All Categories

Californians Still Making Excuses To Avoid Burial of Transmission Lines

1/15/2019

California investor-owned utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is still making excuses for its liability for the mass destruction left after its transmission lines sparked another deadly wild fire. With only $1.4B worth of wild fire liability insurance, and facing upwards of $30B in liability claims, PG&E will file for bankruptcy protection.

But somehow the "bankrupt" company will continue to exist and provide "safe" and economical electricity service to its customers. Oh, get real!!!

So, let's see... transmission line failures, combined with insufficient ROW clearing, have sparked more than a dozen fires in the past couple years. What if... what if you remove the transmission lines from the tinder? Of course it's going to be expensive, but $30B and climbing? Aging lines in fire-prone areas should be replaced, and new lines should be constructed underground.

“Underground is about 10 times more expensive than overhead,” said Malashenko, who is the PUC safety and enforcement division director. “If we were to underground (throughout) California, all our rates would go up ten times.”

Oh, baloney! Ten times, you say? I simply don't believe you! How about twice... as in two times more expensive, roughly? Why do you exaggerate like this? The "ten times" lie is one routinely spewed by transmission companies who don't want to underground their lines.

Underground lines also face risk from earthquakes and floods! Uhh... because overhead lines face no risk from those hazards? Of course not! The risk is the same. She also claims underground wires are harder to maintain. Perhaps, but they need less maintenance overall because they're not exposed to the elements. And it's harder to find the fault when they do break? What is this? 1850? I'm pretty sure a fault could be pinpointed to a certain section between vaults.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. The answer here is quite simple... transmission lines should be buried to protect them from the wear and tear of the elements, and to protect the environment from the risk faulty transmission lines pose.

How about now, PG&E? Is burial of new lines cheaper than bankruptcy?

And then there's the crazy claims that PG&E is the victim of climate change. As if climate change caused the fires? Some would like you to think so. But the reality is that exposed overhead transmission lines and lack of vegetation maintenance were perhaps the biggest reason for the fires. And let's take this climate change reasoning a little further, shall we? Climate change science says we must reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation. We are supposed to shut down old generation and replace it (although not equally) with fossil-free generation such as wind and solar. Is wind and solar available to all locations equally? No. The climate change folks want to create huge wind and solar farms at strategic locations and run overhead transmission lines thousands of miles to places like California. The last thing California needs right now is more overhead transmission lines. Climate change is everyone's favorite villain, but blaming corporate neglect on climate change is a bait and switch of epic proportions.

Less transmission.
Bury it.
Stop robbing utility O&M accounts to increase share dividends.
Bankruptcy is not a way to escape liability.
Think about the consequences of your actions (or lack thereof).
Quit blaming convenient scapegoats.
And maybe, just maybe, investor-owned utilities are a dumb idea.

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Is No More A Public Utility Than Rock Island Clean Line was

1/10/2019

0 Comments

Yesterday was briefing day at the Missouri Public Service Commission. Some briefs were uninspired dreck that more closely resembled a junior high school book report (copy, paste, copy, paste, don't waste a whole lot of thought or effort). But there was one of them that just blew me away. I love a good brief, I'm sorta geeky that way, and I've read a lot of them over the years. They come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, but it's rare that you find one so well-written, thoroughly researched, and cited. When you find one, it's a beautiful thing!

Yesterday's beautiful thing came from the Missouri Landowners Alliance, and made several very important points.

1. Grain Belt Express is not a public utility.

2. Invenergy has not yet purchased GBE therefore it is the qualifications of Clean Line that must be judged here.

3. Invenergy is unlikely to build GBE as currently described in Clean Line's application.

Any of these three by themselves should be enough to stop approval by Missouri, but combined there's absolutely no question. Sure, the PSC can simply disagree with the sound logic and deep legal precedent in the brief, but it would do so at its own peril as any approval is almost certain to be overturned by a court.

You can read a copy of Missouri Landowners Alliance's brief here.

To start the "not a public utility" ball rolling, consider this:

First, the Grain Belt line will not be selling its services to retail customers in Missouri. Second, Grain Belt has been authorized by the FERC to sell 100% of its capacity at wholesale to buyers (such as wind farms or load-serving utilities) at rates which are to be negotiated between the buyer and seller. Third, as an expected outcome of establishing rates through bilateral negotiation, Grain Belt’s customers will be paying different rates for capacity on the line – even for service from the same beginning and end points. Based on these facts, case law in Missouri tells us that the Grain Belt project is not an “electrical utility” in the sense that term is used in the CCN statute, Section 393.170.

And then the precedents start rolling...

In perhaps the key finding by the Court [in Danciger], it ruled that although the statutory definition of an “electrical corporation” includes no specific reference to public use, or to the necessity that the sale of the electricity be to the public, “it is apparent that the words ‘for public use’ are to be understood and to be read therein.”The question, then, was what constitutes the supply of electricity for “public use”, thereby qualifying the entity as an “electrical corporation.” In answering that question, the Court began with an obvious but critical point: a company either is or is not a public utility. If it is, then it is subject to the entire purview and regulation of the Commission, including the authority of the Commission to compel the company to provide service to all residences and businesses in the area where it provided service.

...

...if Grain Belt is indeed an “electrical corporation”, its negotiation of different rates for similarly situated customers would certainly be in violation of this statute, and no doubt others as well.

Grain Belt Express wants to pick and choose its customers based on how much they will pay for service. This is NOT a public utility! A public utility must serve all customers equally. Reminds me of this handout from Com Ed's attorney at the Illinois Appeals Court hearing on whether or not Rock Island was a public utility.

And speaking of that case....

Perhaps the closest judicial decision on point is from Illinois, in a case which involved the question of whether the Rock Island Clean Line (a sister line of Grain Belt) was or was not a “public utility” under Illinois law. (Illinois Landowners Alliance v. Illinois Comm. Comm’n, 60 N.E.3d 150 2016). In finding that the proposed line was not a “public utility”, the Court held that “A private company that provides public utility services according to its own terms and conditions does not meet the statutory definition of a public utility.”Furthermore, the court found that in order to qualify as a public utility, the entity must offer its assets for public use without discrimination. The Rock Island line “is not for public use without discrimination.”

Finally, in reaching its decision, the Court relied in part on an earlier case which had found that the Mississippi River Fuel company did not qualify as a public utility. That company sold natural gas through individual contracts with 23 private industrial retail customers, as well as to 2 public utilities which resold the gas to its retail customers. In relying on the Mississippi River Fuel case, the Court noted the following: the company’s contracts were not based on fixed rates, and instead varied as to terms and conditions; and that the company’s act of selling gas to a limited group of customers could not be characterized as “public use.”

Grain Belt Express can never be a public utility in Illinois. There's no reason it should ever be declared one in Missouri either, unless Missouri wants to become known as the state that allows private interests to take land from its citizens via eminent domain? I highly doubt the court would ever let that happen, much less the Governor or the legislature.

It is clear that because GBE is not a public utility that the Missouri PSC has no jurisdiction to grant it a permit for the transmission project. But then GBE can build at will, we must stop it, you may be thinking. Sure, sure, go ahead and build your project Clean Line and/or Invenergy.... but without public utility status you'll be trying to build it without eminent domain bulldozing landowners who choose not to participate. GBE has long since trashed any goodwill it could have in the state, and it's not something Invenergy can rebuild, no matter how highly (and insanely) it thinks about its relationship with landowners. Fact of the matter is GBE cannot be built without eminent domain, and this fact does not dispose of the fact that GBE is not a public utility. Clean Line's entire business plan fails once it gets to a court.

On the matter of who should be judged here:

However, it is another matter altogether to decide this issue on the basis of the qualifications of Invenergy. That company is not the Applicant here. Nor does it have any ownership interest in the Grain Belt project at this point. And as discussed later under criterion (4), it would be speculative to assume that Invenergy will ever own the Grain Belt project – at least in the form it has been described to the Commission over the past 5 years or so.

What the PSC has been doing here is absolutely idiotic. It has been judging a non-applicant who only has what is essentially an option to purchase GBE. Legally, this is all wet. The PSC needed to noodle this through a little more instead of declaring "same case, different owner" and going on like nothing had changed except those points that bolster GBE's case. The PSC must also approve the transfer of ownership (if GBE is a public utility). Why would the PSC do it backwards by first issuing a permit to a company who does not yet own the project, and then deciding later whether that company may, in fact, own the project? The decision that must be made in this case can only look at the applicant, Clean Line Energy Partners. If Clean Line fails, Invenergy may certainly re-apply in its own name after purchasing the project. This is a much cleaner way to go about this case.

Now let's talk about what Invenergy may do with a transmission project with eminent domain authority across two states, instead of re-applying in Illinois, moving legal boulders with its bare hands, and spending "$50-100M" to continue developing GBE. MLA notes "This figure should not be confused with the $2 million estimate for development costs up to the point when Invenergy/Grain Belt secure Kansas and Missouri approvals."

So, Invenergy can spend up to $100M trying to get permitted in Illinois, with little chance of success. Or, it can spend $2M to get eminent domain authority across the states of Kansas and Missouri and find another way to connect to MISO, since it has no queue position right now anyhow.

Only two conditions must be met before Invenergy is obligated to purchase the Grain Belt project: approvals of the Kansas Commission and this Commission. Closing is not dependent upon approval by the Commission in Illinois. So Invenergy could well end up owning the Grain Belt project, yet never receive permission to build the section of the line providing access to the PJM market. What happens then? According to Mr. Zadlo, Invenergy would need to come back to this Commission with a new plan, which most likely would mean the line would terminate somewhere in Missouri. And of course without the ability to reach the PJM market, Grain Belt has provided no evidence to prove that the line is economically feasible.

So what I can infer here is that IF GBE gets eminent domain authority across two states, it may change the project entirely, perhaps into one that doesn't need state approvals at all. But of course Invenergy has stated that it needs to undertake eminent domain before it comes back with its new plan. So what happens to property it has taken if Invenergy at some later date forfeits its permit and utility status in Kansas and Missouri? How do the landowners get their land back?

And on that note, let's find something not quite so sad. In fact... perhaps you will get a chuckle out of it like I did. During cross examination, Invenergy's Kris Zadlo suggested that GBE could "go north or go south" to get around Illinois on its way to PJM, on the off chance that it was denied a permit in Illinois. That's ridiculous! How ridiculous?

In order to go north of Illinois, the line would presumably be rerouted north in Missouri, then pass through Iowa, Wisconsin and even Lake Michigan, necessitating numerous additional consents and routing studies along the way.

Going south of Illinois presumably would mean rerouting the line south within the state of Missouri to a point somewhere near Cairo, Illinois, then going north through Kentucky and Indiana, until finally reaching a point near the converter station in Clark County, Illinois – a total distance of roughly 450 miles. And without a certificate from Illinois, presumably the converter station would need to be redesigned, and moved out of that state. And that in turn would seemingly require starting anew with the process of gaining permission for the interconnection with PJM.

Right, Mr. Zadlo. You're going to build an ovehead merchant transmission line through Lake Michigan. *snicker* If you really think this is an option, perhaps you should start looking at the amazing new technology available for buried HVDC. You'd soon quickly realize that what Clean Line intends to do is 10-years out of date. It would be like buying a 2009 model and pretending it was a "new" car.

So what does Invenergy plan to do? It's not telling the PSC the entire truth. Invenergy is much too sophisticated to be spending up to $100M without a plan.

Given that fact, it seems fair to assume that Invenergy must have a more realistic “Plan B” in mind in the event it cannot obtain consent to build the line in Illinois. For example, it must have crossed their minds that if Invenergy cancels its contract with MJMEUC, it could try to sell that 200 MW at a rate which might exceed any damages it could owe to MJMEUC. Another possibility would be for Invenergy to develop its own wind farms in Kansas, and use the Grain Belt line to move its energy into the MISO market. There are certainly inviting possibilities for combining the generation and transmission functions on the Grain Belt line for Invenergy’s own benefit.
While the MLA does not claim that either scenario is being considered by Invenergy, it has unveiled no logical plan of its own if it is denied entry into Illinois. And Invenergy appears much too sophisticated an organization not to have already developed a realistic plan to deal with that possibility. If it has, we have been given no clue as to what to expect.

Why would Invenergy want to sell service to bit player MJMEUC, when it can use service on its own generation tie line to cheaply plow through SPP (and on past its seam with MISO for even more opportunity!) and bid on some of these opportunities?

AEP Bounces Back from Wind Catcher Cancellation With 1.2GB RFP

and

PSO Not Giving Up On Building More Wind Farms In Oklahoma

So... GBE is not and can never be a public utility, however I don't think Invenergy cares because perhaps it has another scheme cooking.

Missouri Landowners Alliance is on top of its game!

0 Comments

Knock, Knock, Kansas! The Trojan Horse Is At Your Gate

1/6/2019

0 Comments

What's the difference between Clean Line Energy Partners and Invenergy? CLEP's business was only transmission. Invenergy's says it "...owns and operates large-scale renewable and other clean energy generation." Invenergy is primarily a generation company, although it owns a small number of generation tie lines that connect its generation to open access transmission lines for public use.

Clean Line wanted to build merchant transmission for sale under FERC's negotiated rate authority, and its plan to negotiate rates without any undue preference for its own generation affiliates was approved. Clean Line does not own any generation, making this factor a non-issue in its FERC application. But now Invenergy seeks to purchase the Grain Belt Express project. This changes the circumstances of GBE's FERC negotiated rate authority considerably. But yet... Clean Line and Invenergy claimed during testimony at the Missouri PSC that there's nothing they need to do to transfer GBE's negotiated rate authority to a new upstream owner with generation interests.

I simply don't believe you. In fact, I wonder if Invenergy doesn't plan to sell transmission capacity at all? Perhaps Invenergy plans to operate Grain Belt Express as the longest generation tie line in the U.S., where it will enjoy protection from transmission service requests of others under FERC's Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Facilities (ICIF) rules?

Invenergy has applied to the Kansas Corporation Commission for expedited approval of its proposed transaction to purchase Grain Belt Express. In actuality, Invenergy simply wants the KCC to approve its assumption of GBE's public utility status and siting permit. These approvals were issued years ago based on Clean Line's ownership and business plan. Invenergy says, "Invenergy is highly qualified to become the owner of GBE, and operate the GBE Project." But is it qualified to be a public utility in Kansas, and is it qualified to wield the power of eminent domain to take private property for its own use?

That's the real question before the KCC. If Invenergy is granted public utility status, does that mean that it can condemn and take any property in Kansas for its use, such as to build new wind farms and other generation assets? Or could the KCC somehow limit Invenergy's eminent domain authority to its transmission subsidiary, in which case Invenergy would have authority to condemn and take property for any new transmission line it intended to build, including generation tie lines that aren't for public use? The Kansas Corporation Commission needs to think long and hard here about welcoming the trojan horse Invenergy has towed up to its gate. I really hope they're capable of independent thought in the best interest of Kansas and don't become distracted by secret meetings and brimming bowls of vanilla panna cotta.

How about this for some distraction:

Expedited approval of the Transaction is warranted here because the Transaction does not involve the merger of two public utilities that are rate-regulated by the Commission; rather, it involves a transaction at the holding company level of GBE, a public utility that is not rate-regulated by the Commission, that will improve the capability of GBE to complete the Project. Therefore, many of the traditional state and local concerns with regard to public utility mergers are not implicated by the Transaction.

Concentrate, concentrate, KCC, on the merger of public utilities issue (it looks like a horse) and fail to notice the words "public utility" that are mentioned no less than three times in one short paragraph (and may indicate an army hiding somewhere).

What makes a "public utility" in Kansas? According to KSA 66-101a, "Electric public utility" means any public utility, as defined in K.S.A. 66-104, and amendments thereto, which generates or sells electricity." Hmm... GBE doesn't plan to generate or sell electricity. KSA 66-104 vaguely mentions the furnishing of light, heat, or power... but GBE will do none of these things in Kansas. And KSA 66-104(g) says

For purposes of the authority to appropriate property through eminent domain, the term "public utility" shall not include any activity for the siting or placement of wind powered electrical generators or turbines, including the towers.

It sure looks like Kansas statute prevents the use of eminent domain for activity related to wind powered electrical generators or turbines, including the towers. Towers? Like transmission towers? Like generation tie lines? Like transmission lines for export that don't intend to furnish light, heat or power to Kansans? Do you mean that, Kansas? It's not clear at all that Clean Line, much less Invenergy, is a legal public utility in Kansas. In fact, it appears that the determination that GBE is a public utility in Kansas was made in a settlement, therefore there was no actual legal finding by the KCC that GBE is a public utility. Parties to a settlement could agree that the sky is purple, if it suited them. Settlements don't set precedent.

Therefore, the circular logic of Invenergy's Kris Zadlo does not make Invenergy a public utility if it buys Grain Belt Express.

The proposed Transaction will benefit consumers by improving the ability of GBE to complete the Project. In granting GBE a certificate to operate as a public utility, the Commission found that completion of the Project would be in the public interest.

So, will the real public utilities in Kansas intervene in this docket and shed some light on the Trojan Horse at the gate? It seems some of them objected last time around, with ITC Great Plains getting its panties in a wad over the use of eminent domain for the unidentified "AC Collector System" proposed as part of GBE. How many Kansas utilities are going to in a bind if a wind generation company begins wielding eminent domain authority in the state? Or building transmission that the public utilities are not allowed to use?

Or perhaps a sneak attack is going to come from one of Invenergy's competitors, such as, oh I dunno... maybe NextEra? Or maybe it will be Tradewind Energy? Or Enel North America? EDP? Why should Invenergy get to use eminent domain to acquire property in Kansas when their own companies are prohibited from doing so under KSA 66-104(g)?

The mystery will continue until "at least three days before the hearing", which is the deadline to intervene under KSA 82-1-225.

Meanwhile, perhaps KCC staff will enjoy watching this video.

0 Comments

Maryland Agency Asks For Dismissal of Transource Application

1/4/2019

1 Comment

Merry Christmas, Transource opponents! The Power Plant Research Program of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (PPRP) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Transource application on December 20.

The PPRP says that Transource and PJM failed to carry out an analysis of alternatives required by Maryland §7-209 of the Public Utilities Article. This statute requires an analysis of the use of existing transmission in lieu of installing new transmission on new right of way.

PPRP also notes the applicant's changing "need" for the Independence Energy Connection.

In addition, given its responses to data requests and Transource’s filings in the Pennsylvania proceeding, it appears that Transource is modifying its position as to the need for and benefits of the Project from a straightforward purpose of lowering some customers’ electricity costs as a “market efficiency project” to now asserting other benefits associated with emerging reliability concerns. However, if PJM has now determined that there are reliability concerns and an associated need for transmission system enhancements, it would be more appropriate to first investigate reasonable alternatives within the relevant PJM processes rather than latching solutions on to this discretionary market efficiency project.

Bingo! It sure appears that PJM and Transource are changing horses in midstream after the one they were riding came up lame. And who can actually believe anything these two say anymore when their story changes like that? Besides, this isn't the way PJM evaluates transmission to serve reliability needs. PJM is simply making it up at they go along.

PJM's process for evaluating and ordering market efficiency projects does not comport with Maryland statute.

Furthermore, even though PJM’s market efficiency processes do not incorporate Maryland statutes, it is incumbent on the Applicant to meet the State’s requirements for a CPCN by presenting alternatives to the Project that use existing lines. The PJM process is not a substitute for Maryland’s statutory requirements and its determination that a project is the most effective solution should not allow that project to circumvent Maryland’s comprehensive siting process.

BOOM! Maryland isn't buying PJM's assertion that it is some omnipotent grid oracle who must be obeyed. The real oracle here is the State of Maryland. PJM's role is that of a planner who suggests transmission. Maryland has the role of deciding whether or not the transmission proposed is a good idea.

PJM never seriously considered using existing transmission to meet the supposed "need" for the IEC. PJM purports that such an examination is not part of its process. PJM pretends it is prisoner to projects proposed by its members and cannot require (or even think about) modifying proposals to reduce impacts by using existing transmission to solve the "need." Well, guess what, PJM? Your process is incorrect and needs modification! PJM's process is more in love with the idea of competitive transmission proposals than it is with promoting efficiency and reduced impacts. That needs to change. And if the IEC changes to include the use of existing transmission, it would be much more efficient and cost effective to award the project to the incumbents who own the existing transmission in question. Where's the cost effectiveness of awarding the project to some third party who must pay the incumbent for use of its right of way and towers? That's adding unnecessary cost to the project, when market efficiency projects are supposed to be all about lowering costs. And we know it's just not possible for PJM to force the incumbents to allow free use of their infrastructure to a third party. IEC is a failure on so many levels!

PJM is also a failure. PJM's insistence on the necessity for this badly planned project is failing the electric consumers PJM supposedly serves. And it's costing them a lot of money to continue to entertain this bad idea. What's it going to take to make PJM give up this charade? An order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to change its competitive transmission process? It not only prevents unnecessary spending, it also makes great common sense for PJM to incorporate an analysis of existing transmission use and a real "constructability analysis" into its planning. The IEC is a dead dog. Stop the bleeding and fall on your sword, PJM, this project is dead. It will never be approved by the states, and the states have final authority on whether or not it will be built. Quit wasting my money tilting at the windmills of inevitability that this project is going to be denied. There are a multitude of options available to PJM to cancel or suspend the IEC right now.

However, the Maryland PSC has set a deadline for responses to the Motion to Dismiss of January 7. After that, the Commission will make a decision. Let's hope it's a sensible one!

1 Comment

A Great Day for Democracy in Wisconsin

1/4/2019

0 Comments

Those were the words of SOUL representative Rob Danielson just after Judge Michael Newmark granted intervention to all the individuals who attended yesterday's prehearing conference at the Wisconsin PSC. Despite earlier clouds of smoke and "scary" letters with 18 pages of rules intervenors must follow, Judge Newmark said he had no choice but to admit all the intervenors who still expressed an interest as parties.

Even ATC's attorney encouraged the judge to grant intervention to those requesting it, including those who didn't bother to show up for yesterday's hearing. Cue the suspicious glances. This guy is not your friend. He shared that he plans to file data requests on each and every intervenor just to find out what their interest in the case is, and if they will be calling witnesses. I hope that's all there is to it, because as I recall, ATC seems to have a history of abusing the discovery process when faced with a crowd of pro se intervenors.

ATC works hard to silence its critics. Besides hiring police to keep dissenters out of its meetings, the company seeks to discourage ordinary citizens from taking part in the Public Service Commission's review process.

When ATC first proposed building a 138-kilovolt line in Waunakee, 92 Dane County residents signed up as "intervenors." This allowed them a more intimate role in the approval process, rather than simply speaking at the PSC's public hearings.

ATC reacted quickly. First it challenged the citizens' right to intervene. The company noted that many did not live anywhere near the Waunakee line and were simply concerned about other projects in Dane County. ATC also sought to deny some public funding for the Sierra Club and Citizens for Responsible Energy. (The PSC funds public and nonprofit groups that intervene, so they can hire attorneys and experts to advise them.)

These approaches failed, so ATC took it up a notch. Most of the citizens argued that conservation, not building new power lines, is the key to meeting Dane County's energy needs. So ATC sent the individual intervenors a 16-page interrogatory, drilling them on their personal energy use. The questions included, "How many light fixtures are located on your current property, and of these, how many are currently fitted with fluorescent light bulbs?"

ATC also demanded the intervenors' addresses for the past five years, the square footage of each residence, and all of their monthly electric bills. For residents whose property the Waunakee line would directly cross, ATC also wanted a home appraisal, tax assessment or purchase agreement documenting the price paid for the home.

Attorney Frank Jablonski, representing Citizens for Responsible Energy, calls ATC's questions "unnecessary and possibly abusive." He says a neighborhood group that tried to intervene was treated similarly, with ATC demanding the names of all its members. "It's absolutely outrageous intimidation by an entity that is completely out of control."

But the tactic worked. Scores of residents, including Ann Emerson, withdrew as intervenors. "I finally bowed out because it was so overwhelming," she says.

That tactic probably isn't going to work this time. The judge already raised the issue, saying that ATC could not ask intervenors the color of their dog, for example, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. Intervenors need to remember what's on trial here -- ATC's transmission proposal -- and not the actions, beliefs, or lifestyles of the intervenors. When ATC gets a little too nosy, intervenors can simply object to the question. It would then be up to ATC to file a motion to compel and try to convince the judge to force the intervenor to answer.

Judge Newmark is serious about justice and due process. He did nothing yesterday that leads me to believe otherwise. Intervenors should get a fair shake from Judge Newmark. However, intervenors need to strive to follow the rules and deadlines set by the judge. One topic the judge raised yesterday was intervenor testimony. He seemed quite worried that testimony would be a mess and after ATC refused to help him out, the judge said he would develop his own questions and sample testimonies for benefit of intervenors. I think it was ATC's attorney who suggested merely supplying a copy of correctly concocted testimony as an example. The absurdity of testimony Q&A is never quite as sharp as when concocted by pro se intervenors. Correctly formatted testimony consists of a question asked by some mysterious, unnamed party, which the witness answers in written form. Except with pro se parties, they are asking their own questions and playing Q&A with themselves. (Don't worry, the lawyers for the utilities are playing the same game, they just don't like to admit it.) Once you get over the stupidity of playing Q&A with yourself, testimony must be double spaced on numbered lines on numbered pages. (Your word software should be able to do this for you if you ask it to... look it up if you don't know how). Why? It's always important to know why you're doing something that seems odd and useless. It's so your testimony can be correctly cited during the hearing and briefing. Instead of saying "...that part where he says he caught ATC's attorney going through his trash can..." everyone can simply reference Page 5, Lines 15-17, of Intervenor Suzy Q.'s testimony. You'll fully appreciate this when it comes time to write your own brief.

“This is a work in progress,” [Judge Newmark] said. “Really the first time we’ve had this many parties.”

A new window of democracy opens in Wisconsin. All that fresh air is going to be exhilarating. Any person, especially an attorney, who values their own convenience and personal grudges over democracy should probably question their life choices. Democracy won the day!

0 Comments

Record Number of Intervenors in Wisconsin Transmission Proceeding Perplexes PSC Judge

1/1/2019

2 Comments

All eyes toward Wisconsin this week as the Public Service Commission holds a "prehearing conference" on January 3 for the purpose of sorting the more than 50 intervenors to the Cardinal Hickory Creek proceeding.

On December 10, Administrative Law Judge Michael Newmark sent a letter to all intervenors calling the conference and explaining the rights and duties of intervenors... well, most of them anyhow.

I have great empathy for Judge Newmark. It's not going to be easy to manage this number of parties and still adjudicate this case efficiently. I get it. But not allowing due process for landowners and citizens affected by the Cardinal Hickory Creek transmission proposal is simply not an option. Judge Newmark is walking a tightrope between efficiency and due process. What he decides at the prehearing conference will overshadow this proceeding as it moves forward through the evaluation process, and beyond.

However, I think Judge Newmark leaned a little bit too much toward scare tactics in his letter. Yes, being an intervenor is a serious process, and those who intervene pro se have a steep learning curve. However, pro se intervenors are not held to the same standards as attorneys. There's a big amount of give and take here... if an intervenor makes a valiant effort to comply with rules and regs and comport themselves professionally, then they should be allowed to fully participate, with procedural guidance from the judge along the way. It's the least a judge can do for a citizen who faces the economic harm of eminent domain on his property. Yes, "...although a party may represent oneself, most parties hire an attorney for that purpose." However those who cannot afford an attorney may represent themselves, and it happens with increasing regularity in transmission line proceedings. Judge Newmark provides an exhaustive list of Additional Ordered Conditions for Contested Case Proceedings which is nothing more than a rule/style primer for intervenors. However I believe it is meant to be intimidating, instead of helpful. No intervenor needs to know all these things up front -- it's overload. Each little section can be applied when needed (and not all these things are required, in fact most intervenors will never do all these things).

Judge Newmark tries to steer intervenors towards "a more effective way for you to participate". Judge Newmark thinks it would be more "effective" for the majority of the pro se intervenors to make public comment instead. He describes it as "...an opportunity to express your opinion on the project in a formal, but limited way."

Limited. Instead of a participating party, the intervenor would be just one of a sea of faces making public comment which may or may not receive considered notice. In the 10 years I've been doing transmission work, I have NEVER seen an ALJ cite any individual public comment testimony in his decision. Instead it gets grouped in the catchall "public comment." Is this where you want your property rights noticed? In a lump sum of people who object to the transmission project for various reasons? Pretty cavalier treatment for the taking of private property for "public" use. While the PSC may only decide whether to approve or disapprove the project and grant the ability to take property via eminent domain in general, this is the turning point that decides to wrest your property from you against your will. You may still participate in the taking of your individual property in a future court proceeding, but by that time it's only about how much you may get in compensation, not whether or not the transmission owner may take it in the first instance. And it's not all about monetary compensation, although most courts hearing eminent domain cases believe that's the sole purpose. There's so much more that can go into an easement than mere monetary compensation.

Judge Newmark lists some of the rights that come with intervention and party status.

Approval of a request for intervention makes the requester a “party” to the proceeding. A Commission proceeding is a formal legal action, and becoming a party to that action confers certain rights and expectations. For example, party status confers the rights to: (1) acquire evidence from other parties; (2) offer expert testimony; (3) cross-examine expert witnesses; and (4) present a written argument.

It seems that Judge Newmark has left one very important thing out... only a party may ask for rehearing or appeal the decision of the PSC in the courts. If you voluntarily give up party status in favor of public comment, you're stuck with the PSC's decision. You cannot appeal if you're not a party. Therefore, unless you expect that the PSC is going to decide in your favor (and when has this ever happened?) you've given up your right to appeal a decision with which you don't agree. Use caution when abandoning your legal rights!

Judge Newmark has proposed "grouping" of intervenors. It's as if he expects laypersons to practice law without a license and represent the rights of others before the PSC. The Judge suggests that SOUL of Wisconsin can represent the interests of a "group" of intervenors who filed similar petitions to intervene. I looked at SOUL's request to intervene and I don't see the appearance of counsel. And why should SOUL have to pay an attorney to represent the interests of separate parties if it chooses not to break the law and practice law without a license? Only a licensed attorney can represent the interests of others.

SOUL says:

“We are perplexed by the Judge’s idea that a not-for-profit organization could represent the detailed interests of numerous, unique, households-- not to mention those of six municipal governments with elected leadership,” observed Keith Ashley Wright, President of SOUL.

Both in principle and in practice, SOUL is unable to represent the land-based concerns raised by the private and municipal intervenors. The state’s requirement of multiple transmission route options makes it impossible for any organization to represent one landowner’s interests without creating conflicts with other landowners. Only nine of the requesting intervenors are SOUL members. The SOUL board restricted its intervention efforts to demonstrating the cost and environmental effectiveness of Non-Transmission Alternatives. The organization is not seeking funding from the state to pay for the required experts.

That's exactly right. SOUL cannot represent the property concerns of individual landowners as a group, and it certainly cannot represent the rights of municipal governments with elected officials. The idea of that is absurd (and also illegal).

Judge Newmark also seems concerned about a group of landowners who intervened by snail mail. Perhaps he didn't notice what I did when perusing the list of intervenors in this group. These intervenors are Amish. They don't have computers. They cannot participate electronically. By attempting to force these intervenors to participate electronically, the Judge would be infringing on their religious freedom. I'm pretty sure justice isn't reserved for only those religions who permit the use of electronic devices. I'm guessing there are numerous ways that these intervenors may be permitted to exercise their due process rights as their religion allows -- from having their filings directed to a PSC staff person who may upload them electronically, to preparing a separate service list for this small group of individuals who must be served by U.S. Mail.

It's a test of Judge Newmark's ability to protect the legal rights of the citizens of Wisconsin while still maintaining control of his court room. If everyone approaches this dilemma with an open mind, and an open heart, I'm sure it can be accomplished.

2 Comments

Invenergy Wants To Use Eminent Domain To Take 95% Of Right Of Way For Its Transmission Line

12/20/2018

1 Comment

Oooh... the clueless media... and media whores. Yay, you, James Owen of Renew Missouri, you got your name in the news again! And yay, you, Beth The Substation Tourist, you actually believe landowners don't hate Invenergy. It's brainless dreck for the stupid.

But this article might make those with a working brain think. I'll sum it up for you (and perhaps elaborate a bit).

Clean Line Energy, which is in negotiations to sell the project to sustainable energy developer Invenergy, is seeking permits from state regulators in Kansas and Missouri to build the power line.

Who is Invenergy?

Invenergy bills itself as North America’s largest privately held renewable energy provider. The Chicago based company has 89 wind projects worldwide that generate 12,814 megawatts of power. The firm and its affiliates claim to have more than $9 billion in total assets.

And who was Clean Line?

The Commission’s concerns regarding undue preference and affiliate abuse arise when a merchant transmission owner is affiliated with customers. Applicant does not have any affiliates that currently plan to secure transmission service rights on the Project. Applicant is therefore a purely merchant transmission owner with respect to its proposal to allocate up to 100% of the Project’s capacity pursuant to bilateral negotiations.

Oh, it looks like Invenergy may have a conflict of interest. Good luck to all the other wind generation companies who want to secure capacity on the Grain Belt Express. I'm certain the auction process will be completely fair... if it ever happens. After all, Invenergy's goal here MUST BE to provide transmission service for its competitors to get their generation out of SW Kansas and NW Oklahoma, without favoring its own proposed generation in the area... such as the 800 (federal tax credit eligible) turbines under construction that Invenergy owns which were left as a stranded investment when AEP abandoned its cancelled Wind Catcher project. What are you going to do with those, Invenergy? Make a bid for service on NextEra's Plains & Eastern Clean Line?

Because then Invenergy wouldn't be in a position to have to take 95% of the GBE route in Missouri through eminent domain proceedings. It could simply let NextEra take 95% of the Plains & Eastern Route in Oklahoma for its merchant generation tie line... except Oklahoma law doesn't allow eminent domain for wind generators.

Local leaders in the Oklahoma Panhandle are pinning their lingering hopes on the idea that some version can be salvaged. The mostly rural region has struggled to attract employers, and this would have been by far the largest investment in its history, with a projected 4,000 construction jobs and a dramatic increase in tax revenue for local governments.

Its demise is still sinking in for Michael Shannon, director of the region's economic development office. "I'm stunned," he said, adding, "There has to be a Plan B."

Or maybe it's now Plan GBE?

I think Hans Detweiler said that GBE has secured easements on 39 properties in Missouri, but it needs 739 easements. Grain Belt Express needs 700 more easements in Missouri, 95% of its route across the state. Detweiler thinks that GBE will need to take easements by eminent domain before it can complete final engineering and obtain its project financing. Where ya been, Hans? The real transmission companies are all about getting injunctions for surveys long before a project is permitted by a state. What makes Hans think things are different in Missouri? Hansypoo's claims rang just a bit hollow for me. Ditto the other clowns at the circus who were quite insistent that Invenergy would have to use eminent domain before it had completed engineering or found customers. How many times in the past has Invenergy possessed the right of eminent domain? How smart is it to give eminent domain authority to a generation company? Then wouldn't every generator (or wannabe generator) want to have eminent domain authority for their generators and tie lines? What would make GBE different from a new fossil fueled generator that wanted to build in Missouri and ship the power generated to another state via a private transmission line?

But what happens if the MO PSC approves GBE, and then the company begins eminent domain proceedings against 700 property owners long before it has found buyers for capacity or financing to build the project? Or even before the assent of county commissions? What if GBE obtains easements across the state and then changes its project into a generation tie line that doesn't actually serve Missourians? Will the PSC make GBE give the easements back? Unlikely. Where would the authority for that be? What if this is just a big ruse to gain the power of eminent domain for a private utility's generation tie line? Is that what Commissioner Hall is smelling this time around? The Missouri Public Service Commission must absolutely determine that GBE is actually a public utility before awarding them the power to take private property for their own use (because it's actually supposed to be for PUBLIC use). Is this smelly thing going to survive challenge in the appeals courts?

Go away, Invenergy. Your dastardly plan is never going to succeed. Transmission lines that plan to use eminent domain for 95% of the route are rarely approved. And these landowners are winning because they have stuck together. It's unlikely they're going to cave at this point. Go away, Invenergy. Just go away. You don't understand eminent domain because you've never had the authority to use it.

1 Comment

Send in the Clowns, Invenergy!

12/19/2018

8 Comments

Another episode of Grain Belt Express before the Missouri Public Service Commission has come and gone. I watched some of it, but missed a big portion of Michael Skelly's cross examination due to another meeting. But, I saw enough. Oh, yes, it was plenty. (And there's always the video archive for later).

One of the things that potential Grain Belt Express purchaser Invenergy's Kris Zadlo said yesterday maybe should have been used by the company in Missouri as well. Zadlo claimed Invenergy thought it stood a better chance before the Illinois Commerce Commission without Clean Line in tow. Not that I believe that is the reason for not making approval by the ICC a condition precedent in the purchase agreement for a second, but Invenergy probably would have done much better before the Missouri PSC without the Clean Line clowns in its witness line up.

I hear that Skelly confirmed that Clean Line no longer has any employees. *cough* Personnel change? *cough* There have been no employees since June, 2018. That's when the Clean Line crew hit the unemployment line. Many had a soft landing with former COO Jayshree Desai's new venture to spend investor cash at ConnectGen (what has ConnectGen actually DONE, except spend money?) Others found themselves at other renewable energy companies, like Pattern, or Invenergy. And some grew the beard of unemployment and set out on their own. Apparently Hans Detweiler is one of them, because he now has more hair on his chin than on his head and he shared this morning that he has aspirations of working for Invenergy. Although, he seemed not to know much about anything. Just a human placeholder, adopting the testimony of all the missing Clean Line employees (and certain experts) as his own, in exchange for cash. Hans truly looked bewildered on the stand. I'm not sure he even knew what he was testifying about.

I did manage to catch Skelly telling MLA counsel that Grain Belt's FERC negotiated rate authority can be transferred to Invenergy without any filings at the Commission, and that when Invenergy buys GBE, it also buys that FERC approval. Not even. Zadlo tried to save that line of questioning by demonstrating his knowledge of FERC's requirements for granting negotiated rate authority. Perhaps he should read them again. And perhaps the MO PSC should also read them as well.

As mentioned earlier, Zadlo had a lot of reasons why ICC approval is not a condition precedent for purchase of GBE. If Invenergy's charm (really, they strike me as more sneaky than charming) doesn't win them a permit in Illinois, they may have to reconfigure the project. It could go north. It could go south. It could terminate in Missouri. I guess he had to try to cover for what Dave Berry said earlier... he may have "discussed in passing" with Invenergy that Grain Belt Express may not extend past Missouri.

This is not the same project currently before the Missouri PSC, and the PSC needs to do some hard thinking about what would happen if they didn't sufficiently condition any approval to prevent these kinds of changes. Perhaps Commissioner Hall scents skunk in the air because he seems to be very concerned about when eminent domain may be used if the MO PSC permits the project. Would it be before GBE has all its financing in place and is ready to build? Perhaps he should take a page from Kansas and propose the condition that GBE has all its permits in all 4 states (Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana) in place before any construction (or eminent domain) may begin.

And guess what? Here's a little factoid to ponder over the holidays. Clean Line has spent $197 million (that's MILLION) dollars of investor cash. Despite GBE's attorney's baseless accusations that Missouri Landowners Alliance Counsel couldn't (shouldn't) be trusted with confidential financial information, it was Karl Zobrist himself who blurted that fact out in the public portion of the hearing. Oh, the irony!

So, you're Skelly. You've spent $197M of other peoples' money and have pretty much nothing to show for it. I know if I were him, I might be a little nervous. But no, apparently Skelly thinks nothing of it. He still begins all his answers with the word "so" as if to reframe the question into something worthy of his great consideration. He still likes to mock others in the room, at one point redirecting his microphone toward MLA counsel because I guess the question was too lengthy for Skelly to pay attention to. We could hear Mr. Agathan just fine. The only thing that did was demonstrate what a smartass Mr. Skelly can be. I'm not sure what Mr. Skelly even added to the proceeding that may make the Commission more likely to approve the project. Perhaps the Commission is quite as sick of Skelly as the rest of us are at this point. It gets old. Really old.

Invenergy would have done much better without the Clean Line clown parade. Of course, Invenergy owns nothing and has applied for nothing. Invenergy is nothing but a bit player in its own future. Some business decisions are sound, and some aren't. You get what you pay for.

So... *take a shot* there's still briefing to come. It's going to be epic. Meanwhile maybe the circus will come to town and collect its clowns?

Happy Holidays, everyone!

8 Comments

Hey, Invenergy, Don't Forget To Pick Up Your Bag of Doorknobs On Your Way Out...

12/14/2018

0 Comments

It's almost hearing time in Missouri! Again. How many times does this make? I've lost track.

In preparation for the hearing, there are certain things the parties must file, such as their list of issues, and their position on these issues. The issues are the questions the Commission must contemplate in making its decision. All the position statements have been filed. Some were short and sweet - question & brief answer. And some were like the War & Peace version of a position statement. Clean Line's was of the second variety.

Blah, blah, blah, shoulda, woulda, coulda. It reads like a fairy tale about a magical beast. You've heard all this garbage about how wonderful Clean Line *could* be before. Nothing much new.

However, there was a pair of footnotes that caught my eye and made me laugh.

4 The KCC granted the Company’s Petition for a siting permit to construct the Kansas portion of the Project on November 7, 2013. Subsequently, on October 4, 2018, the KCC issued an Order Granting Limited Extension of Sunset Provisions (Docket No. 13-GBEE-803-MIS) which extended the term of the 2013 siting permit order to March 1, 2019. Pursuant to this order, Grain Belt Express updated the KCC regarding its financial, managerial, and technical ability to complete the Project, including the pending Invenergy acquisition. On November 21, 2018, the Company and KCC Staff filed a joint motion for stay of procedural schedule and extension of sunset term, seeking extension of the siting permit order until further order of the KCC to accommodate the remainder of the procedural schedule and the future acquisition docket schedule. The KCC granted this request on December 6, 2018 and extended the sunset term to December 2, 2019.

5 On November 12, 2015, the Illinois Commerce Commission (“ICC”) granted the Company a certificate of public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”), and authorized Grain Belt Express to construct the Illinois portion of the line. Pursuant to a decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, this order of the ICC was reversed on procedural grounds. In Concerned Citizens & Property Owners v Illinois Commerce Comm’n, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2018 IL App. (5th) 150551, 2018 WL 1858128 (Ill. App., Apr. 17, 2018), the court held that while Grain Belt Express owned an option to purchase property to be used for the transmission of electricity, it was required under Illinois law to “own, control, operate, or manage” utility infrastructure “at the time of application” before it could qualify as a “public utility,” and remanded the case to the ICC. The court specifically found that applicants like GBX “may seek recognition as a public utility while, at the same time, applying for a certificate of public convenience and necessity ... as long as they have obtained the ownership, management, or control of utility-related property or equipment at the time of the application.” Id. at *5-*7. After the Company receives an extension of its Kansas siting permit to 2023, and after the Company receives a CCN from this Commission, it can acquire utility property or equipment in Illinois that will permit it to file a new application with the ICC.

Footnote 4... uhhh, that's a creative re-telling of recent events in Kansas. Clean Line sort of skirts around the KCC's Order for it to file evidence of its financial, managerial and technical ability to undertake the project. Evidence! Not hot chat over brimming bowls of vanilla panna cotta. Clean Line didn't file any evidence, instead it met in private with the KCC Staff and fed them a bunch of malarkey, then it asked the Commissioners to be excused from filing anything... after the deadline to file had passed. So, are we to think that private meetings with KCC Staff are perfectly good substitutes for filing evidence? That certainly lightens things up in Kansas. I wonder what restaurant the KCC Staff would prefer to be wined and dined at during the impending acquisition proceeding, instead of the company filing actual evidence? Furthermore, the KCC did not grant Clean Line's request for an open ended extension. It set a firm date to coincide with the decision on the acquisition application. That's going to take at least 300 days from the date it is filed. So, we're talking at least another year in Kansas, with no guarantee of success.

And then let's examine Footnote 5. Clean Line is only telling part of the story of what happened in Illinois as well. It completely overlooks the opinion of the Supreme Court in the RICL matter, which left for another day the question of whether or not Clean Line (or Invenergy, for that matter) could ever be deemed a public utility with eminent domain authority. And if you've ever watched the archived video from the Supreme Court argument on the RICL case, you may conclude that the chances of a merchant transmission project with negotiated rate authority becoming a public utility in Illinois are slim to none. Just because Grain Belt Express may "seek recognition as a public utility" doesn't mean it's going to happen. Heck, I could seek recognition as a super model tomorrow. Doesn't mean I'll be on the runway next year. It's just not going to happen.

So, (I'm warming up for Tuesday's drinking game) here's the bag of doorknobs. After the company receives an extension of their Kansas permit to 2023... This can't happen for at least another year and is far from certain. And after GBE receives a permit from the Missouri PSC... also something that is far from certain. And after it purchases utility property in Illinois... it will apply for a permit again. Doesn't mean it will be granted. In fact, I'm 99.9% certain it won't happen. This footnote looks like this:

Clean Line's domino set up is about as useful as a bag of doorknobs. That's what Invenergy purchased, a bag of doorknobs.

And speaking of Invenergy, here's a song for them.

If you have time to tune into the Missouri Public Service Commission hearings next Tuesday and Wednesday, I guarantee it's going to be a really big show. Perhaps some surprises. Everyone loves surprises this time of year, don't they? Here's a link to the program line up. You can watch live video from a link here, or on the MPSC's home page.

My money's on Missouri Landowners Alliance for the win.

0 Comments

Propaganda and Puffery: Need for Cardinal Hickory Creek Evaporates

12/13/2018

1 Comment

Really great article in the Wisconsin State Journal this week profiling the devastating effects the Cardinal Hickory Creek project will have on small businesses in its path. A farm operation that supplies beef to some of Wisconsin's best restaurants, an award-winning cheesemaker, and an event center are just some of the small businesses in the bullseye of a new transmission line whose need seems to have evaporated since it was cooked up in 2011. That's nearly 8 years ago! In the fast-paced world of electric transmission, that's a whole different era.

Interspersed with the interviews of business owners and community group representatives is the opinion of Cardinal Hickory Creek project owner ATC's spokeswoman.

The utility companies say the project, which they want operational by 2023, could provide Wisconsin customers with “net economic benefits” of between $23.5 million and $350 million over its expected 40-year life. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the regional electric grid operator, has endorsed the project as one of 17 across the region that will improve the reliability of the electric system, provide economic benefits to utilities and consumers, and support the use of renewable energy by delivering low-cost wind energy from Iowa to population centers where the power is needed.

“Those drivers have not changed for the project. Those have been consistent since the project was announced,” Freiman said.

But have they? Have they really? Here's something Freiman probably hopes you don't find out.

Transmission planning was a recent topic of discussion at a meeting of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the electric grid planner for the region, and creator of the 8-year old "need" for the project. RTO Insider's coverage of that meeting revealed that MISO members are questioning the "business case" for further transmission expansion in light of current system needs and increased transmission costs.

Multiple stakeholders said another possible crop of MVPs, if any, will need a new business case process, especially considering the fleet change that has occurred in the intervening years and the transmission cost allocation plan MISO will file at the end of the year.

By the time MISO has gotten to the end of its 2011 MVP portfolio of new transmission, the "need" for such projects has evaporated. It's time to jettison old ideas and concentrate on today's needs. Cardinal Hickory Creek isn't one of them. Utility regulators need to quit rubber stamping old ideas.

Opposition to MISO's MVP transmission project portfolio has also entered a new era. The people simply aren't going to stand for more unneeded transmission that destroys local communities.

“What if customers have had enough of transmission expansion? What if they’re tired of having transmission lines going across their farms, yards. … They have more options to bypass us completely. You can talk about MISO’s value until you’re blue in the face. What customers see is rising bills,” Madison Gas and Electric’s Megan Wisersky said.

She said customers might be better served by a reinforced distribution system than more transmission projects.

“We have to remember that these transmission lines do impose on communities,” said Coalition of Midwest Transmission Customers attorney Jim Dauphinais, who agreed that overbuilding transmission will result in more expensive bills.

That's right, customers have had enough! The revolt isn't just on the horizon, it's here now.

So, what do the people want?

Opponents say the line is not needed and would damage important conservation areas, disrupt the scenic beauty and harm agricultural businesses dotted along the routes. They argue Wisconsin consumers would be better served by energy efficiency and local renewable-energy projects. And they have no desire to advocate for one route at the expense of those along the other.

This message was also aired at the MISO meeting.

Alliant Energy’s Mitchell Myhre said he didn’t think MISO would need an entirely new transmission planning playbook but that it should analyze transmission project alternatives and engage in conversations about them. He said more analysis on transmission project alternatives may have lessened the late-stage disagreements over at least two projects in this year’s Transmission Expansion Plan. (See related story, MISO Board OKs Full MTEP 18 Over Stakeholder Complaints.)

“We ask that those conversations [about alternatives] happen at the front end of the process so they don’t come up in the back end of the process,” Myhre said.

Engage in conversations? What does that mean? Is it so MISO can say it considered alternatives and rejected them? Is this all about scheming up ways to plug the holes that developed in MISO's last MVP debacle?

“We think there needs to be a study; we think there needs to be a process” to see if a long-term regional transmission plan makes sense, Missouri Public Service Commissioner Daniel Hall agreed.

Sigh. This guy. The one who wants to toss Missouri taxpayers under the bus by giving the power of eminent domain to a wind generation company. He wants to concoct some malarkey "study" to back up MISO's transmission expansion aspirations. Many of the comments in the article supporting another MISO MVP portfolio are all about finding ways to make new projects seem needed. These interests include an effort to build infrastructure for Big Wind at the expense of MISO ratepayers. That's what this is all about, at its most basic level. It's about Big Wind proposing generation projects and stacking them in MISO's interconnection queue. When faced with new generators wanting to connect to its system, MISO wants to provide service. But how many of these new wind projects are intended for export outside MISO? And should MISO ratepayers fund the transmission infrastructure that enables big wind generation companies to get their product across the MISO region so that it may be used by others outside the region? If these were merchant projects, they'd have to demonstrate a commercial need before being financed and constructed, and only the committed customers would pay for them. Instead, MISO has expanded its transmission system based on where it believes Big Wind wants to build, without any consideration for who will ultimately purchase the electricity. And it has done it on the backs of ratepayers who will see little, if any, benefit and perhaps not even use the electricity transmitted. These are captive ratepayers, not free market customers.

MISO's planning director doesn't seem to want to pursue another MVP portfolio. He says the costs to connect every Big Wind project in the queue will be uneconomic.

MISO’s transmission queue contains 483 projects totaling about 80 GW. Executive Director of Resource Planning Patrick Brown said MISO may be reaching an economic “break point” where the costs of network upgrades render projects uneconomic, especially in the wind-heavy western portion of its footprint. “The general cost of network upgrades is going to drive them out,” Brown said.

I guess it's time to jettison this idea, not prolong the agony with bogus studies, business cases, and "need" scenarios. It's simply not cost effective, something the opposition has been saying for years.

However, Kevin Murray, representing the Coalition of Midwest Transmission Customers, said a strong business case can’t be built on a speculative information about where resources might be constructed.

“We need to avoid the ‘build it and they will come’ sentiment. And we’ve seen hints of that in the past,” Murray said. He said some transmission projects might be more appropriately funded by interconnection customers for planned generation.

It's way past time for MISO to put down the cape of climate hero Big Wind that it has been carrying for the past 8 years. The bleeding of MISO ratepayers for benefit of Big Wind profits has to end.

And it ends at Cardinal Hickory Creek's doorstep.

And what did Big Wind have to say for itself?

Clean Grid Alliance’s Beth Soholt said her company will continue to support the Cardinal Hickory Creek line project in Wisconsin, which she said had a “solid as ever” business case.

Soholt suggested that MTEP 15-year future scenarios should account for sustainability goals beyond renewable portfolio standards.

Hmm... that sounds eerily similar to what Kaya Frieman said in the State Journal article. You don't suppose Big Wind and ATC are in cahoots, do you?

Keep up the good work, CHC opposition! Big Wind's ball of string seems to have started to unravel...

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

Californians Still Making Excuses To Avoid Burial of Transmission Lines

Grain Belt Express Is No More A Public Utility Than Rock Island Clean Line was

Knock, Knock, Kansas! The Trojan Horse Is At Your Gate

Maryland Agency Asks For Dismissal of Transource Application

A Great Day for Democracy in Wisconsin

Record Number of Intervenors in Wisconsin Transmission Proceeding Perplexes PSC Judge

Invenergy Wants To Use Eminent Domain To Take 95% Of Right Of Way For Its Transmission Line

Send in the Clowns, Invenergy!

Hey, Invenergy, Don't Forget To Pick Up Your Bag of Doorknobs On Your Way Out...

Propaganda and Puffery: Need for Cardinal Hickory Creek Evaporates

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog