad suggestion:
Transmission projects can promote economic efficiency by reducing congestion, which allows efficient dispatch of resources, facilitating the interconnection of additional generation, and facilitating the transmission of additional generation to load centers. The Commission could tailor incentives to promote transmission projects that accomplish either of these two outcomes.
Why do we need to facilitate additional generation?  There's no generation shortage.  Did FERC mean to say it wants to facilitate a particular kind of generation?  I'm pretty sure Sec. 219 was generation source neutral.  Transmission is not an avenue to reward your favorite kind of electric generator, and besides as a regulator, I'm pretty certain FERC cannot pick and choose between generation sources.

"Persistent geographic needs."  This sounds suspiciously like Sec. 1221, which is broken.  Is FERC trying to anoint itself with power already vested in the U.S. Department of Energy?

Flexible transmission system operation, cybersecurity and resilience.  Meh.  Do we really have to reward these critters for doing their jobs?

Improving existing transmission facilities.  Now here's an exciting topic!  Except it appears that FERC's only thought there was adding a bunch of bells and whistles to what we already have, instead of simply rebuilding it to increase capacity in lieu of building new projects on new rights-of-way.

Interregional transmission projects.  *sigh*  Who says we need these?  The most efficient system is one where source is located close to load.  The bigger the gap between the two, the more expensive and unreliable the system gets.  Is this about playing kingmaker for certain kinds of generation again?

Oh, I guess so, because that is followed by Unlocking Locationally Constrained Resources.  This category includes gems such as, "Should the Commission use incentives to encourage the development of transmission projects that will facilitate the interconnection of large amounts of resources?"  And what kind of resources would those be?  Are we going to be building a whole bunch of new coal plants?  I don't think so.

This has to be the worst idea in the whole inquiry.  Ownership by non-public utilities.


Are there barriers to non-public utilities’ ownership of transmission facilities? Should the Commission consider granting incentives to promote joint ownership arrangements with non-public utilities and, if so, how?

What's the difference between a public utility and a non-public utility?  State eminent domain authority.  Public utilities are routinely granted eminent domain authority because their operations are for public use.  Non-public utilities are not vested with eminent domain authority because their operations equate to a private driveway for their own use.  Now the Commission wants to reward public utilities (with your cash, btw) for lending their public utility status to entities who are not providing a public service?  This is concerning.

FERC finishes up by requesting your ideas on some other existing incentives.  It seems that FERC isn't very excited or interested in changing these, but you may be.  ROE adders, Transco adders, RTO membership adders, advanced technology (FERC thinks maybe it should do away with this one altogether), CWIP and recovery of pre-commercial costs (the costs of a transmission project before it is granted incentives), hypothetical capital structure, abandoned plant recovery, and accelerated depreciation.  If you don't know what these are, I'll explain later.

I hope I piqued your interest and that you follow that with comments and ideas.  Without your participation, your interests will be represented by utilities (who feast on these incentives), state regulators (who may or may not be co-opted by incumbent utilities), and if you're lucky enough to have a good one, your state consumer advocate.  However, none of these entities really understand what it's like to be threatened by new transmission of questionable need.  FERC needs to hear your unique perspective.  Even worse, your interests could be represented by self-proclaimed "public interest" or "consumer interest" groups who are grant funded by corporations and political dark money and claim to speak for the silent population.  Don't be silent!

In future blog posts, I'll delve into some of the incentive topics in further detail.  Meanwhile, feel free to ask questions.

FERC Incentives Part Deux.  Seems more like an exercise in increasing incentives than reining in the ones that already cost us way too much money.  Your participation is the only thing that can make a difference here.
1 Comment

Kansas Wants Invenergy To Put Up Or Shut Up

3/27/2019

6 Comments

 
That's the nice idiom.  There's also another appropriate here... use whichever floats your boat!

Yesterday was the deadline for the staff of the Kansas Corporation Commission to file their report and recommendation in the acquisition proceeding to transfer GBE to Invenergy.  While a lot of it was unsurprising dreck, there were a few gems in there, along with a few new recommended conditions.

First, a revelation:
Of the 1163 affected land tracts, GBE has made 582 written easement offers to Kansas
landowners but only secured signatures from 129. Because of the regulatory uncertainty
in other states, GBE stopped pursuing easement agreements in 2015 and eventually
released 122 of the signed agreements rather than pay the final balance due on the
easement agreements.

As noted earlier in my testimony, GBE has acquired easements from only seven of the
affected tracts of land. At one time it had 129 signed agreements but stopped actively
pursuing easements in 2015 and eventually released 122 of the easements.
Seven. 7.  Lucky number 7.  That's how many easements GBE owns in the entire state of Kansas.  Only 1,156 to go!

And why is this important?
What impact has the delay in acquiring easements had on the affected Kansas
landowners?

Because of the approved routing, I assume the landowners are aware the transmission line
will cross their property. But they have no indication of when or if it will occur, and they
have not been compensated for the easement across their property.

Would you expect the approved route to affect land values of the landowners?

In my opinion, the impact on land values is unknown. However, I believe knowledge of
the pending transmission line easement would need to be revealed in any land sales
transactions, which may affect a potential buyer's decision to purchase.

Has GBE kept in contact with the landowners to keep them apprised of it plans regarding the GBE Project?

As per the conditions in the 13-803 Docket, GBE is required to file quarterly updates with the Commission on it progress. However, all of those updates are filed confidentially with Staff and not available to the public or interveners in the 13-803 Docket. In the past, GBE has sent newsletters to those that have requested to be on a list to receive updates.  However, GBE...  *** Whoopsie!  Confidential Information  ***
GBE what?  Went belly up?  Was consumed by its own hubris?  Not sure why this is confidential...  anyhow...
The only benefit that can be attributed to the landowners affected by the approved route
of the GBE Project would be the certainty of the line's impact on their property and
compensation for the line easements. In this case, certainty can be provided by the sunset
provision dismissing the approved route, or by GBE or its successor completing the purchase of the necessary easements through Kansas.
So the staff recommended this condition to approval of the acquisition:
If the Commission approves the acquisition and agrees to extend the sunset provision in the 13-803 Docket, I recommend the Commission require Invenergy to make
preliminary payments or acquire the easements necessary to construct the Kansas portion of the GBE project regardless of its success in resolving its regulatory issues in the other affected states.

Invenergy shall make preliminary easement payments to all Kansas landowners affected
by the line siting within 12 months of a decision to extend the line siting sunset provision found in Docket 13-GBEE-803-MIS (13-803). If the sunset extension is not approved and Invenergy requests approval of a new line siting route, Staff recommends the Commission require Invenergy to make preliminary easement payments within 12 months of gaining approval for a new line siting.
Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud...  new line siting route?  Where did this come from?  Why would staff bring that up and include it as a condition for approval?  If we're just talking about possibilities here, why not include one about a meteor falling from the sky and crushing Invenergy's Chicago headquarters, what would Invenergy have to pay Kansas landowners in that instance?  So... a re-route is a remarkable possibility.  In fact, it looks like it may be a distinct possibility.

And now that we're over the Freudian portion of my comment...  Invenergy is going to have to shell out a lot of money within one year of approval.  If it later decides not to go forward with the project, it's not getting any of its money back.  And only one year to acquire 1,156 easements and make initial payments... while the uncertainty of approvals in other states still hangs in the balance.  This is impossible.

Put up or shut up, Invenergy.

This staff person also recommends, "When the GBE Project and/or AC Collector System become operational, Invenergy will maintain sufficient personnel in the region of the facilities such that it can provide adequate emergency response to any portion of its Kansas operations within one hour of being notified of an emergency."

Looks like there's going to be lots of little Invenergy offices across Kansas, with a skeleton staff sitting around waiting for an emergency to occur.  Well, at least that will guarantee a handful of permanent jobs.

However, this is only a staff person's recommendation.  What the Commissioners will eventually do is anyone's guess.

My guess is that Invenergy is screaming and having a big ol' tantrum today.

Too bad Missouri doesn't care for its landowners this way.  How bad do you have to be for Kansas to look good?  At least someone seems to be looking out here...
6 Comments

"It is a tale told by an idiot..."

3/22/2019

0 Comments

 
Building into this week's Grain Belt Express fantasy are the off-base comments of potential new owner Invenergy.  The company was slow getting off the blocks, even though it probably had the inside skinny on the pending approval.  In the wake of the decision, there was a resounding silence from Invenergy, which created a media void that others stepped right into.  This shaped a news stream laced with healthy amounts of skepticism.  It just didn't work out that the PSC's press release adequately filled the void of silence from Invenergy.

When pressed for comment, Invenergy responded with a bunch of glittering generalities and inconsequential trifle, like this:
“Invenergy is grateful for the thoughtful and thorough consideration given to the Grain Belt Express transmission project by the Missouri Public Service Commission and we are pleased with the Order granting Grain Belt Express a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity,” Conley said Thursday.
Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley praised the PSC’s action and said Invenergy put the project on solid financial ground.

“The order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for Missouri,” Conley said. “Invenergy looks forward to the next step in the regulatory process before the PSC and to bringing low-cost power, quality jobs and new tax revenue to Missouri.”
“The Grain Belt Express is important because it is a transformative infrastructure project that will provide access to more low-cost renewable power to American consumers and communities,” Conley said.
“Today’s order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for the state, and a good project is made stronger by Invenergy’s participation and we’re excited for what this means,” Conley said.
"The Order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for Missouri. The Grain Belt Express project is made stronger through Invenergy’s participation because of our strong record of project execution, strong financial position, community partnerships, and landowner relationships," company spokeswoman Beth Conley said in a statement.
As Shakespeare's Macbeth said, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

But what about Illinios, Invenergy?  You're not doing anything in Missouri without an approved route in Illinois, right?  I mean, what would be the point of building the project in Missouri if there wasn't a clear, connecting path through Illinois that enabled Invenergy to reach the PJM Pot 'O Gold?
The company is now focused on the separate regulatory matter of having its acquisition of the project approved in Missouri and Kansas, said Beth Conley, an Invenergy spokesperson.

Though Missouri had long been the only holdout among the four states on the project’s path, another hurdle arose last year in Illinois, which rescinded its approval on the technicality that Clean Line did not have a physical presence in the state and therefore could not qualify as a utility. Conley said there was still “no existing regulatory approval in Illinois” and “nothing pending,” as well.
Grain Belt Express also no longer has the OK to be built in Illinois after a state appeals court last year reversed the approval of the Illinois Commerce Commission. Conley said Thursday that “there is no pending regulatory case for the project in Illinois.”
Clean Line had been working on the proposed direct-current power line since 2010 and had said last year that it still hoped to bring the project online by 2023 or 2024.

Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley said that timeline has not been changed by the proposed sale of the project. The power line would be the largest transmission project undertaken by Invenergy.
2023?  Isn't that a little optimistic for a company that still needs regulatory approval in Illinois?  It took Clean Line's Rock Island project several years to get through permitting in Illinois, only to have its permit snatched away by the courts a couple years later.  And that's not counting the appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which added another couple years.  So we're talking 6 years, just for clear regulatory approval in Illinois, if things go swell (which they won't).  Even if Invenergy filed an application in Illinois today, it would be 2025 before it could possibly work its way through the Illinois system.  How long would the project take to build, once it had approvals?  2 to 3 years.  We're getting a lot closer to 2030 than we are to 2023.  Beth's timeline isn't realistic, nor even logical.  It sounds more like a costume for a farce, a scene in an improbable drama.  But it really tells the public nothing about what's about to happen next.

Instead, Invenergy wants the media to focus on other fairy tales, such as this:
Invenergy has experience building similar projects globally, and spokesperson Beth Conley said that background will help navigate challenges with residents.

“Invenergy has built more than 140 sustainable-energy projects around the world, and we’ve done that by really executing on our reputation as being a company that is committed to the communities that host our projects,” Conley said.
Conley, the Invenergy spokeswoman, said the company has established good relationships with landowners and community leaders in building its more than 146 worldwide projects and the company will bring “that same level of dedication” to stakeholders in the Grain Belt project.
Similar projects?  What's "similar" to a 780-mile merchant transmission line with eminent domain authority?  Not the short, private generation tie lines Invenergy builds through voluntary agreements with landowners.  Not gigantic wind farms and other generation plants that lease land from willing landowners.  Invenergy has ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE building and operating a merchant transmission line of this magnitude with negotiated rate authority using eminent domain.

Invenergy has no background using eminent domain to acquire land.  Negotiating voluntary agreements with absentee landowners who like the large cash royalties that come with wind leases is about as far as you can get from negotiating a transmission line easement under threat of eminent domain with a hostile landowner who sees no value in low, one-time payments or cheesy yearly pittance payments for a perpetually burdensome easement.  I'm afraid Invenergy's "experience" is of little use in this situation and could actually become detrimental if they become inebriated at the fountain of power fueled by eminent domain authority.

And as far as those landowner relationships Conley brags about?  I think there's more to be revealed by the way Invenergy is hated by numerous communities it has invaded.

Such as Rhode Island.

Wisconsin.

Minnesota.

Oklahoma.

Colorado.

Kansas.

Indiana.

New York.

Oklahoma, again.

California.

Pennsylvania.

South Dakota.

Iowa.
Need I go on?  In state after state, citizens oppose Invenergy projects planned for their communities.  The stories are chock full of accusations of public official bribery, lawsuits against local government, detrimental health effects, property devaluation, and pitting neighbor against neighbor which causes community upheaval. 

The real story is told by what is not said by Invenergy spokespersons.  I've got my
on you, Invenergy.
0 Comments

Debate About Grain Belt Express Is Alive and Well

3/21/2019

2 Comments

 
The Missouri PSC issued an order granting a CCN to Grain Belt Express yesterday.  What does that mean for the viability of the project?  In the grand scheme of things... not much.  Grain Belt Express, as presented to the MO PSC as a 780-mile transmission line from southwestern Kansas to Indiana, is still never going to happen, IMO.  The reasons are myriad, and hopefully I'll get to most of them over time.  More garbage has been generated than fits in one trash truck, ya know.

Let's start here.  Permitting whack-a-mole.  This is an old one, but still very much appropriate.  Grain Belt Express just can't whack all the moles and win this game.  The biggest, baddest mole standing in its currently proposed way is Illinois.  Based on prior court decisions in that state, GBE just can't be permitted.  Pretending it can is unrealistic.  Is GBE lying to us, or is it lying to itself?

And then there's the ridiculous garbage the PSC generated yesterday.  We'll get to the actual Order later.  First, let's look at the press release the PSC issued.

The PSC is a regulator, not a politician, not a public relations agency.  It's supposed to deal in facts.  Its decisions are legal opinions.  It should not have to "sell" them to the public.
Mission Statement
We will:
  • ensure that Missourians receive safe and reliable utility services at just, reasonable and affordable rates;
  • support economic development through either traditional rate of return regulation or competition, as required by law;
  • establish standards so that competition will maintain or improve the quality of services provided to Missourians;
  • provide the public the information they need to make educated utility choices;
  • provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally.
You failed, MO PSC.  Any respect I used to have for the MO PSC is now gone.  No, it's not that they issued a decision I don't agree with.  That happens a lot from all kinds of regulators.  It's the way they went about it.  Even a regulatory decision you don't agree with contains facts and logic, sometimes a bit of opinion, but there's usually a sufficient amount of legal reasoning that forms a platform upon which the decision was made.  You may not agree with the decision, but you can clearly see how it was created.  The MO PSC's decision happened inside a black box.  And it reeks of politics.

First thing to come out of the box is the press release.
The Commission granted a CCN to Grain Belt determining: 1) there is a need for the service; 2) Grain Belt is qualified to provide the proposed service; 3) Grain Belt has the financial ability to provide the proposed service; 4) Grain Belt’s proposal is economically feasible; and 5) the service promotes the public interest.
The Commission says it issued a CCN to Grain Belt, but it really issued one to Invenergy.  Invenergy has the financial ability and is qualified to provide the service -- Grain Belt has no employees and no money.  Neither Grain Belt nor Invenergy has a proposal that is economically feasible.  There's only 2 customers, one of which was documented to be paying below cost rates.  These customers cannot financially support the proposal.  There are no other customers.  Potential customers don't pay the bills.  Supplying below cost service to one customer is Missouri does not promote the interests of the entire public.
The Commission stated the evidence in the case demonstrated that the Grain Belt project will create both short-term and long-term benefits to ratepayers and citizens of the state. In addition, the project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.
Benefits to citizens?  Where?  What citizens?  What benefits?  This statement is created out of thin air.  As far as "reliability" goes... a transmission line contracted to serve only select customers with unreliable wind power is not "reliable."  Wind cannot be called to produce when needed.  It's not an open access transmission line that will serve all customers equally, and Missouri may only receive 500 MW, although contracted amounts are much, much less.  This is not a "reliability" transmission asset.  It's a private driveway for select customers to receive special, supplemental wind power so they can pretend to be clean and green and all sorts of peripheral things.  As if electrons can be segregated by color.
There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources,” said the Commission. “We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”
Whaddya mean there can be no debate?  Of course there's debate.  There's a HUGE debate going on in this country and around the globe.  Wind energy is not the solution to our energy woes.  It's just a gluttonous industry that has been greenwashing America for years, and stuffing its pockets with our tax dollars.  It's not affordable, it's not sustainable.  It's not safe for the people who have to live around its generation plants.  And it's certainly not reliable.  Wind is not a baseload source of power.  It cannot be controlled to ramp up and down to meet need.  Wind does what it wants, and those who depend upon it for a source of electricity are the ones whose electric use ramps up and down to follow the wind.  Who wrote this garbage?  Was it the wind industry?
The Commission noted that any negative impacts of the project on the land and landowners will be mitigated by: 1) a landowner protocol to protect landowners; 2) superior compensation payments; 3) a binding arbitration option for easement negotiations; 4) a decommissioning fund-a fund for this type of project would be the first of its kind in the country; and 5) an agricultural impact mitigation protocol to avoid or minimize negative agricultural impacts. 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, and the proposed route does not directly impact the operation of any existing center pivot irrigation systems.

“Many of the landowners’ concerns will be addressed through carefully considered conditions placed on the CCN,” said the Commission.
Landowner concerns have NOT been addressed.  Landowners are still extremely concerned.  The PSC's conditions did nothing to ameliorate them.  The "landowner protocol" and "agricultural impact mitigation protocol" were created by Grain Belt, not the landowners, therefore landowners concerns are not addressed.  These documents address only the company's concerns.  Landowners were not consulted in the creation of these documents.  It's nothing more than the fox designing a security system for the hen house.  It's worthless and does nothing to satisfy landowners.  The decommissioning fund is also so much nonsense.  It has no substance, no rules, and is completely unworkable.  It's just more glittering make believe.

Superior compensation payments?  Superior to what?  Receiving nothing?  Since the PSC's land is not subject to eminent domain, and the PSC has never been subject to condemnation and eminent domain taking, it's opinion that the compensation payments are "superior" is just so much hubris.  In fact, it's completely insulting to landowners.  It's disrespectful.

And speaking of disrespectful, here's the pinnacle of propaganda:  only 9 acres of land will be taken out of agricultural production.  Just 9 acres!  Across 206 miles of 200-foot wide linear right of way.  The PSC has deemed every square inch of the proposed right of way to be agriculturally workable right up to the base of the tower.  I guess none of these folks have ever tried to drive a huge piece of farm equipment right up to a transmission line pole.  And they've never had to fly around a transmission pole to apply pesticide or fertilizer.  And they've never had to try to grow something along a strip of land that no longer has top soil.  And they're certainly not going to accept liability for any farmer who tries to farm right up to the base of the transmission tower and has an accident.  This is absolutely absurd.  And, ya know, it's something Hans Detweiler used to tell farmers in Illinois... that only 12 acres of land would be taken out of use for the entire Rock Island Clean Line project.

Gotta wonder, who wrote that stunningly bad press release?  I hope that person's food and farm goods will be supplied solely by that compromised 9 acres in the future.

We're only getting warmed up here... more to come...
2 Comments

Landowners Vow To Appeal Grain Belt Express Decision

3/20/2019

0 Comments

 
Two landowner groups in the bull’s-eye of the recently approved Grain Belt Express (GBE) high voltage electric transmission line say their fight will continue.  The Missouri Landowners Alliance (MLA) and Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance (EMLA), whose membership encompasses the entirety of GBE’s 200-mile route across Missouri, have decided to appeal the decision of the Public Service Commission to the Missouri Court of Appeals.  The groups say that GBE is not a public utility under Missouri law, and as such does not possess the solemn power of eminent domain to take land for its line.
 
"A public utility has the obligation to serve everyone within its service territory, and to charge the same rate to all similarly situated customers.  On the other hand, as a non-public utility, Grain Belt has the right to negotiate the best deal it can get with individual utility and other customers, and to negotiate with those who are most likely to pay it the highest price and different prices for the same service.  This is discriminatory and does not meet public utility requirements under Missouri law,” said Phil Brown, an attorney with EMLA.
 
GBE’s own studies show that Missouri already has excess generating reserves.  And GBE would not help any utility in the state to meet Missouri’s renewable energy requirements.  GBE could slow down the development of renewable energy resources in Missouri by replacing them with imported renewables from other states.  Landowners also point out that GBE has yet to attract commercial interest. No investor-owned utility or rural electric co-op has signed on with Grain Belt.  Without customers paying sustainable rates, GBE is not economically feasible and cannot be built.
 
The battle now also shifts to counties crossed by GBE, who have authority under state law to deny GBE from crossing the counties.
 
Wiley Hibbard, Presiding Commissioner of Ralls County said, “Ralls County has put a hold on granting assents until the development of our 229.100 application process is complete.  Knowing that the commissioners of each county have the most thorough knowledge and understanding of how these projects will affect their counties, the Missouri Association of Counties (CCAM) has again passed a resolution advising members of the Missouri Legislature to protect and preserve Mo Rev. Statue 229.100.”
 
The Missouri legislature is also taking action on GBE.  Rep. James Hansen has introduced legislation, House Bill 1062, to prevent the use of eminent domain by non-public utilities.
 
“I remain committed to Missourians in ensuring that eminent domain is not used by non-public utilities for profit,” said Rep. Jim Hansen.  “I have introduced legislation that will close this gap in existing law and will work expeditiously to shepherd it through the legislature,” he continued.
 
The project still faces many hurdles before it can be built.  The Missouri PSC is investigating whether to approve the sale of the project to Chicago-based Invenergy.  Kansas officials are engaged in a similar process.  The cases are not expected to be resolved until mid-summer, or later.
 
GBE must also re-apply for a permit to cross Illinois, after having an earlier permit revoked by an Illinois appeals court, which ruled that GBE was not a public utility under state jurisdiction.
 
“Given the uncertainty of the project in Illinois, we wonder if Invenergy actually intends to build this project across Kansas, Missouri and Illinois to a connection point in Indiana that ties into lines that serve east coast states,” Jennifer Gatrel, spokeswoman for Block GBE-Missouri.  “Invenergy has been very mysterious about its intention.”
 
“We urge landowners and opponents of GBE to circle the wagons and gain strength from each other during this period of uncertainty,” said Russ Pisciotta, president of Block GBE, a statewide organization of opponents of GBE. 
 
Pisciotta said they are working on an information packet for landowners that aims to provide some guidance on possible future steps, as well as a review of landowner rights under the law on GBE wanting to take their land.  Landowners who do not receive a packet are urged to contact Missouri Landowners Alliance, Block GBE, or Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance.
 
“This is far from over,” said Marilyn O’Bannon, spokeswoman for EMLA.  “This battle is young yet.  Anything can happen.  Landowners are urged to exercise great caution when interacting with GBE’s representatives.”
 
MLA and EMLA recommend that landowners not sign any document related to an easement on their property without first reviewing it carefully, preferably with advice from an attorney. 
0 Comments

FERC To Examine Transmission Incentives... Again!

3/18/2019

0 Comments

 
It's been eight years since FERC opened a proceeding to examine its transmission incentives.  That attempt ended in a bit of a punt, with FERC basically doing nothing to actually effect change.  Incentives have continued to reward transmission expansion as a utility profit center, and consumers have been saddled with more costs of abandoned projects.  Perhaps FERC's incentives aren't working the way Congress intended.

FERC posted its agenda for its monthly meeting last Thursday.  Front and center on the docket are:
Picture
Perhaps the second time will be the charm?  The last attempt produced a mountain of comments, both for and against change (change including both increasing and decreasing incentives).  Utilities and banksters, of course, were looking to increase their take.  State utility commissions, consumer advocates, and consumers were looking to decrease the financial burden of incentives.  This upcoming proceeding is guaranteed to produce more of the same.

Just like last time, anyone can comment and participate in the inquiry.  The first step is to watch Thursday's commission meeting via webcast to listen to any comments on the items.  When issued, the Inquiry will most likely pose numerous questions the Commission wants to contemplate, and will include a comment deadline.

Who knows where this inquiry will take us.  It's Incentives Groundhog Day!
0 Comments

The Naysayers and The Suspicious

3/13/2019

0 Comments

 
Over the years I've read one glowing blog after another, penned by environmental groups and "clean energy" focused pubs, singing the praises of the doomed Clean Line projects.  Incumbent utilities, the fossil fuel industry, and mysterious "dark money" providers were blamed for getting in the way of "clean energy."  Resistant landowners also took a clobbering, for being so "selfish" to not volunteer their land and desire to farm around new transmission lines.  It was always someone else's fault that Clean Line was failing.  But the song was always the same... we need big new transmission lines "for wind" in order to save the planet.

Recently, Clean Line has announced its ultimate failure (although it's actually been failing for years).  The Clean Line projects are history.  This fact seems to be just barely settling in when along comes another long-distance direct current transmission proposal, SOO Green Renewable Rail.  You'd think these transmission ("for wind") lovers would be over the moon.

But they're not, if this article is any indication.  While describing the project adequately, the author throws in certain unnecessary barbs that try to doom the project before it even gets started.  Here's an example:
SOO Green could set a new paradigm for how to win approval for clean energy wires infrastructure...
Yay! Positive encouragement for a better future!  Except that is followed by this:
...if it doesn't end up as another warning sign of how hard it can be.
Was that really necessary?  I mean you all have been so busy heaping glowing compliments upon Clean Line, without those kind of barbs, and now when a project that could actually get done is on the horizon, you're a pessimistic Doubting Thomas.

Oh, so it's just one sorta off article, right?  But then the armchair climate change warriors who spend way too much time reading and commenting on the ridiculous articles in this pub start up (and it's the same bunch every time).  First they start talking about eminent domain and how good it is, how right, how just.  A project that doesn't use eminent domain just can't be good.  Then they start complaining about how expensive a buried project can be.  We desperately need new transmission "for wind," but it has to be constructed the cheapest way possible, even if it poses a burden on landowners and gets held up and eventually cancelled by overwhelming community opposition?  Is this really about "clean energy" at this point, or is it more about being "right" and powerful in an online forum and stomping on people you just don't like?  You know what they say about people who spend inordinate amounts of time in online communities...

And now let's move onto the suspicious.  Just about every single article about SOO Green Renewable Rail out of Iowa and Illinois mentioned the Rock Island Clean Line and its failure.  The comparison, as inapt as it truly is, gets made for the reader.  Considering the overwhelming opposition in these states that killed RICL dead, dead, deader than dead, how can these folks help but be suspicious of SOO Green?  Some grabbed their torches and pitchforks and issued the battle cry, but aren't quite sure where the battle ground is.

If it's just like RICL, contentious permitting processes at state regulatory boards are on the horizon, and affected landowners want to participate.  Except those processes won't happen.  No eminent domain.  Let's repeat that... NO EMINENT DOMAIN.  Construction on existing rail rights of way.  No private land may be taken against the owner's will.  If the project isn't harming anyone's property, what case would they make against it?  One person stated that there is no "need" for such a project.  I'm pretty sure "need" isn't a factor here.  As a merchant transmission owner, the only examination of "need" comes from customers.  If customers sign contracts to buy service, then it's "needed."  Why would any state regulator need to examine "need" if jurisdictional ratepayers aren't paying for it, and there is no request for eminent domain authority?  I just can't see any logical case against SOO Green, except that folks don't like transmission and think there are other solutions.  I tend to agree with them, for the most part, but if a transmission project that doesn't demand any sacrifice of others gets built underground on existing rights of way, won't that become a feather in the cap of transmission opponents on future overhead, eminent domain, projects?  If SOO Green proves that transmission really can be constructed underground on existing rights of way, what is the excuse for any future project that wants to do it the old fashioned way?

And I suppose it doesn't help that many of the Midwestern news articles were packed with the same old, tired Clean Line glitter, such as overinflated promises of jobs (600!), generalities about how "hungry" the east coast is for power (hint:  it's not, it's doing just fine building its own renewables, such as offshore wind), and overblown claims about how SOO Green is "for wind."  The suspicious have heard all this dreck before, and they didn't believe it the first time.  Recycling Clean Line talking points bolsters the comparison to Clean Line and can only make things harder down the road.  Let's hope SOO Green can just be itself -- a revolutionary idea that can change the way transmission is built in this country.  Applying a tired transmission line narrative to a fresh new idea is sort of disappointing, and it's fueling existing suspicion.

Perhaps it was too much too soon for many of the naysayers and the suspicious.  Maybe they just need a little time to noodle it out.  SOO Green has a hard road ahead convincing these folks that they don't have ulterior motives, and that they can get the job done.  I'm willing to give SOO Green a chance, how about you?
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    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

    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    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
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.