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

The Best Laid Schemes of Mice and Men...

3/28/2021

3 Comments

 
...Go oft awry.  No matter how carefully you plan, unforeseen events can lead to failure.  And that's just the problem with the current scheme to reach "Net Zero" by 2050.  No matter which version of this scheme you may peruse, there is a common failure that will occur because the scheme is not reasonable or realistic.

I came across one such scheme the other day while researching a little known plan to create a nationwide network of CO2 pipelines and storage caverns.  Sounds kinda nutty, doesn't it?  Let's invent one more kind of linear infrastructure connected to a centralized hub.  This time they want to capture all the CO2 emitted by the necessary fossil fuel power plants and other industries of the future, and even capture escaped CO2 from the air, and pump it underground in vast storage caverns.  What could go wrong?  I'm reminded of the ending scene from Stephen King's 11/22/63, where a devastated landscape rumbles continuously from constant earthquakes.  Pumping things underground is not a sustainable future for our planet.

But there's another, more immediate, problem with this idea... centralized energy installations and linear infrastructure are two of the most hotly opposed forms of "progress."  Always have been, always will be.  While the abstract idea of "clean energy" sounds good and we have been greenwashed to love it for decades, nobody wants to have it in their own back yard.  Nobody.  In addition, the brainwashed public stops loving "clean energy" when it affects their wallet.  A "clean energy" future where we cover an area the size of Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and West Virginia, combined, with new industrial wind and solar installations would be hugely expensive and simply has no relationship with reality.  This huge and forsaken land mass full of centralized energy infrastructure would require new electric transmission lines that will expand the existing system 5.3 times.

This will NEVER happen.

It is cost prohibitive.  It could increase your monthly electric bill 4 fold, to rival your monthly mortgage payment.  How many families could easily pay a second mortgage in today's economic climate?  Add to that the scheme to switch as much fossil fuel use as possible to electricity.  If you no longer used gas for your car and natural gas to heat your home, how much would your monthly electric usage increase?  As the government forces us into incrementally more electric usage, its grand scheme is to increase the cost of electricity.  This will not be sustainable over the long term.  We simply can't afford it!

Opposition to new infrastructure will be massive and intense.  If there's one thing I've learned over the past 12 years working with grassroots opposition groups, it's that nobody wants new infrastructure in their own backyard.  Politics doesn't matter when a person's home is threatened.  In fact, rich, liberal communities may fight hardest of all.  When you've lost your base, collapse is inevitable.  Grassroots opposition groups bring together everyone in a community to fight for a common goal.  Tired old tactics such as propaganda, front groups, and pitting neighbor against neighbor no longer work.  Opposition has become much too sophisticated to fall for those tricks.
The footprint of wind and solar in RE+ [scheme] are extensive and will require broad-based and sustained support from communities across much of the nation.
Not going to happen.  That's not a realistic expectation.  In addition to the growing, connected body of "woke" infrastructure opponents, every project proposal will add new mass to the group.  And what's up with that word "much?"  Much of the nation?  So, you're not saying ALL of the nation, just "much" of it?  Who is "much"?  If you look at some of these schemes you may notice a common theme... urban areas are spared the burden of new infrastructure.  Reason?  Well, they don't have enough land to spare for new energy infrastructure... but the real reason is that it would create too many "woke" infrastructure opponents.  "Much" includes wealthy urban areas that create the greatest energy sucks.  It is too much to ask the rural areas to sacrifice their own communities so that those parasites can waste tons of "clean energy" keeping their cities lit up all night.  Turn that crap off before asking anyone else to sacrifice.  Whatever happened to being responsible for your own needs?  Unless we're gifted with a alien visit bearing new ideas to generate energy without sacrifice on anyone's part, this plan is doomed to failure.  Why are we using last century's technology to solve today's problems?  Centralized generators in throw-away sacrifice zones and overhead electric transmission lines to rich cities is thoroughly outdated.  We need new ideas!  Get busy!  Maybe if the schemers spent as much time developing new energy sources as they do scheming about how to force new infrastructure on vast slices of the country, we could actually make sustainable progress.  Wind, solar and transmission are not reliable, sustainable, or smart.

Can we take a minute here to think about the transmission industry's resistance to undergrounding new transmission?  It's a common request from every community threatened with new overhead transmission that is met with lies and excuses from the transmission developer.  The developer over inflates the cost and impracticality of underground transmission.  Yes, it can be done, often at the same cost of a new overhead line, when time, equipment and land acquisition costs are figured into the equation.  Transmission developers spend buckets of money (often times YOUR money reimbursed to them via your electric bill) on antiquated structures that would be easily recognized by Thomas Edison, huge costs to acquire easements, and lavish expenditures on propaganda to ineffectively convince the affected community to accept the project.  In many instances, the project ultimately fails, or is delayed so long it's no longer cost effective.  Why not put that money into an underground project on existing rights of way?  It requires less time and equipment and little in the way of lobbying and propaganda.  But the schemers still scheme about overhead electric transmission and think they can come up with smarter ways to force it on affected communities.
Build societal commitment.

Creation of the coalitions of public support and political will needed to achieve 2020’s targets.

Major stakeholder engagement campaigns to build:
  1. Broad societal awareness of local, state and national benefits of net-zero energy pathways; and
  2. Acceptance, management, and mitigation of impacts on landscapes and communities associated with the transition.
o Major consumer awareness campaigns and incentives to drive low-carbon energy investment decisions

Oh sure, sure... create more front groups and propaganda.  That works so well... for last century's bad ideas, like tobacco.  Edward Bernays is long gone and his ideas gone stale.  Ditto Sigmund Freud.  "Woke" people are no longer buying what you're selling.  In fact, grassroots opposition groups have developed methods to expose industry propaganda and turn it into a weapon.  The people are revolting.
If the schemers think this is going to work, they've got another think coming.
3 Comments

Cockamamie Congress

3/25/2021

2 Comments

 
What do "we" need?  I mean, really.  Do we all "need" to spend trillions on a collection of new high-voltage transmission lines overlaying our existing grid?  Bill Gates thinks we do.  The media thinks we do.  But what makes them think they're experts on the subject of dictating what energy consumers "need"?

A plethora of cockamamie energy ideas has been let loose in the re-watered D.C. swamp lately, and the public is being fed a pack of propaganda about the "need" for all of them.

The Bloomberg OpEd (coincidentally in cahoots with Bill Gates and maybe other filthy rich guys) tells us what "we" need...  We need an omnipotent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) run amok:
FERC’s powers may be limited, but it can do more. Taking a firmer line on transmission investments proposed by utilities could push more of them to put their planning in the hands of independent regional bodies. In addition, the 2005 Energy Policy Act grants the Department of Energy the power to designate priority transmission corridors; if states refuse to comply, FERC has the authority to approve projects. Court challenges stymied early efforts, yet the legislation remains on the books. The Biden administration should work to revive it.
What's "a firmer line on transmission investments?"  A firmer line?  What line?  This is nonsense language.  Perhaps they meant to say FERC should offer bigger incentive packages to transmission operators who are ordered to build new transmission by regional transmission operators (RTOs)?  If that's what you mean, why not say so?  And then you can tell everyone where the financial incentives that FERC awards come from... they come from the pockets of electric consumers.  That's right... FERC is handing out YOUR money to transmission developers, promising them a bigger pay day if they use the cover of RTOs to push through transmission projects of questionable need.

Bloomberg also failed to elaborate on the DOE and FERC "power" to approve new transmission projects "on the books."  What's currently "on the books", as interpreted by a federal court, allows states to deny applications for new transmission and end the issue.  FERC currently has no authority to approve projects that are rightfully denied by a state utility commission.  However, if transparently presented, perhaps they meant to say that new legislation is needed to usurp state authority to site and permit electric transmission, because that's what's included in proposed legislation.  HR 1512 changes "what's on the books" to allow FERC to issue a permit for new transmission in the event a state denies one.  So imagine a new transmission project threatens your community, and you marshal your resources to oppose it at your state utility commission.  If you are successful and the state denies the permit, you still can't win because FERC will step in and issue a permit for the project against the better judgment of your state utility commission.

And in the realm of cockamamie... Congress recently heard testimony about creating new CO2 pipelines.  What is that?
CCUS at gigaton scale from power plants and industrial facilities will require a major CO2 pipeline infrastructure and significant hubs for geological CO2 storage. In addition, reaching net zero emissions – and eventually net negative emissions – throughout the economy will require carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere and upper ocean layers.
We're going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and pump it underground?  Wanna bet the underground storage cavern to contain that isn't under Beethoven's house?***

Now here's a really awful idea...
I recommend that Congress create and fund a Federal Electric Transmission Authority with the capabilities and funds to manage and coordinate national-scale transmission planning, design, and construction. This Authority should work closely with FERC, the states, DOE, and existing industry and reliability authorities to expand, build and adapt a robust transmission network that meets our nation’s needs over the long term. This will require decades of effort. Therefore the Transmission Authority must be created by statute to maintain mission, expertise and funding continuity (much like the Federal Highway Administration) and protect it from changing administration policy preferences.
Oh, just what "we" need... a new bloated government bureaucracy to run over all the entities that now plan, permit and cost allocate transmission.  If this is going to be anything like the current state "Transmission Authorities" operating in western states, it's not going to end well.  In New Mexico, the "Transmission Authority" is unfunded by the state.  Instead, it is funded by the transmission operators who want to build new transmission in New Mexico.  What could go wrong with a government "authority" fully funded by private interests?

You'll find a mine field of dumb ideas of what "we" need if you peruse the testimony currently being given before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Went looking for something particular the other day and felt quite like Alice after tumbling down the rabbit hole.  It's not about "we", it's about what the elite want to impose on us to check a few items off their personal political wish list.

What a mess!  A costly conglomeration of cockamamie Congressional conceptions.

***It has been confirmed.  The CO2 storage caverns will be nowhere near Beethoven's house.  How close will they be to yours?
Picture
2 Comments

Texageddon

2/22/2021

4 Comments

 
 When are we going to start caring more about people and less about politics?

Texas got caught in an armageddon created by its energy policies last week.  People suffered.  Energy companies raked in the dough.  Texas has a lot of problems to solve, and politics can only make it worse.

What caused Texageddon?  Finger pointing was swift and politically biased.  Some were quick to say wind caused the crash.  But just as swiftly, the finger got pointed at fossil fuels instead.  The short answer was... both!  It's not about fuel type, it's about being unprepared.

The avalanche of politically-motivated social media memes actually made people dumber.  I think my favorite stupid meme was the picture of a wind turbine in some cold, cold place that was supposedly operating (but there was no way to tell, it was a photo, not a video).  The illogical message was that if a wind turbine can work in some other cold place, it did not fail in Texas.  But it did.  On a grand scale.  The problem with Texas turbines is that they were not properly winterized for an event of this magnitude.  The one in the cold place was winterized, obviously.

The first problem in Texas is that the unwinterized wind generators went off line.  Yes, they did.  Natural gas made up the difference, for a while.  Coal and nukes are pretty much baseload that run at a steady rate.
Picture
But then gas started to have issues because it couldn't get enough fuel.  The problem there?  Non-winterized equipment and fuel scarcity because more gas was being directed to heating homes than normal.  Then one of the nukes went offline due to a frozen pipe.  Again, lack of winterization adequate to withstand the unusual weather was the problem. 

The result?  Disaster!  What began as rolling blackouts stopped rolling because there just wasn't enough energy to go around.  Power went out and stayed out in some areas.

So, which kind of generator caused the problem?  ALL of them!  The problem isn't with the generators, it's the lack of winterization and lack of fuel for the gas generators.  If wind had failed and all the other generators stayed up, the tragedy probably wouldn't have happened. 

Did wind cause it?  No, not by itself.  However, Texageddon is a shot across wind's bow, and an alarming wake up call for those who think we can power our country on 100% industrial scale wind and solar in the future.  Big wind is big business!  A lot of wind is built because it's profitable due to tax credits.  It has zero fuel cost and much of the cost of building it is offset by subsidies.  Wind can offer its energy into the market at close to zero.  When wind is working, it can be the cheapest energy in the market.  However, cheap wind makes other generators that can operate when called more expensive.  They don't sell as much when times are good.  Expensive generators close if they don't sell enough power to make a profit.  The more wind we build, the more these expensive plants close until we're left with nothing but wind.  And wind cannot generate when called.  It's a simple matter of too many eggs in one basket.  When wind fails, there may not be enough dispatchable generation left to keep things running.  That's the problem with wind.  If Texas had less frozen wind and more coal generators, could things have turned out differently?  Possibly.

The biggest problem in Texas is its lack of a capacity market.  A capacity market pays generators to be ready to generate a certain amount of power when called.  If a generator being paid for capacity doesn't deliver when called, there are severe financial penalties.  Since Texas doesn't have one, it doesn't pay that extra to have generators on standby, making its energy cheaper when times are good.  Texas thought it didn't need one because its market pays big bucks to generators who can deliver in times of scarcity.  The thought was that the opportunity to cash in big time during scarcity would be enough to make generators spend money winterizing their equipment so they could take advantage of the opportunity when it arose.  But that's not what happened... generators were making enough money during the good times that they didn't want to spend the money to winterize, because winterizing would make the cost of their power go up.  The result is that many generators went offline.  The ones that stayed up made huge piles of money.  Of course, that's money that comes from electric consumers, some now facing bills in the thousands because their power stayed on.  This isn't the way to run a power market!  With a functioning capacity market that penalizes generators who can't produce the capacity they are paid for, a generator doesn't take the risk and does spend the money it needs to keep its generator running during cold weather.

Another annoyance... the social media posts blaming "deregulation" for the crisis.  Suddenly, every facebooker is an energy expert that actually has no idea what deregulation is, or that many other states are deregulated without the same problems happening.  The difference?  A functioning capacity market.

And then there's the ignorant wailing about Texas running its own "grid."  If Texas subjugated itself to federal control, just like magic, things would be different?  No.  The reality is that Texas's neighbors were also having supply issues and rolling blackouts.  There was no power to spare.  Times were tough all over.  Transmission lines, by themselves, don't make electricity.  You can plug in all the extension cords you want, but if there is no electricity in the socket, nothing works.

Texageddon has become a political volleyball.  There are real concerns about a future reliant on just a couple of centralized energy sources that cannot always produce when called, and how subsidies and "green new deal" unicorn farts are making this issue worse.  And then there's the other side, who insist Texageddon is a result of political power and fossil fuels.

The answer?  Distributed energy sources.  Put your eggs in as many baskets as possible and you're less likely to break them all when one basket crashes.

Texas has a lot of work to do to fix its energy market.  There is nothing political about that.  Maybe all the armchair electrical experts can now move on to other idiotic political topics and give this one a rest.
4 Comments

Not Just No, But HELL NO!

1/30/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Oh, the arrogance of the elite.  It's all about making money, it's not about "climate change" or saving the planet.  Packaging their greed as altruism and cashing in on all the green washing of the past 20 years is simply a way to pull the wool over the eyes of the people who are going to pay for it all. 

It's time for energy consumers to get a little "woke" themselves.

Transmission-loving front group Americans for a Clean Energy Grid (ACEG) has been pouring out the propaganda and plans for a weak and clueless federal government to adopt in order to ensure their payday.  As mentioned before, ACEG is composed not of "Americans" as we understand the term to incorporate everyone, but an elite group of utility interests that see big money to be had by building new transmission infrastructure on a grand scale.  They would be more aptly named Transmission Profiteers for Building New Transmission (TPBNT).

Released this week, TPBNT's newest report was feted by a gaggle of former FERC commissioners who no longer have influence over regulatory policy but are still eager to cash in on their former positions.  The report is full of the same old stuff... making up new "benefits" for transmission, changing the transmission planning process to make Big Transmission the solution to every problem, and allocating costs so widely that consumers may not notice the increase in their bill caused by all this new infrastructure they're paying for.

One of the former FERCers at the fete exclaimed:
“Not only yes, but hell yes,” James Hoecker, FERC chairman from 1997 to 2001, said of the need for major new transmission investment in a Wednesday webinar introducing the report. Beyond the need to absorb the country's growing share of wind and solar power, the grid will likely “need to double in size to support the electrification of transportation, heat and other industrial processes,” all of which are needed to decarbonize the U.S. economy. 
Another picked up on the cute enthusiasm for forcing consumers to pay for infrastructure they may not need:
“I say ‘hell yes’ as well; we need to do more interregional transmission,” Wellinghoff, former FERC chairman from 2009 to 2013 and current CEO of GridPolicy, said at Wednesday’s event. 
“Order 1000 has fallen short on its vision, certainly short on my vision of it." 
Guess what?

No.  HELL NO!

We don't need to double or triple the amount of long-distance transmission and ignore distributed generation of local renewables, which can effect your infinitesimal world-wide carbon lowering goals much better, much cheaper, and much faster.  These chuckleheads begin and end their policy permutations with a complete fallacy.
By all accounts, wind and solar resources will become a much larger portion of the resource mix in the future, and electrification of transportation and buildings will substantially increase demand. These trends magnify the benefits of building large regional and inter-regional transmission infrastructure to connect resource rich areas with load centers.
Who says that all renewable resources are located so far from urban load pockets that we "need" new, large regional and inter-regional transmission projects?  What about offshore wind and local/regional solar?  Seems to me that those things are being built and will NOT benefit from new long-distance transmission.  In fact, they would benefit from smaller, targeted upgrades to existing transmission.   If we put all our eggs into the remote renewables plus new long-distance transmission basket, we are effectively playing kingmaker over generation supply and creating a future stranded asset that consumers will be paying for decades into the future.

Another gem:
“Nobody likes transmission. We will always be litigating it,” Nora Mead Brownell, co-founder of energy consultancy Espy Energy Solutions and FERC commissioner from 2001 to 2007, said during Wednesday’s event. “But I think if we had a more fact-based basis for it and...more coordination between regions,” a broader planning regime could “build people’s confidence that they’re getting a fair shake.” 
Not a chance.  There is no world in which pumping more complicated "facts" onto landowners affected by new overhead transmission is going to make them think they should willingly sacrifice their home, business, and well-being for new transmission.  New overhead transmission is a non-starter.  Period.

Underground that stuff on existing public rights-of-way.  That's the only chance to avoid landowner and community opposition, by removing them from the equation entirely.

I do see that TPBNT has another sneaky plan to remove landowners from the equation by giving states a role in regional transmission planning in order to get their buy-in before affected landowners and communities find out about it and have a chance to influence the state regulators.
given the challenge of siting new projects that may be particularly acute in some regions, limiting competition may be a catalyst for new development because it limits the number of developers that may stir up “not in my backyard” or “NIMBY” opposition via project development activities.
Don't you think that transmission developers have tried that many times over already?  The scheme to approach local governments and elected officials to seek their buy-in before transmission plans are publicly announced has happened over and over again.  However, it never works.  Once those officials, who thought the transmission project was a good idea when it was presented in a one-sided vacuum, are approached by their constituents they always flip and join the opposition when other facts creep into the sanitized plan they were fed.  And there's that voting thing... local electeds are big fans of self-preservation and they know who votes in local elections.  It's not transmission developers.

As ominous and terrible as all this sounds, remember how long it takes to melt or redirect the iceberg of public policy, regulations, and judicial review.  They'd be lucky to get even close in four years, never mind the two they actually have before Congress makes another seismic shift.

Why not get onboard with energy plans that consumers and landowners can support instead of continuing to beat your heads against a brick wall with all the confidence of elite arrogance?  We see you for who you really are.
0 Comments

Transmission Companies and Renewable Energy Developers Want YOU To Pay For Their Unholy Alliance

1/13/2021

0 Comments

 
Here's another way "Big Green" and "Big Utility" are planning to dip into your pocket.  It's no secret that building new transmission is enormously expensive.  We're talking billions for the big projects that cross states.  But perhaps you haven't noticed lumpy spikes in your electric bill that correspond with new transmission projects.  That's because the costs are added gradually, and spread out over as many ratepayers as possible.  One of the utilities' favorite allocation analogies is to think of the cost of new transmission as "just a few pennies" on your bill.  However, if you consider that there's over 60 million ratepayers in PJM alone, and if each one of them was paying "just a few pennies" for just one new transmission project, then the owner of the transmission project's payday looks like this:
Picture
The trick is to allocate costs across as many customers as possible so that no one will notice how much it actually costs.

Let's go back... way back to the early 2000's.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a rule that required new electric generators to pay their own costs to connect to the existing transmission system.  Costs could include the line from the generator to the nearest transmission line, as well as any costs that result from upgrades to the existing transmission system caused by the increased injection of power from the new generator.  This rule ensured that generation owners sited their new generators efficiently by combining the cost of building and operating the generator with the costs to the transmission system caused by the building of that generator.  Just like it wouldn't be cost effective or logical for Walmart to build a store out in the middle of nowhere and then demand that someone else pay to build the road to connect it to the nearest town, it's not logical to build electric generators out in the middle of nowhere and then demand that regional electric consumers pay the cost of connecting it to the transmission system.  A generator's location must be balanced with its costs.  If the added transmission costs make its price of electricity too high to sell, then maybe another generator located closer to the load it would serve would end up being more economic for consumers.  In this way, generators located closer to the consumers they serve actually become cheaper.  They're also more reliable.  And more economic for the community because their energy dollars stay within their community or region.

Everything worked fine under FERC's rule for years.  However, taxpayer-subsidized renewable energy generators wanted to build big in order to suck up as many of your tax dollars as possible.  The Midwest looked like just the place... lots of land and few neighbors combined with good natural resources.  But the Midwest soon became over-saturated with renewable energy projects.  Fewer people, ya know, much less demand for electricity.  The renewable developers thought it was a good idea to continue to build in the Midwest, where the electricity was not needed, but to ship the electricity produced to population centers on both coasts.  They soon used up all the available transmission.  The Midwest grid operator, MISO, even planned and built a suite of "MVP" transmission projects designed to open new pathways for renewable generators not yet built.  Guess who paid for this overly expensive gift to renewable energy developers?  The electric consumers in MISO, although maybe other regions importing MISO's new renewable energy supply may have benefited more than MISO's consumers. 

Recently though, renewable energy developers have hit a wall.  They need not just another suite of MVP projects, but several of them.  They need for regional transmission planners to plan new transmission that presumes new generators will be built in the middle of nowhere and need to be connected.  And here's the thing... if the regional grid operator plans and orders the building of new transmission to serve the willy-nilly and self-serving profit-seeking of private energy corporations, then end-user electric consumers pick up all the costs.  That's YOU!  Instead of the renewable generator's developer picking up the costs of connecting its new, for-profit electricity factory, he wants to shift the costs to YOU.

If the costs of connecting and transmitting electricity from these new generators is separated from the cost of building and operating the generator, what happens?  The cost of the generation appears to be much cheaper than it really is.  Say Plant A can generate electricity in Lower Slobovia for 3 cents, but it costs 10 cents for transmission upgrades that connect it to Metro City.  Plant B, proposed to be build in Metro City can generate electricity for 7 cents, but doesn't require transmission upgrades.  If you simply compare the cost of the power (3 cents for Lower Slobovia vs. 7 cents for Metro City), then the Lower Slobovia generator is the more economic choice for Metro City residents.  However, if you add in the transmission upgrade costs, the Metro City generator is 6 cents cheaper than the Lower Slobovia one and way more economic for Metro City-ites.

In either scenario, the ultimate users of the electricity will pay the costs of the electricity, but if you separate out the costs of the upgrades and slide them into consumer electric bills another way they may not notice, maybe they wouldn't object to paying more for electricity from Lower Slobovia because they simply wouldn't know.

That's exactly what a front group of renewable energy developers and transmission developers are demanding in a new "report" recently issued by the Astroturf-y sounding "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid."  These entities stand to make a collective bundle of cash if they can continue to build new generators in Lower Slobovia, along with new transmission to connect these generators to Metro City.  In order to do this, they have to convince FERC to change this rule and knowingly shift costs among consumers in a way they may not understand or notice.  However, they want to do A LOT of it, with some calling for doubling or tripling the amount of electric transmission in this country.  No matter how widely that's cost allocated, they won't be able to hide the gigantic spikes in your electric bill.  There's a limit to how much can be hidden by expanding the captive consumers who pay for it. 

It also hurts electric consumers in Metro City, who could maybe get cheaper electricity from local generation in their own community.  If FERC goes all in on widely-dispersed centralized generation and long-distance transmission, as these greedy corporations suggest, they are slamming the door on community-based, centralized generation forever.  A handful of corporations will get very, very rich, but Metro City will suffer economically from loss of energy jobs, increased electric bills and loss of reliability. 

Never fear though... because when Mr. Metro City's bill starts going up to pay for all this remote electricity, putting solar panels on his own roof is going to start looking mighty appealing.  The higher his bill goes, the more economic the cost of generating his own electricity becomes.  Eventually, he'll pull the plug and stop buying remote electricity in favor of generating his own.  When he does this, the costs of the remote electricity that he was paying get spread to his neighbors, which increases their costs even more.  And then they look at Mr. Metro City's rooftop generator and do the figuring for one of their own.  When that happens, their costs of remote electricity get shifted to their own neighbors in Metro City West.  And so on, and so on... until a majority of users have separated themselves from the grid and the costs of remote electricity.  At that time, the remote generators and long-distance transmission lines go broke because they're no one left to pay for them.

Just say "no" to changing FERC's Order No. 2003 to give renewable generators a free ride to Metro City.  Stop the GREEN GREED!  It hurts electric consumers!
0 Comments

Schemers Plan To Preempt State Authority To Permit and Site Electric Transmission

12/17/2020

4 Comments

 
Picture
The Joebama administration hasn't even started yet and already the political schemers are planning to usurp state authority to site and permit electric transmission.  Should you worry?  Yes!  As much as you may disagree with your state utility commission, it's the only thing standing between your right to own property and having a new high-voltage transmission line in your backyard that is serving the "needs" of others in far-off cities.

The giddy scheming has reached a fevered pitch, and now the "Center on Global Energy Policy" is advising that greedy transmission developers simply run right over state authority and private property rights by using questionable federal transmission siting and permitting authority to build as much new transmission as they can, as fast as they can.

What's the "Center on Global Energy Policy"?  Don't be fooled by its association with Columbia University and the NYU School of Law.  If you look at this organization's website, you can see it's funded by energy companies, mainly oil and gas.  Why would the oil and gas industry be interested in building a bunch of new electric transmission?  Is it so that we can put more electric cars on the road?  Seems kinda counterintuitive, doesn't it?  Oh, keep going on the "partners" list.  Under "sustaining annual circle" you'll find ACORE -- American Council on Renewable Energy.  These schemers have been pushing for tripling the amount of long-distance electric transmission for months now.  Who funds ACORE?  There you'll find all the usual suspects:  companies who stand to profit from building new renewables that want you to pay to ship their product around the country, such as Pattern, Invenergy, Avangrid, Next Era, Berkshire Hathaway.  Joining them in this well-financed effort is a bunch of investment firms, law firms, and wind turbine manufacturers.  All in, these companies stand to make a mountain of cash building a bunch of utility scale renewables far from load centers.  Now we know why they're doing this!  It's not for "green" energy... it's for GREEN DOLLARS!

This is an entirely created "crisis."  The only "crisis" at hand is that alternatives to geographically remote renewables, such as offshore wind, will soon be here.  The companies behind this initiative want to continue to make money building remote renewables.  They don't want better, cheaper solutions that make sense for consumers.  The economics of making resource decisions are not on their side.  If someone wants to build a new power generator, there's a lot of figuring that goes into whether or not it is beneficial for customers.  Not all new generators are beneficial, and there are choices to be made between generator options.  The cost of the generator + operating costs + delivery costs.  That's what the consumer would pay.  All these different costs need to be put into the equation.  When you compare onshore wind with offshore wind, for instance, offshore wind may be more expensive to build, but it doesn't require as much long distance transmission, therefore it may actually end up being cheaper when all costs are considered.  That's probably what scares these companies the most... remote renewables are too expensive for consumers when compared to more local, distributed options.  They demand that the federal government force remote renewables on everyone.  This sentence explains it better than I ever could.  An 82-page report... one sentence!

Second, increasing access to renewables benefits customers otherwise unable to fulfill a preference for a low-emission fuel source and sometimes lowers electricity prices.

Sometimes?  But not when you add in the cost of trillions of dollars of new transmission, right?

And take a look, a really good look, at some of the rhetoric in this "report."  Although it's complicated reading for folks who haven't been riding the transmission train for years, the bald arrogance of these schemers is plain to see.  It's practically oozing out all over the floor!  Contempt for landowners and affected communities is combined with haughty condescension to state utility commissions.  They don't even try to hide it.  It's all about using the federal government and federal eminent domain to thwart opposition.  The people who would be forced to live with all this new transmission don't matter one whit to these greedy schemers.  It's all about their profits, not your little life, private property, or well-being.  They want to cut states out of the transmission siting picture because they may have been responsive to the plight of people.  People don't matter here... only company profits.  This is top down corporate take over of the federal government in order to use federal authority to steal from people and give to corporations.  There is no consumer "need" for any of this.  The corporations are the only ones saying it's needed.  The people are not saying they need it.  Actually, they're quite agnostic if their bill doesn't go up or the government doesn't show up to take their private property.  Pretending to want "green energy" is nothing more than virtue signaling at its finest.  In the interest of "environmental justice" they just want to shift the hurt somewhere else so they can feel good about their own neighborhood.  Nobody should have to live with unwanted energy infrastructure in their backyard.

So, what is it they're planning to do now?  Way back in 2005, Congress passed a sweeping new energy policy act.  This Act was supposedly in response to the Northeast blackout of 2003.  It wasn't about renewable energy.  Within that act were two new sections, Section 1221 and Section 1222.  Section 1221 tasked the U.S. Dept. of Energy with performing triennial transmission "congestion studies" to designate "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" (NIETCs) in areas that were "congested" and causing higher energy prices due to lack of adequate transmission.  Once a NIETC was designated, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could step in to permit new transmission in a NIETC if a state could not permit it, failed to act on the project, or imposed unnecessary conditions on a permit that tanked the project.

DOE quickly designated two NIETCs, one along the mid-Atlantic between the Ohio Valley and the coastal cities, and one in the Southwest between Arizona and California.  The NIETCs were vast, and DOE failed to properly consult with affected states as required by the Act.  Once the NIETCs were in place, FERC engaged in rulemaking to set regulations for its role in siting and permitting transmission in a NIETC.  FERC decided that it could site and permit transmission in any instance... that it could effectively preempt state authority in its entirety, even if a state rightly denied a permit for new transmission.

All this preemption got some folks hopping mad.  Ironically, some of the environmental groups challenged these decisions in court because they presumed all this new transmission would increase the use of fossil fuels.  However, it wasn't only them.  A number of states also got into the action.  If you tell a state that you're going to preempt their authority to set their own energy policy, you're going to get pushback.  And so the courts eventually handed down two decisions that reined in the transmission schemers.

In the 9th Circuit, California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. DOE vacated the NIETCs designated by the DOE for a failure to consult with affected states.  Bam!  NIETCs gone!  Ever since, DOE has only played at conducting its "congestion studies", with numerous delays in actually getting it done combined with silly attempts at data collection and reporting.  It's most recent "study" completed this year did not recommend designating any corridors or find any congestion worth worrying about.  It should be three years before their next attempt.  However, the schemers are pushing DOE to amend its report and designate new corridors.  The idea is to only designate "narrow" corridors that correspond to project ideas.  Essentially, if a company wants to build transmission, just let DOE know and they will designate a corridor for you based on future congestion that does not actually exist.  And then they expect the designation will be re-litigated.

As a result of FERC's rulemaking that interpreted the Act to allow them to preempt a state denial of new transmission, the 4th Circuit in Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC found that the Act does not contemplate FERC preempting a state's outright denial.  This decision effectively stopped FERC's preemption, and combined with the 9th Circuit decision, knocked all the teeth out of Section 1221.  It was no longer useful for overriding state authority to site and permit transmission and stepping in with federal permitting and eminent domain.  However, the schemers are now pushing FERC to do a new rulemaking to promulgate regulations for siting and permitting new transmission in new corridors and using federal eminent domain in the event that a state denies a new transmission project.  The logic here is even worse... the schemers say that the 4th Circuit decision only applies to the 4th Circuit, and therefore FERC should carry on with using its authority in other states not part of the 4th Circuit.  The 4th Circuit covers the states of Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.  If you live there, you are safe from FERC's preemption... for now.  But the schemers suggest that FERC and transmission builders steam right ahead and re-litigate this issue in the other Circuits and hope for a different decision.  Seems unlikely, but I suppose it could happen with the right activist judges.  Then I suppose they'd try to re-litigate in the 4th Circuit, or bump it to the Supreme Court, to make their preemption complete coast-to-coast.

Also in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was Section 1222, Third Party Finance.  This Section allows the U.S. DOE to "partner" with third parties to build new electric transmission in certain federal power marketing territories (WAPA and SWPA).  The transmission would be "owned" by the federal government so that it could use federal eminent domain and avoid state permitting, but it would be paid for and constructed by a third party.  Interestingly enough, this third party was also supposed to keep all the profits generated by the transmission line "owned" by the federal government.  The U.S. DOE tried to use this part of the Act to "partner" with Clean Line on its Plains and Eastern project.  However, even with Section 1222 "partnership" the project failed because it did not attract any commercial interest.  There's been a whole bunch of whining about exactly why Clean Line failed, and some hero-worshipping reporter wrote a book about it that tried to cover up the real reason.  Nobody wanted to buy remotely generated renewables shipped via new long-distance transmission lines because they would rather develop and own their own renewables in their own regions/communities.  Developing local renewables keeps energy dollars working within the community.  It also provides energy independence and the security of smaller systems not subject to failure along a remote route thousands of miles long.  As well, remote renewables cause local economic destruction with the closing of local power generators.  Like 'em or not, power plants provide good paying jobs and tax payments.  Remote renewables cause reliability issues.  The reasons are many, not just "political" as the biased book author claimed.

The schemers want DOE to issue a new RFP for transmission projects to "participate" in under Sec. 1222.  They say DOE should litigate whether Sec. 1222 gives it eminent domain authority, since the court left this question on the table when Arkansas landowners sued over the use of Sec. 1222.  The schemers say that DOE can use "contributed funds" to make the project less likely to be opposed by making payments in lieu of taxes (remember, the federal government, as "owner" would not pay any state or local taxes for the transmission project).  They also suggest paying bribes to local communities if they don't object.  If the peons don't have any bread, let them eat cake, right?  With all this gushing about how Sec. 1222 ameliorates opposition, the schemers fail to say how this wonderful idea ended up being challenged in court.  I thought Sec. 1222 made landowners love transmission?

The schemers say they need to plow ahead using the existing, but toothless, Sections 1221 and 1222.  However, where are they going to find transmission companies and investors willing to put their capital on the line to pursue such a risky endeavor?  There are other options!  Smaller, more widely distributed renewables are a cheaper, more reliable option.  As well, offshore wind is becoming reality, and it's located within 10 miles of the coastal load centers.  It makes no financial sense to build renewables in the middle of the country and then ship the electricity thousands of miles to load centers.  It's also a gigantic safety risk, making huge swaths of the country dependent upon concentrated, new transmission stretching for thousands of miles.

It's also going to foment new opposition of record proportions.  If they're going to triple the amount of transmission, they're going to intersect with hundreds of thousands of new landowners and communities who object to sacrificing their land and safety in order to make a new pathway for city dwellers to use renewables they don't want sited in their own neighborhoods.  Yes, it's just more rural v. urban, Republican v. Democrat, middle class v. elite, division for this country.  It's almost like the elite Democratic cities simply EXPECT that rural America should be trashed to provide for urban "needs."  There are better solutions!

However, these schemers have about a thousand preposterous excuses for why other solutions can't work and why state preemption is necessary.  I'm not buying any of them.  You shouldn't either.  Get ready, folks, the battle royale is on the horizon.  If the schemers think transmission opposition is hard now, they haven't seen anything yet.  They believe their schemes to preempt state authority will take away all the tools in the transmission opposition toolbox and render landowners and rural communities nothing more than helpless advocates for their money-making schemes.  If there's one thing I've learned over the past decade it's adaptability.  When a door closes, transmission opposition opens a window.  When one tool breaks, we find another.  There's simply too much at stake for people whose homes and livelihoods are at risk.  We demand better solutions!
4 Comments

Here We Go Again...

11/27/2020

1 Comment

 
Picture
It's going to be a long four years.  Already the ghosts of clean energy past are creeping from the closet and resurrecting whatever it was they were doing in the fall of 2016.  It's like the last 4 years never even happened.  It remains to be seen how successful these cleaniacs might be trying to carry out 4-year old energy plans.  One thing's for sure... the shysters and scammers are back... and they want YOUR farm.

Anyone remember the Schulte Ass. sideshow barkers from earlier this year?  Well, they're back, barking harder than ever and trying to assume a posture of relevance through a lovely expose in fake news media.  The Energy News Network, as they're now calling themselves, is nothing more than "clean energy" propaganda masquerading as a legitimate news site.  It's a project of "Fresh Energy" that is in turn funded by all sorts of shady "foundations" and renewable energy companies who stand to profit from the propaganda this publication produces.

Anyhow... Rob and Fred are back to "promoting" other people's transmission projects as their own.  Their grand idea involves "stitching together" a series of transmission projects being developed and built by others.  They are trying to drum up funding for a "feasibility study" that would sell themselves as "consultants" on using the ideas of others.  P.T. Barnum would be so proud!

Not only are they "promoting" transmission projects owned by others, they're also trying to hijack the hard work of others.  Our "consultants" say they will "connect" with the SOO Green Renewable Rail merchant transmission project to create the easternmost "leg" of their transmission stitchery project.  I think our heroes are showing their ignorance again... this merchant project will most likely be built and spoken for by voluntary customers paying negotiated rates.  It's not something these "consultants" can just "connect" to on a whim.  And why would Rob and Fred want to pretend they are "connecting" to SOO Green?
In contrast to the Midwestern Clean Line projects, the 2,100-megawatt SOO Green appears to be encountering little if any resistance.
Right.  Because SOO Green is buried on existing rights of way.  Rob and Fred's idea?  Most likely, no.  Rob and Fred most likely plan to rip through private property to create new rights of way for an aerial transmission line on gigantic poles.  Of course, who knows what they "plan," since their idea really has no definition.

Do Rob and Fred really think they can capitalize on SOO Green's hard work with landowners and communities in order to create goodwill for their own project?  That will never happen.  They're more likely to create bad will for SOO Green, however I don't think that SOO Green has anything to do with these two yahoos and their "idea."

Step right up... the bad ideas for cross-country transmission "for renewables" are going to be plentiful.  This only builds upon the entrenched and steadfast transmission opposition groups already at work.  

Next... cue the front groups!  Because all the old astroturfers that began their careers hustling for big tobacco are back and they're hungrier than ever!  They're pretending to be "grassroots" groups in New Mexico, however, as usual, no actual landowners or affected communities are involved.  Fake grassroots always depends on quid pro quo relationships with unaffected or greedy groups or quasi-governmental organizations who are eager to toss their community under the bus for personal profit.

Ben Kelahan?  Hmm... that name sounds really familiar...  wasn't he the one who created that bogus "survey" that determined that landowners are unlikely to oppose a transmission line on their property that is "for renewables."  Turns out that survey was about as useful as a screen door on a submarine... but only after Michael Skelly wasted $200M of investors' money chasing that stupid hypothesis.  Turns out landowners absolutely don't care what kind of electricity the transmission line carries (and the idea of a transmission line carrying only special "clean" electrons is ridiculous for any thinking person).  Landowners only care about the transmission line... and they will NOT willingly host it.  

To your battle stations, friends, it's going to be a long four years...
1 Comment

Farming in Fancy Jackets; Or... Hugh, is That You?

11/20/2020

5 Comments

 
Who knew The Playboy Mansion was having a yard sale to dispose of Hugh Hefner's smoking jacket costumes?  We missed out!

A recent profile in Forbes of super-rich energy executive Michael Polsky is probably the most stunning display of rich people arrogance and excess that I've ever read.

Polsky's company, Invenergy, has made huge profits off the land owned by Midwestern farmers.  I'm pretty sure none of the landowners who participated in Polsky's success have ever struck such glorious poses in fancy jackets next to Invenergy-owned infrastructure on their own properties, such as Polsky did for Forbes.

What credit does Polsky share with all the "little folks" who made his success possible?  None.  And what sacrifices to the land, environment, and lives of these "little people" does Polsky share?  Again, none.  It seems like I'm supposed to believe they're nothing but serfs enabling the success of The Great One.  Self-awareness = Zero.  Isn't that always the way?
Picture
Forbes opens it's expose with the most delightful sub-head:
Renewable energy is ready for prime time.  That is if -- like Michael Polsky -- you don't mind angering farmers and chopping up a few bald eagles.
Oh, right to the heart... sign me up!  I, too, want to chop up symbolic birds and piss off the people who grow the food I eat at my big, fancy, city house.

Well, no, actually.  That scenario sort of disgusts me at a visceral level.

Self-awareness check #2:
Back in Chicago, Polsky leads an impromptu tour of the three floors Invenergy occupies at One South Wacker Drive in the pandemic ghost town that is downtown Chicago. It’s a Friday morning. Ordinarily, there would be dozens of people in open-plan workstations and offices, but only a handful are present, including the 24/7 crew manning Invenergy’s control center—watching, and even operating, 6,774 wind turbines spread across the country.

Sharing Invenergy’s digs are the offices of Polsky’s $150 million green-tech-focused VC fund, Energize Ventures. Among its 13 portfolio investments: Drone Deploy, which inspects turbine blades using infrared beams and drones, and Volta, which is building a chain of electric vehicle charging stations.

These days, Polsky has reluctantly traded the standing desk in his office for Zoom calls from his living room and quality time with his second wife, Tanya, 47, a former banker, and their three young children. “I’ve spent a lot more time with family than before,” the compulsive dealmaker admits. He seems to be enjoying it. “I’ve discovered being home, in a way.”

Slumming with the fam during a pandemic.  Isn't that charming?  Good thing those farmers continue to do their regular jobs at their regular locations, because what if the food supply ran out?  Is there enough toilet paper for the Polsky family?  What if they ran out?  Would they use a fancy jacket or two?  Lucky guy gets to spend more "quality time" with his family.  Do they play Monopoly?  Piece bald eagles back together in jigsaw puzzle form?  Does the fam enjoy turning their living room into Daddy's office and being hushed and banned during important Zoom meetings?  My family works better at home having individual offices and a little privacy.  The co-workers appreciate that, too.  Was it just yesterday that I had to refrain from laughing loudly at someone's ineptitude because there was an important business meeting being held in the basement office?  Yes.  Yes, it was.

Once you're done reading all the platitudes in the Forbes article (and I warn you, once you click on it, you'd better settle down to read it through because Forbes will block the article after you've had your "free" look), try to harvest the "TMI" contained in the article.  Polsky's talk about Grain Belt Express was especially revealing.
Then there’s that Grain Belt Express, which would install an 800-mile high- voltage line across Kansas and Missouri into Illinois at a cost of $7 billion. It was originally the brainchild of wind-industry pioneer Michael Skelly, whose Clean Line Energy was backed by the billionaire Ziff family, among others. Skelly’s team burned through $100 million fighting NIMBys and bureaucrats in its quest for permits and approvals. “After a decade, it was hard for us to attract capital,” says Skelly, now a senior advisor at Lazard.

Polsky agreed to take over Grain Belt on the condition of Invenergy winning those approvals—in other words, all he risked upfront was the cost of lawyers and lobbyists. “It’s much more complicated than just building a wind farm,” admits Polsky, who relishes the challenge. A bill that would keep non-utility companies like Invenergy from using eminent domain to take private land passed the Missouri state assembly this year but has been bottled up in the state senate. Meanwhile, two Missouri appeals courts have upheld the state public service commission’s approval of the Grain Belt Express.

Despite ongoing appeals, farmers like Loren Sprouse, whose family owns a 480-acre tract west of Kansas City that the high-voltage line would cross, are becoming resigned to the fact that soon Invenergy will be able to negotiate with the sledgehammer of eminent domain. “Once you get eminent domain, the price may still be negotiated, but they would have the right to do it,’’ he says.

Sprouse’s land is already crossed by three buried petrochemical pipelines, which he says transport warmed crude that “runs so hot it dries out the ground and kills the crops.” (Indeed, the proposed transmission lines would run along the pipeline right-of-way.) But Sprouse prefers the pipelines to the visual blight of hulking transmission lines, and he’s concerned about the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. Polsky is encouraged by Invenergy’s legal victories in Missouri, and expects Illinois approvals to follow. “It will be built. It has to happen,” he says.
But does it?  I'm pretty sure those "NIMBYS" are still in control.  Invenergy has admitted that it needs to re-visit its permits in both Kansas and Missouri to "update" them.  Invenergy has not yet applied for a permit in Illinois, and the one Clean Line had been granted has been vacated.  GBE is currently an empty idea without an end point.

GBE was granted eminent domain in Missouri and Kansas because it was acquiring property for "public use."  But what happens when GBE is no longer a public use project?  Can it still use eminent domain to take the land of others in order to build a private highway for its own use?  Time will tell, won't it?  And, what was it Polsky said about building a new wind farm in Kansas to power his GBE?
Polsky is buying turbines from GE Power that are twice the size of those at Grand Ridge (at 700 feet, they’re taller than Trump Tower in New York) and generate up to 3 megawatts each. He intends to erect more than 1,000 of these enormous machines on 100,000 acres in Kansas, on what could become the nation’s biggest wind farm.
So Invenergy is intending to build and/or own "the nation's biggest wind farm" in Kansas, and then ship the electricity it generates 800 miles to sell it for a profit in Indiana?  How is that a public use that benefits the citizens of Kansas and Missouri who are expected to sacrifice their land and productivity to enable it?  It's no different than me using eminent domain to condemn my neighbors land for a new driveway that enables me to get my products to market.

Lesson over.  Let's get back to the fabulous disrespect for those "NIMBYs!"
YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME
One big obstacle to green energy is spelled y-o-u. Technological advances have made wind and solar power cheaper than coal, nuclear and even natural gas. So why aren’t we using more of the stuff? Quite simply because you (and your neighbors) oppose and block the construction of wind farms and new transmission lines for green power.
Oh, the shame, the shame!  I used to feel bad about using a disposable straw, now it appears that I'm a bigger problem for society than I ever imagined!

How come these sanctimonious cows never have to sacrifice anything to realize their impossible ideals?  It's not like the author is asking to have one of those wonderful green power transmission lines in his own backyard, snaking artfully between the BBQ and the designer kids' playset from the big box store.  And, dare I say it, if that was ever proposed by Michael Polsky, the author would be the first one emailing me in desperation begging for help in opposing it.

Whatever happened to the "coming together?"  The new unity?  Apparently that's nothing more than a continuation of the same old "Rules for thee, but not for me!"

Remember when we laughed at Michael Skelly's excesses and glittering social life splashed all over the social sections of the Houston papers?  Skelly is positively plebian compared to Polsky.  It seems that Polsky has yet to learn a very important lesson.  Is he doomed to repeating all of Clean Line's Top Ten Mistakes?  Funny how history repeats itself. Will we soon see Polsky at future public meetings, arriving on a tractor, chore coat replacing his smoking jacket?

This story is far from over.  Defeat is not an option for farmers.  The eagles?  Well, maybe the carcasses can become souffle for the rich?
5 Comments

Feeding the Big Green Beast

10/19/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
No, not him!  Although communities invaded by this big, green beast often feel like he's been rampaging in their neighborhood.  I'm talking about the "renewable energy" big, green beast.  The beast that's currently fat with tax credit cash paid for by you.  Ever heard the old saying about not feeding stray pests because they keep hanging around expecting a meal?  Well, that's just what renewable energy developers are doing now.  Because taxpayers have financed the construction of their wind farms through tax credits, now the developers want electric ratepayers to finance their costs to transmit their product as well.

What's the problem?  Traditionally, a new generator must pay its costs to interconnect to the existing transmission system.  This includes any new lines from the generator to an existing transmission line, plus any upgrades or new transmission caused by the new injection of additional power to the system.  Say the interconnection of 4,000 MW of wind from Guymon, OK to Indiana causes the need to build a brand new 765kV transmission line in Indiana in order to handle the additional load... the generator in Guymon would have to pay for the upgrade.  Does that sound fair to you?  Let's examine...

The generator at Guymon is producing power for export and expecting a huge profit because its cost to produce is extremely low and the price of power purchased in Indiana is extremely high.  But did anyone in Indiana contract to purchase this power, plus the cost of transmission?  No, they didn't, so the generator proposes that the cost of the transmission upgrades be paid for by electric customers in Indiana, who may or may not use the power transmitted over the new line.  Long-standing rules for transmission cost allocation -- beneficiary pays.  So, unless Guymon can prove that all the ratepayers receive a benefit, they cannot assign costs this way.

In addition, who says the Guymon generation is needed in Indiana or elsewhere?  It's the regional transmission organization that orders new transmission to be built and assigns costs to ratepayers.  The RTO can only order new transmission and assign costs for projects needed for reliability, economic, or public policy purposes.  If that need isn't there (and it's not... the PJM RTO has not ordered nor accepted costs for transmission for import) then it will not order a new project and assign costs.  Generators and renewable energy developers do not order projects, assign costs, and determine who must buy their power.  Claiming that the power they generate in Guymon is "desperately needed" in NYC and therefore ratepayers in Oklahoma City should pay for new transmission to get it there is a bridge too far.  Who decides where the power they buy comes from?  The purchaser, and to some extent the state.  State energy policy may call for wholesale purchasers (the company who supplies your power) to purchase a certain amount of renewable power.  That does not mean, however, that the state has demanded renewables from Guymon.  States are getting smart about energy and many who have set renewable mandates know exactly where the power should come from... and it's from new renewables in state or in the local region.  Not one state has set a target that it expects to have fulfilled by generators thousands of miles away.  Go on with your stupid "where it's needed" claims.  It's not up to renewable developers to determine where their power is "needed."

And let's not forget the logic of economics.  New generators are for-profit endeavors.  The cost to construct, connect, and operate must be less than the price the generator can charge for power.  If these costs are more than the value of the power produced, then the generator is not economic and won't be built because nobody builds a new business that it expects would lose money.  So, in this recent article, generators are whining that the cost of transmission interconnection and upgrade is too much and causes the cancellation of their projects because it makes them uneconomic.  But yet they want ratepayers to pick up their interconnection and upgrade costs so that their uneconomic generators suddenly become economic.  Let's not avoid the elephant in the room...

IF IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR GENERATORS TO OPERATE ECONOMICALLY, IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR RATEPAYERS TO PAY FOR ECONOMICALLY!

The ratepayers would pay for it either way, of course, whether wrapped into the cost of the power from Guymon, or secretly added to their bill in the form of higher transmission cost.  However, when it's presented as high-cost power from Guymon, wholesale buyers say "no."  But when it's slipped into everyone's electric bill without notice, they have no opportunity to say "no."

Perhaps this is also another Trojan Horse... by trying to foist their interconnection costs onto regional ratepayers who won't benefit from the new transmission, are renewable developers looking to have their merchant projects become RTO-ordered projects so they can be cost allocated?  Currently merchant projects are paid for by their owners.  So, what would happen to a merchant project that wanted to connect?  Should an RTO anticipate merchant projects and plan for them?  Get outta here... that's ridiculous! 

Energy decisions are made by elected officials, state utility commissions, and customers.  They aren't made by corporations who want to make money selling energy.
0 Comments

It Snowed in Kansas Yesterday!

10/1/2020

8 Comments

 
What?  Snow in September?  Climate change does the strangest things lately.  Maybe no Kansans noticed any accumulation of the white stuff at their homes yesterday, but there was a blizzard going on on Zoom... a virtual snow job!

Invenergy has a big problem in Kansas.  Its existing permit for Grain Belt Express issued by the Kansas Corporation Commission is going to need some extensive updates to remove original conditions.  One condition was that the company must have the project permitted in all 4 states before beginning construction in Kansas.  Another was that no Kansans would pay for the transmission line project.  But Invenergy has a new plan so unlike the original project the KCC vetted and permitted that it needs to remove those conditions.  And what better way to get the captured KCC to look the other way and eliminate the conditions designed to protect Kansans than to get the Governor onboard?

Yesterday, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly announced that Kansas has "partnered with Invergy to bring the transmission line, which is 800-miles long, to the state."  800-miles you say?  Is it going to go round and round inside Kansas in a big circle?  According to GBE's website, the project will be "380+ miles" in Kansas.  It is proposed as 800-miles from Kansas to Indiana.  Except Invenergy still hasn't applied for a permit to cross 200-miles through Illinois.  Therefore, it's only 580-miles across Kansas and Missouri.  In fact, that's the only thing Invenergy has committed to so far, and it wants to begin construction before even applying to cross Illinois.  Therefore, its project is not 800-miles long, it's only 580-miles, less the distance between the Missouri converter station and the eastern border of the state.

This is only the beginning of the inaccurate dreck spewed at yesterday's virtual press conference.  It gets even crazier.

A new transmission line connected to the Grain Belt Express will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in investment to the state of Kansas, Gov. Laura Kelly announced Wednesday.
Oh, it's a new project?  Not the same old Grain Belt Express that's been languishing in the land of failed ideas since 2012?  It's going to be connected to the Grain Belt Express?  Say what?  It looks like the press conference failed so completely at delivering facts that at least one media outlet thinks its some separate new project (with the same name?).  The media didn't do its job yesterday by fact checking any of this.  Whether that's through sheer ignorance and laziness, or through lack of opportunity to ask questions, the readers may never know.  If you watch the Zoom meeting, they open it up to questions from the media at the end.  Only one reporter got to ask questions before they were "out of time" (or simply out of questions).  The reporter asked what kind of qualifications or skills Kansans would need to get a job on the project.  Kris Zadlo from Invenergy non-answered that by claiming Invenergy would prefer to hire locally as much as possible.  That's not an answer to that question!  The other question was about how the promised $50/year savings per electric customer would flow through on the bills for Evergy customers.  Zadlo said something about Evergy first having to purchase the renewable energy before flowing the savings through to customers.  That's also not an answer.

Let's tackle the second question first...  GBE is a transmission line.  It's not a generator of renewable energy.  Evergy would have to purchase capacity on GBE's transmission line, and then separately purchase renewable energy to transmit on GBE from a separate renewable energy generator.  In fact, I haven't seen any indication that this has happened.  Purchasing transmission capacity on GBE and renewable energy from a generator is completely voluntary.  Evergy may or may not do it.  If Evergy doesn't do it, there is no savings.  And even if Evergy does, there is no guarantee of whether, or how much, "savings" Evergy would pass along to its end-use customers.  Poof!  There goes that $50 savings.  It's hypothetical upon hypothetical upon voluntarily hypothetical.  Reality check!  Investor-owned utilities like Evergy don't make their money buying product from Chicago-based companies and passing the expense onto Kansans... they make their money by OWNING the infrastructure that generates and transmits energy supplied to their customers.  Kansas energy transmitted to customers over Kansas transmission lines owned by a Kansas company keeps Kansans energy dollars in Kansas.  It doesn't export Kansas energy profits to Chicago.

The second question was premised on the Governor's claim (which supposedly came from an Invenergy study) that Grain Belt Express would create over 22,000 jobs in Kansas during the construction period, and nearly 1,000 permanent, full-time operations jobs in Kansas after construction.  Let's get to the short answer here first... new construction jobs for Kansans.  Building high voltage transmission is a highly specialized job skill.  Workers with this skill are employed by a handful of companies across the country.  The transmission company hires one of these specialized construction companies to build a line, and the workers are shipped in only for the duration of construction.  So, what Zadlo was saying is... if their selected contractor from another state has Kansans on the payroll, then a Kansan would have a job constructing the project.  In fact, Zadlo would "prefer" that.  What won't happen is mass hiring of Kansans with limited or no skills to construct GBE.  Jobs for Kansans?  Hardly.

But let's look at the job claims, which come completely out of left field and thoroughly out of line with previous job claims.  22,000.  Twenty two thousand?  Previous construction job claims for GBE totaled only 1,500 in the state of Missouri.  One thousand five hundred.  Granted Kansas has nearly double the line miles proposed for Missouri, but the Kansas claim is more than 14 times the jobs claimed for Missouri!  For every job created in Missouri, there will be more than 14 created in Kansas to construct the same project over similar terrain.  Something doesn't smell right here....  And then let's move on to post-construction operations jobs.  The same Missouri report found only 91 operations jobs.  However, the Kansas claims from yesterday are 10 times that at 968!  For every Missouri job operating and maintaining GBE, Kansas will need 10 people to do that same job.  A reasonable person might question these numbers.  An even more reasonable person would know that these numbers aren't real jobs.  They're nothing but numbers spit out of a computer program based on economic data fed into an equation that's not revealed.  Simply adjust the numbers, and the result changes.  Garbage in, garbage out!  So, what is going to happen afterwards when these jobs don't materialize?  Nothing.  The damage will have been done and the rewards will have failed to materialize.  So sorry, suckers!
Picture
And can we talk about what GBE actually IS for a hot minute?  Zadlo claimed:
“Economic recovery and long-term economic competitiveness in Kansas and Missouri depend on new investment, more jobs, and tapping into low-cost, homegrown clean energy, which Grain Belt is moving full speed ahead to deliver,” Zadlo said. “Grain Belt is proud to increase our investment in Kansas and Missouri to rebuild the economy, deliver billions of dollars in energy cost savings, and meet growing renewable energy demand.”
Although he did mention that GBE is a direct current (DC) transmission line, nobody else in Zoom-land seemed to know what that meant, therefore nobody questioned the faulty narrative.

A DC transmission line is a closed highway between converter stations with no entrance or exit ramps along the way.  Electricity is produced as alternating current (AC).  It must be converted to DC at a hugely-expensive converter station (say $100M) before it can be transmitted on the line.  It cannot be connected to our existing AC transmission system or used until is is converted back to AC at another equally expensive converter station at the delivery end.  GBE's plan calls for building a converter station at the Spearville end of the route to convert AC to DC and send it on its way east.  GBE's plan calls for ONE converter station at the delivery end to convert it back to AC.  That converter station is proposed for somewhere in eastern Missouri.  If the project is eventually extended to Indiana, there will be a third converter constructed at the IL/IN border.  Electricity transmitted over the line can ONLY be used after it has reached a converter station and been converted back to AC.  So, when the Governor says that the electricity on GBE will create a savings for and be used by Kansas electric consumers, she's saying that electricity produced at Spearville will be sent to eastern Missouri over GBE, where it will be converted back to AC and then shipped back to Kansas on the existing transmission system?  Let's see if we can follow the path of all that "home-grown" energy from Spearville to... say... Wichita.  Spearville to Randolph Co. Missouri to Wichita?  It can't go directly from Spearville to Wichita unless GBE builds a converter station in Wichita.  If the electricity is sent directly to Wichita, it would travel only on our existing AC transmission system, and we wouldn't need GBE at all.

Basic physics sailed clear over the heads of the Kansas officials and reporters.  Only Kris Zadlo knew the truth, and he wasn't sharing.  What a great guy!

Perhaps this is the greatest quote of the whole debacle:
The governor said the state has a lot of unused wind energy and this will be a good way to make sure it isn’t wasted.
There sure is a lot of wind in Kansas.  Whistling around on Zoom and between the ears of some folks too stupid to know they're being had.  What a waste of time!
8 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

    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.