Category:

How The Media Sausage Factory Cranks Out Fake News

4/30/2022

What happens when the people who create "news" have a political or ideological bias? The "news" they crank out no longer presents facts and allows the reader to decide. Biased media thinks readers are too stupid to make the same biased conclusions they would when presented with actual facts, therefore the media makes up facts that are not really facts at all in order to skew the conclusion the reader would draw from the story without the made-up facts.

Here's a look inside the sausage factory of biased news creation that demonstrates how the media lies to you, dear reader.

Our case study: Price of Progress: Grain Belt Express Pits Public Benefit and Private Property Rights in Race Against Climate Change. Kind of a screwy headline for a piece that was supposed to tell landowner's stories. The headline tells you a lot. Race? The idea that we have to hurry up and "beat" climate change by building a transmission line with with only one customer for less than 10% of the line's capacity is so much created hogwash. In the global picture, the effect of Grain Belt Express is infinitesimal. It won't actually "beat" climate change. But it will beat agriculture and struggling farmers in Missouri, adding a new impediment to their production and a burden on their finances and heritage.

There's a lot screwy about this story, but let's focus on just one "fact" in the story:

For the 39 municipalities in Missouri signed up to buy power off the line, it’s an estimated $12.8 million in annual savings.

It's not a quote of someone's opinion, it's a statement of "fact". Facts require investigation on the part of a reporter, especially "facts" that present such a specific number. If there's an estimate with such a specific figure, then there must be data used to reach that estimate. Show us your math, right?

The municipalities have not shown anyone their math since January 2017. That's 5 years ago. In 2017, the municipalities' witness at the Missouri PSC said:

As stated in the rebuttal testimony of Duncan Kincheloe, MJMEUC’s president and general manager, our current arrangement with Illinois Power Marketing Company (“IPM”) for 100 MWs of energy and capacity will expire in 2021, and that contract currently serves the needs of the Missouri Public Energy Pool (MoPEP). We have been actively considering sources to replace this energy and capacity.

What was it that Kincheloe said?

In 2021, a contract for 100 MWs of energy and capacity with Illinois Power Marketing Company (IPM) (former Ameren coal plants in Illinois, now owned by Dynegy) will expire. That energy and capacity will need to be replaced. That contract currently serves MoPEP, a group of 35 Missouri cities for which MJMEUC provides full requirements for wholesale energy, capacity and ancillary services. The TSA with Grain Belt and the power purchase agreement with Infinity Wind would allow the MoPEP to replace the current 100 MWs of purchased power in MISO with more affordable energy. John Grotzinger will explain in his rebuttal testimony that while the TSA and corresponding contract with Infinity Wind will not by themselves replace the IPM contract, these contracts will form the cornerstone of the resource mix to replace the IPM contract.

So, the municipalities' savings argument rests on replacing IPM with GBE + a contract for wind in Kansas. A low price is supposed to replace a higher price and result in savings. But what year is this? It's 2022. The IPM contract expired last year. What did the municipalities replace that energy with? It can't be GBE, because GBE is still limping along trying to get permitted in Illinois. Nothing has been built. Was the new contract as expensive as IPM? Or was it cheaper? Where's the math using the new contract amount? Did the municipalities even do the math? It was the reporter's job to ask, especially since she was tipped off that there has been nothing shown since 2017 to back up their "estimate." They just keep spitting out the same numbers even though the underlying equation has changed drastically.

But the reporter has been unable to say whether or not she verified this "fact" in her story. First she claimed it was an estimate, as if using that word absolved her of verifying the estimated number. When asked if she did verify the number, she stopped responding. I will presume that means the answer is no. What a pity! She was quite engaging and promised to tell the real story that others in the media were missing. But, in the end, she ended up repeating the same old out-of-date information from the municipalities and other corporate propaganda from Invenergy.

Is the media incapable of telling a factual story? Must all truth be ground up in the media sausage factory before it is presented to a public presumed to be too ignorant to come to its own conclusions?

Don't count on them to tell a factual story.

3 Comments

FERC Mistakes Grain Belt Express for Shinola

4/27/2022

0 Comments

...and that's why its shoes don't shine.

Last week, FERC issued a proposed new transmission planning and cost allocation rule. It's a beast of more than 400 pages of FERCenese and I'm not sure anyone has finished reading it yet since all the news stories about it are generalized and not specific, such as this story.

FERC's rule proposes that state regulatory and permitting agencies have a 90-day period to negotiate cost allocation for the transmission project among themselves before the planning agency imposes its own cost allocation rule. FERC believes "...state siting proceedings may proceed more efficiently if states have better information about the costs and benefits of such regional transmission facilities."

The real purpose of this is for the states to indicate that they support the transmission project before it gets added to the regional plan, therefore greasing state siting and permitting approvals. Did Pollyanna write that part? FERC is ginning up a state vs. state battle that is going to guarantee rancor and disapproval before the project is even approved by the planning agency.

There is lots of praise in the media trumpeting that FERC's proposed rule is Shinola, but little substance. Even FERC's Chairman can't tell the difference between Grain Belt Express and Shinola, as evidenced by this delightful little revelation:

In a press conference after Thursday’s meeting, Glick said that active state involvement could help forestall state conflicts like those that have arisen in Missouri, where state lawmakers are seeking to pass a law that would threaten the viability of the Grain Belt Express, a massive proposed transmission project that would deliver power from Kansas across Missouri to the Illinois-Indiana border.

The NOPR is “aimed at bringing the states together and hopefully developing their own approach to cost allocation,” Glick said. For example, “it might determine that State A and State C should pay for that line, not State B.”

Why doesn't he know that Grain Belt Express is NOT a cost allocated project? It's a merchant transmission project without captive customers. It may only collect its costs through negotiated rates with voluntary customers. Therefore, FERC's proposed rule would not apply because there is no cost allocation! He also confuses the Missouri Public Service Commission (the state regulatory permitting agency) with the Missouri Legislature, which is pursuing legislation to end eminent domain for transmission projects that do not provide ample benefit to Missouri. Even though the PSC approved Grain Belt Express to use eminent domain under existing laws that do not contemplate merchant transmission "fly over" projects, the Missouri Legislature is in the process of correcting that because it is the will of the people of Missouri. FERC's new rule is completely useless to circumvent the will of the people of Missouri. Even if a state utility commission agreed to a cost allocation method for a new transmission project, and subsequently approved it, the legislature has the final say because it has the power to change the laws under which the utility commission must operate.

It's not going to grease new transmission projects. It may simply develop individual state conflicts and guarantee that nothing ever gets built.

People who oppose the transmission project will still put appropriate pressure on the state legislature, such as they have done in Missouri. The only way to get new transmission built is to prevent the impacts that cause opposition, like burying the project on existing rights of way, such as along highways or rail. Requiring transmission planners to select projects that have no impacts on landowners and communities crossed would have been a better rule, but FERC is all about the politics and propaganda these days, and not about sensible regulation that creates just and reasonable outcomes. Today's FERC seems to know little about transmission in the real world outside the DC political bubble, where its unworkable ideas look like Shinola.

0 Comments

How Propaganda Works

4/19/2022

2 Comments

Repeat something often enough and it becomes "fact." That's how propaganda works. Propaganda is defined as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view". It's information without any factual basis. It's just a simple phrase, repeated over and over endlessly until the public simply believes it is a fact.

The United States desperately needs new power lines.

Our grid is not inadequate to keep the lights on. Our grid is a carefully managed machine that is upgraded and rebuilt constantly to maintain reliability. But our grid is also a fertile money-maker for investor owned utilities and merchant electricity generators. Utilities make money investing in electric transmission that pays a double-digit return over the project's expected 40-year life. Our grid also enables for-profit electric generators to connect their product to far-flung customers, often at no cost to themselves. These are the entities spreading propaganda that our grid is somehow inadequate and needs to be rebuilt and expanded. They will make money building and upgrading, and electric consumers will pay the bill.

This guy really shouldn't be writing about energy. He has little practical understanding, and uses fluffy pieces written by biased pontificators. And, even then, he misquotes them to back up his ignorant theories, such as this statement:

Our transmission standstill has a number of consequences. First of all, it raises consumer prices. As this post at CanaryMedia makes clear, bad transmission hasn’t raised utility bills despite generation being cheaper than ever.

The canary in the coal mine piece shows that while the cost of generating renewables falls, the cost of building transmission to connect them rises. There's a limit on how much the cost of generation can fall, but there is no limit on how much transmission costs can rise. Transmission costs are rising at a higher rate than generation costs are falling. And we really haven't even begun building the amount of transmission utilities, generators, and their governmental and big green cheerleaders are pushing for. What is "bad transmission"? What is "transmission standstill"? I really don't know because neither means anything except in the dim mind of the author. Right there I realize that this guy knows nothing about transmission. But that's okay in a propaganda world because most of the people reading his brain farts have even less knowledge. That's how propaganda works!

Moving onto the next piece of propaganda:

A 2018 report by the nonprofit Americans for a Clean Energy Grid identified 22 shovel-ready projects that had been in existence for a decade or more. To get such projects off the ground, the report’s authors suggested streamlining project siting and permitting, passing a tax credit for transmission projects, and direct investment by the federal government.

First, Americans for a Clean Energy Grid is a Bill Gates-financed front group promoting new transmission that Bill and his super-rich global elite pals "need" to create a sweet investment honeypot for themselves (see section above about double-digit returns for 40 years). Second, most of the projects on the "shovel ready" list are not actually shovel ready and have serious regulatory or financial flaws that prevent them from ever being built (hence the government handouts). At least one of the projects on the "shovel-ready" list has been cancelled by its owner. Not shovel-ready, no matter how much American tax money gets showered on these private-profit endeavors.

The author sort of chokes on the fact that even though taxpayer subsidies have been requested, the subsidies simply cannot shut down due process for affected landowners.

Despite recent noise from the Biden administration about speeding up the sitting process, the same problems are still knocking off and slowing down transition projects.

The most recent and notable example is that of the Grain Belt Express. The transmission line, which would span nearly 800 miles across four midwest states, from Kansas to Indiana, connecting into the PJM Interconnection LLC grid, is at risk of being thwarted by House Bill 2005. The bill, brainchild of big ag groups across the region, would give any county in the line’s path the right to block construction.

Oh, right... "big ag." It's "big ag" (aka small family farm and ranch interest groups) vs. Chicago billionaire Michael Polsky, who has spent millions lobbying and influencing the Missouri legislature so that he may use eminent domain to take farm property for whatever price he wants to pay, instead of fairly negotiating for the use of other people's land in an open market. Acquiring land "cheaply" through the use of eminent domain does not save any money on transmission bills -- it just increases the project's profit that flows into Polsky's pockets.

Next they propagandize about the "savings" from GBE:

The project represents a special economic opportunity for the region’s rural communities which have struggled in recent times. The cheap wind power would provide significant savings to the small municipalities. What’s more, emissions would be brought down as well.

It represents additional agricultural production costs in rural communities as land is removed from production, or impeded in such a way that production becomes more expensive or impossible. It also spoils future land use. It is especially hard on small family farms, which constitute the majority of impacted properties.

So where's the opportunity? A handful of municipalities are relying on a back of the envelope calculation that was done more than 5 years ago based on energy contracts that have since expired. None of these supposed "savings" are anywhere close to real. Do the math, based on today's costs and contracts, and then tell me all about it. However, they refuse to update the calculations. That can only mean one thing: the "savings" have fallen or evaporated entirely. Propaganda not based on fact.

And here's the part that is most egregious:

Cumbersome regulations and NIMBYISM are mostly to blame for the nation’s stagnant transmission system.

The same article includes quotes from advocates of bill 2005: ‘“Grain Belt is currently working towards condemning our land,” Henke said in written testimony. “They have told us they will not negotiate with us and the price they tell us is what we get. This line will take out our shade trees in our pastures and cut through several fences. They are not willing to move the line at all to avoid some of these things that will greatly impact our farm.”’

I don’t want to completely disregard people like Henke’s misgivings, but no decision comes without a cost. At some point, we’re going to have to accept some of the costs associated with big transmission projects to reap the important benefits: Cheaper, cleaner electricity.

Excuse me there, Henry, but WE? WE??? What are you sacrificing here? You're not giving up anything at all. How dare you speak for "we" when you're not part of the "we"? If Henry was required to sacrifice his shade trees and his fences and the sanctity of his property and his ability to earn a living, along with a big chunk of his investments made to plan for retirement, like he expects the Henckes to sacrifice, I can guarantee you that Henry wouldn't think GBE was such a great idea after all. Henry only likes GBE because it's not in his back yard.

This makes Henry the biggest NIMBY of them all.

2 Comments

Powerful Farmers Harm Poor, Downtrodden Michael Polsky

4/8/2022

3 Comments

That's what this article in biased environmental rag Energy Wire wants you to believe.

They came to Missouri’s capital from small cities and towns such as Marshall and Lebanon, Odessa and Shelbina.

They’re not activists or lobbyists but city administrators and public works directors from deep red Missouri counties. They drove hours this week to push back against big agriculture and urge the majority Republican Legislature not to spike the largest energy infrastructure project in the state — the $2.5 billion Grain Belt Express transmission line.

Rrrrrright-o. Small town city bureaucrats on the clock (whether paid by the town or by Invenergy?) came like David to throw stones at "Big Agriculture" Goliath at the Missouri legislature this week. This story gets spun to make Invenergy the "victim".

The real victims are the family farmers whose properties will be burdened by the taking of new rights of way through productive fields for the express purpose of producing a profit for Invenergy's super-rich CEO Michael Polsky, who has a place on Forbe's list of billionaires. Polsky holds the power here... the power of greenbacks to buy political power and the power of eminent domain granted under antiquated Missouri laws to simply take property from family farms on a whim.

Because Grain Belt Express is a whim. It's not needed for any reliability, economic, or public policy purpose. If it was, it would have been ordered by one of the regional grid operators who are tasked with operating the transmission system. Instead, GBE is a voluntary merchant project. A merchant project is a business proposal. A businessman (Michael Polsky) proposes to build an electric transmission line between two points on the premise that power producers and power distributors will find value in shipping electricity between those two points. If the project doesn't find enough customers to make it profitable, there's no obligation to build and the businessman simply cancels the project before it is built.

Eminent domain should only be used for projects of public necessity, such as to keep the lights on. Economic desires are not a reason to take real property from private individuals.

This article wastes too much time on the supposed "savings" by these small towns.

The capacity will provide access to wind power that will cumulatively save the cities $12.8 million annually over 25 years.

That $12.8 million annual savings is complete and total fiction. Ask them to SHOW YOU THE MATH! They can't because it was calculated more than 5 years ago based on some very expensive power contracts that have since expired. Ask the cities to show you the math based on their current power contracts. Or, better yet, ask MJMEUC, who is the one actually making these deals. The small towns just go along with whatever MJMEUC negotiates for them, and MJMEUC just goes along with whatever is politically expedient and purportedly cheap, such as GBE's pie-in-the sky below cost capacity prices. You might also want to ask the towns (MJMEUC) if they are absolutely committed to the contract because, of course, they are not. MJMEUC can back out of the contract at any time, and so can GBE, if it decides not to build its project.

Invenergy must be feeling pretty scared if it is now resorting to threatening Missouri legislators.

If the promise of helping small cities save money doesn’t appeal to Missouri legislators, the threat of litigation might.

Peggy Whipple, an attorney representing Invenergy, said the retroactive nature of H.B. 2005 would put the state at risk of paying the company millions of dollars in legal damages for expenses it has already incurred.
The bill violates state and federal law on at least four grounds, Whipple said. Invenergy has already invested $52 million in the project and voluntarily obtained easements for the line across 1,200 of 1,700 parcels in Missouri and Kansas, she said. In addition, the company has executed $76 million in contracts with landowners and paid out $10 million upfront.

H.B. 2005 would require 50 percent of transmission capacity from a project to be dedicated to Missouri and it would give any county in the line’s path the power to block the project for any reason.
The provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s dormant commerce clause that prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce, Whipple said.

Honestly, Peggy, your legal theories are full of crap. You're not a judge -- you're counsel for one side of the issue. Your opinion means nothing unless and until validated by a judge. Nobody required Invenergy to spend any money on this project. Eminent domain is not necessary to the Commerce Clause. Not granting eminent domain does not violate it. Invenergy's acquisition and spending have all been voluntary. But are we reaching the tipping point? Would passing this legislation be the pinnacle where Invenergy quits throwing good money after bad and decides not to engage in an expensive and time consuming court battle where victory is quite iffy? Only a judge can decide whether or not this legislation is constitutional. It is the legislature's job to make laws. It is the court's job to decide if the laws the legislature makes are constitutional.

And it is the legislature's job to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not the financial interests of out-of-state billionaires.

Money is power in politics. However, honest legislators will do the work of the people that elected them without being influenced by politics and corporate donations.

And let's end with this...

They came to Missouri’s capital from small cities and towns. They came despite the farm chores waiting for them at home. They came to protect their livelihoods and their heritage.

They’re not activists or lobbyists but farmers and ranchers who care little about politics but a lot about their future. They drove hours this week, and have done so too many times to count over the past 10 years, in order to push back against big energy and eminent domain for private gain and urge their elected representatives not to spike their right to own and use farm land to grow the food that provides for our nation's security and Missouri's economic prosperity.

Invenergy is the one with the power and it has shamelessly tossed money and influence around at the legislature every year in order to prevent modernizing Missouri's eminent domain laws to benefit the modern people of Missouri. Missouri's position under an out-of-state billionaire's thumb needs to end this year.

3 Comments

Invenergy and Special Interest Groups Mischaracterize Legislation to Prevent Passage

4/5/2022

1 Comment

Another year, another attempt by privately-owned Chicago company Invenergy to completely mischaracterize Missouri legislation to prevent passage into law. Who controls Missouri elected representatives? Is it the citizens of Missouri? Or is it the profits of a super-rich out-of-state utility conglomerate?

HB 2005 was approved by the Missouri House and passed to the Senate, where a committee hearing will be held today. Right on cue, Invenergy, its special interest groups and biased media step right up to spin a web of lies about the legislation designed to prevent its passage.

What is HB 2005? In the interest of truth, perhaps you should actually READ it to find out what it does and what it does not do. You cannot rely on the media, who replaces actual quotes from the bill's language with alarmist rhetoric.

The actual bill does these things:

Defines "public service" to mean providing at least 50% of its capacity to serve Missourians.
Requires county commission approval of certificates to construct.
Requires transmission to provide at least 50% of its load to Missourians in order to use eminent domain.
Must compensate agricultural landowner at 150% of fair market value when using eminent domain.
Requires condemning commission to include at least one person who has been farming in the same county for at least 10 years.
If amount awarded in condemnation is greater than offer, court may award attorney's fees to property owner.

What does Invenergy and an alarmist media think this bill does?

"Pull the plug" or place "roadblocks" on GBE.
Hamper Invenergy from pursuing condemnation.
Unconstitutionally and retroactively kill GBE.
Legislation is "short-sighted."
Gives unfair advantage to fossil fuels.

Of course, the actual language of the bill does none of that. This is just generalized rhetoric trying to prevent any real reading or consideration of the legislation by Missouri senators. Kill the messenger and you don't have to read the message! What does the bill do? What the bill does, and no more.

And speaking of screechy rhetoric, let's look at some of the over-the-top claims and objections by Invenergy and its special interest supporters.

Invenergy spokesman Patrick Whitty slammed the House bill, calling it “an astonishing move in the wrong direction” at a time when global energy is in a security crisis.

“Among its many other impacts, the bill would unconstitutionally and retroactively kill Missouri’s largest energy infrastructure project, the Grain Belt Express, a project essential to American energy security that will connect millions of consumers to domestically produced, affordable, and reliable clean energy,” Whitty said. “The energy from the Grain Belt Express is the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil annually, produced and delivered right here in the Midwest.”

My, my, what timely nonsense! Now GBE is about the war in Ukraine and Russian oil? If you ever thought that Invenergy's public relations spinners are just making crap up to fit the politics du jour, here's your proof.

And look... there's the predictable "unconstitutional" claim. This is so completely dog eared and worn that it actually dates back to Clean Line Energy Partners. Constitutionality can only be determined by a court. Invenergy, its supporters, the media, and even the Missouri legislature are not a court. Their claims of unconstitutionality are nothing more than one-sided opinion. It is the legislature's job to make laws. It is the court's job to interpret them. No court has ever deemed this legislation unconstitutional, therefore it is constitutional until a court says it is not. If legislators are so scared of "unconstitutionality" that they fail to make new laws, then what's to prevent every special interest lobbyist from claiming a law it doesn't like is unconstitutional? See how that works? Claims of unconstitutionality by special interests should be ignored by the legislature while it goes about doing the people's work.

The Missouri Supreme Court earlier ruled that Grain Belt be granted public utility status because the $2.3 billion project is in the public interest.

Here's another recycled claim that holds no water. As explained already, the Court interprets the law. Under the law currently in effect, the court said GBE was a public utility. However, that law was not written to knowingly grant a private profit corporation eminent domain authority to use Missourian's private property for its own gain. If the law changes, then the Court's opinion will change. The Court interprets existing law. It does not make law. Making laws is the job of the legislature. If the legislature defines public utility to exclude merchant transmission that does not serve Missourians and only takes their property for its own private profit, then the Court shall find that GBE is not a public utility.

The project also has garnered the support of Sen. Bill White, R-Joplin, who says it will invest millions of dollars in the state’s rural areas, boost the local energy supply and help ensure energy independence.

White said Monday he had not yet reviewed the latest House bill, which moved out of the House last week on a 102-41 vote. But, he said retroactively targeting the company after it has already started buying land would be unconstitutional.

Another blast from the past. Senator White claims the bill is "unconstitutional" before even reading it. As if a Court would operate the same way? Perhaps Senator White should spend more time investigating all the new electric transmission projects proposed by MISO to cross his district before he pans legislation designed to limit eminent domain and give landowners a fair shake. Senator White's constituents are not being served here, just an out-of-state corporation. Who does Senator White work for?

Labor unions, environmental groups and the Missouri Association of Municipal Utilities oppose the changes.

Jake Hummel, a former state senator from St. Louis who now oversees the Missouri AFL-CIO, said the project will create jobs as it crosses the property of 570 landowners in eight northern counties.
“The quest for American-made energy, while creating 1,500 Missouri jobs, is an opportunity our state cannot afford to pass up,” Hummel said.

Michael Berg of the Sierra Club’s Missouri chapter said the legislation is short-sighted in a time when energy production is evolving.
“More legal barriers for wind energy transmission give an unfair advantage to the highly polluting fossil fuel industry,” Berg told members of the House Judiciary Committee.
In addition, Berg said more than a dozen communities have signed up to purchase power from the line, including Kirkwood, Columbia, Hannibal and Farmington.
“The power delivered along this line is expected to save dozens of rural Missouri communities more than $12 million annually,” Berg said.
As an added benefit, Invenergy says it will use the power lines to also offer broadband service that could bring improved internet to over one million rural Missourians, including 250,000 within 50 miles of the transmission line.

So, labor unions think GBE will provide 1,500 jobs? That's ridiculous, computer generated garbage. GBE will actually COST Missouri jobs in agriculture and in local power production. "American made energy" is another fluffy political talking point. ALL electricity used in Missouri is "made in America." If GBE is not built, it will still be made in America, and actually closer to home, right in Missouri itself. So much propaganda piled on here it insults the intelligence of the average reader.

As far as the Sierra Club goes... there is no such thing as "wind energy transmission." Electrons are not color coded and electrons from all sources are mixed together on transmission lines. There is nothing preventing GBE from carrying electricity from any source and in fact it must offer its project to any generator who will pay its price.

About those dozen communities? There are 955 municipalities in Missouri. A dozen is not 50%. As well, the $12M savings is completely out of date and was based on municipal contracts that have since expired. Since the municipalities have replaced the very expensive Prairie State contract that expired last year with something cheaper, there is no longer any legitimacy whatsoever to the $12M figure. It may be less, it may be more. In fact, GBE may actually be MORE EXPENSIVE than current contracts. Of course, nobody knows because GBE and the municipalities refuse to do the math. What are they hiding?

Broadband? Does Missouri even need this? And where is the guarantee that it must be provided as a condition of building the line? Who will pay for the last mile of line? Can Missouri even afford to finish this? And what about newer sources for internet service, such as satellite internet? Might that end up being cheaper? Why pour money into antiquated technology like broadband and overhead transmission on lattice towers? Invenergy isn't in the broadband business, but it is in the business of making empty promises to Missouri.

Buyer beware.

1 Comment

Censorship and Propaganda Will Fail

3/30/2022

1 Comment

People will always oppose new infrastructure that disturbs their life and imposes burdens without benefits. The push for renewable energy is running headlong into push back from the people. How renewable energy proponents deal with this push back is key to actually achieving renewable energy goals. Censorship and propaganda are not an effective weapon. Instead, smart developers will put their energy into avoiding impacts altogether. If there are little to no impacts on the people, the people simply won't care enough to form entrenched and formidable opposition groups that are increasingly successful in stopping projects with outsized impacts. No opposition translates into successful projects. Stop waving your red cape at the bull.

Like this NPR article about "misinformation." NPR asserts

In between posts selling anti-wind yard signs and posts about public meetings opposing local wind projects, there were posts that spread false, misleading and questionable information about wind energy.

Says who?

NPR sent Facebook a sampling of the posts from anti-renewable community pages. Facebook spokesman Kevin McAlister said in an emailed statement, "We take action against content that our fact-checking partners rate false as part of our comprehensive strategy to keep viral, provably false claims from spreading on our apps. The examples shared with us don't appear to meet that threshold as they have only even been shared a handful of times over a period of several years."

Who are these Facebook fact-checkers and what makes them experts with so much knowledge that they wield the power to shut down free speech that they find unacceptable? What ever happened to this concept?

Freedom of speech was the first amendment made to our Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Except Facebook isn't the government. It's a social media experiment that has become victim of its own success. Social media is for spreading the ideas and opinions of individuals to a wider audience assembled by the wonders of technology. It was never intended to be an encyclopedia of facts. But then the easy dissemination of ideas and opinions by real people started to get political. Dumb people with too much time on their hands began to debate, okay argue, on Facebook about politics... as if reading blather on an internet platform ever changed someone's opinion, or vote. Political beings needed to win their ridiculous political arguments, so they began to tilt the playing field to get a little extra help. They believed ad hominems to be helpful; an attack on the person with the idea, instead of the idea itself. But even that didn't quite work, so they upped the ante by simply removing these people's right to free speech by labeling their ideas "misinformation." And then they devolved into simply canceling these people by removing them from internet society altogether. Facebook, for its part, is a willing participant in this game. And it's all political. When did we start allowing political opinion to run our lives and ruin our social relationships? It think it happened right around the time 24/7 cable news shows invaded our homes. And its creeping invasion has slowly spread into today's abridging of free speech through "misinformation" claims that attempt to control your very thoughts. Simply telling someone that you don't like their idea or opinion is no longer sufficient. Instead they seek to burn those kind of unacceptable thoughts out of your brain through punishment and social isolation.

Thinkpol are no longer scary fiction. They're here, and they infiltrate every segment of our society. But no matter how hard they try, they will never erase independent thought.

There's more "misinformation" spread by renewable energy and transmission proponents than by its opposition. But control comes from claiming Thinkpol status and making biased determinations of what is true or false. It's not about facts though, it's about opinion. It's about erasing those thoughts that don't agree with the government's determination that you must sacrifice your home and your property so that other people can benefit without sacrificing their own homes and property. It's sanctimonious elitism at its finest.

But the people will continue to resist. An epic battle is brewing. Who will win is not as important as who will lose. We all lose when land use battles waste enormous amounts of money, time and energy. But what if we never have this battle at all? What if all the effort currently being poured into censorship and propaganda was instead directed at developing new energy solutions that didn't require any sacrifice? Smaller, localized energy sources where the impacts are visited on the beneficiaries have been rejected in favor of massive production and massive impacts. Why? Because certain elite are going to make massive profits owning and operating them. This includes new electric transmission, where there's lots of money to be made by creating a "need" that wouldn't exist if energy was produced where it is used.

Censorship and propaganda is eroding our basic freedoms, but it can never truly control our thoughts or our right to peaceably assemble and petition our government for a redress of grievances. There are better options than continuing our messy slide down the very slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Think about it... while you still can.

1 Comment

Putting Congress in CHARGE of Energy Regulation

3/25/2022

1 Comment

Honestly, these guys just don't know how to play fair. Several special interest groups have written a new law that ensures they will get their way in an ongoing FERC rulemaking. Congress writes law. Agencies write regulations that become the nuts and bolts of how the law Congress makes is carried out.

Last year, FERC opened a rulemaking to make new regulations governing interstate transmission planning, cost allocation and generator interconnection. FERC claimed its existing regulations had become unjust and unreasonable and no longer comported with the law Congress had made. That's justification enough to change the regulations.

FERC sought comments on its new transmission rulemaking. Lots of concerned companies, groups, and government officials responded, including a group of consumer organizations with a history of defending themselves against unneeded, unwanted transmission projects. (See initial comments here, and reply comments here.) FERC has the issue under consideration and has said it hopes to release a proposed rule by the end of this year.

However, last week Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced legislation he called the CHARGE Act. (Connecting Hard-to-reach Areas with Renewably Generated Energy - Maybe they're only hard to reach because they are energy parasites who refuse to create any energy in their own back yards?). The CHARGE Act is "endorsed by Public Citizen, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), New Consensus, Grid Strategies, and Digital Climate Action." And it sounds incredibly familiar. In fact, it's just a slimmed down version of these groups comments on FERC's transmission planning rulemaking docket. Instead of allowing FERC to finish its rulemaking docket, these special interest groups have attempted to short-circuit and second guess FERC's process by having Congress enshrine the rule they want into law. FERC might as well tear up all the stuff that hundreds of parties spent time and money creating... the spoiled babies are attempting an end run around FERC in order to get their own way in a FERC proceeding by going through Congress instead.

If this is the way things are going to proceed from now on, FERC might as well just stop doing anything except rubber stamping the political wish list of the party in power. That's pretty much what it has been doing since at least 2017, anyhow.

Maybe Congress needs to be reminded that when it created the DOE, it retained an impartial regulator (FERC) to be independent from DOE because the DOE was expected to be too political to regulate impartially and effectively?

At any rate, take a look at the CHARGE act and see if you can figure out who's missing from this FERC technical conference guest list:

(A) LEADERSHIP.—A technical conference convened under paragraph (1) may be led by the members of the Commission.
(B) PARTICIPATION.—The Commission may invite to participate in a technical conference convened under paragraph (1)
representatives of residential ratepayers, transmission providers,
environmental justice and equity groups, Tribal communities,
Independent System Operators,
Regional Transmission Organizations, consumer protection groups,
renewable energy advocates,
State utility commission and energy offices, and such other entities as the Commission determines appropriate.

This is a conference to determine transmission planning... what shall we build and where shall we build it? Who's missing? Landowners and affected communities. They are the biggest stakeholders of all because they will be forced against their will to host new transmission planned by all these NIMBYs at the technical conference. Of course they don't want to invite the people who are going to end up holding the hot potato of unwanted energy infrastructure to their conference. It's a club of the chosen who can decide to conscript your home, your business, your economic prosperity, and your future, without giving you a seat at the table.

Here's another... who is missing from this transmission advisory committee?

(b) REPRESENTATION.—The committee shall be composed of not more than 30 members, including--
(1) at least 2 representatives of end-use customers;
(2) at least 1 representative of transmission providers;
(3) at least 2 representatives of environmental justice and equity groups;
(4) at least 1 representative of Tribal communities;
(5) at least 1 representative of Independent System Operators;
(6) at least 1 representative of Regional Transmission Organizations;
(7) at least 1 representative of consumer protection groups;
(8) at least 2 representatives of renewable energy advocates;
(9) at least 1 representative of State commissions;
(10) at least 1 representative of public power entities;
(11) at least 1 representative of marketers; and
(12) at least 1 representative of generators.

Who's missing? Landowners and affected communities, again. The very people who would have to live with the new transmission.

It's not like they think landowners are represented by any of these groups. It's clear in another part of the bill that landowners and affected communities are something that must be communicated with.

(c) OFFICE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—The Commission shall consult the Office of Public Participation during the rulemaking process under subsection (a), including with respect to--(1) guidance on public participation requirements; (2) communications with the public concerning transmission planning that may impact local communities and land owners, including Tribal, indigenous, and environmental justice communities; and (3) minimum data transparency and access requirements.

The landowners and affected communities don't get invited to any committees or conferences though. And it's not like they are excluding the entire public, just landowners and affected communities. Tribal and environmental justice communities are both recognized as "the public" AND ALSO included in the committees and conferences (go ahead, compare to the first two quotes I included). This is obviously on purpose in order to exclude these very important stakeholders like they don't matter.

And then they wonder why transmission opposition forms and ends up cancelling or delaying their project?

I miss democracy.

1 Comment

Energy Independence Means Producing Your Own Energy

3/24/2022

2 Comments

How do you know when Grain Belt Express has jumped the shark? When the arguments for it turn into a politics du jour soup that make absolutely no sense.

Case in point... this op ed in the extremely biased Missouri Times (still operating in a darkened bar?).

The author drones on about energy security, energy independence and energy affordability, but I'm not sure he even understands the terms.

Energy independence means producing your own energy instead of relying on someone else to produce it and import it for your use. Grain Belt Express is not an example of energy independence. It's an effort to make Missouri reliant on imported energy from western Kansas and the Oklahoma panhandle. If Missouri replaces its local energy generators with energy imported from hundreds of miles away that depends on just one overhead transmission line across severe weather prone territory, how is that independent? It is the epitome of dependence on far away generators that cannot produce energy when called that is reliant on exposed and fragile wires.

Energy security? Ditto. The most secure energy system is one where power is produced where it is used. Relying on an 800 mile transmission line is the epitome of insecurity. Energy security also means that power is there when you need it, 24/7, not reliant on the vagaries of weather.

And then there's energy affordability. The Missouri Times uses some really out of date figures to assert that Missouri municipalities will save $12.8M per year if GBE is built. Those figures are more than 5 years out of date and relied on some numbers that no longer exist. GBE would only produce a "savings" if it replaced some existing municipal energy contracts. One of those was the outrageously expensive Prairie State contract that the municipalities signed in haste and repented at leisure until the contract expired last year. Did Prairie State actually get replaced with GBE? Nope... it couldn't. GBE still hasn't been fully permitted or built. Therefore the municipalities had to find another option for replacing that contract. No word about who, where, or how much, but I hope it wasn't as expensive as Prairie State. And, if it was not, then the $12.8M savings number collapses. When is MJMEUC going to do an up-to-date savings calculation using current costs? For all we know, using GBE to import energy from hundreds of miles away may be MORE EXPENSIVE than MJMEUC's current contract. Just the fact that the supposed "savings" have not been updated in more than 5 years tells you all you need to know about how affordable GBE will be. If it's such a great bargain, show me!

Missouri landowners cannot afford to have their productive farmland burdened with new rights of way taken using eminent domain. Missouri landowners cannot afford to have permanent impediments constructed in the middle of their businesses. Missouri landowners cannot afford to make a sacrifice so that an out-of-state energy company can make billions trying to sell power thousands of miles away to distribution utilities who don't want to purchase it.

And why should they when it's now possible to bury high voltage direct current transmission in existing rail and transportation rights of way and not have to cut new rights of way or take property using eminent domain?

There's a better solution on the horizon. It's time to retire the old technology of fly-over electric transmission. And it's high time to update Missouri eminent domain laws so that they are only used for a public use, not private profit.

2 Comments

Is Grain Belt Express Making Empty Promises in Illinois?

3/8/2022

2 Comments

Grain Belt Express is running a "virtual" open house meeting for affected landowners in conjunction with its second round of physical open house meetings across Illinois. Some of GBE's web content might surprise you, especially if you're a affected landowner in another state who got promised all sorts of things that never materialized.

Like monopoles. For years, Clean Line Energy's Grain Belt Express promised landowners that it would use monopole structures with a smaller footprint. The Missouri PSC even approved a project that used these structures, falsely claiming that only 9 acres of land across the state would be disturbed (structure footprint only). And then Invenergy bought GBE when Clean Line went out of business and began to systematically dismantle all the pie-in-the-sky promises made to landowners because there were cheaper options.

One of the first to go were the monopoles. Invenergy says on its website that all structures will be 40 x 40 (1600 sq. ft.) 4-legged steel lattice towers. Monopoles are no longer mentioned.

What do the structures look like? The structures will be lattice steel designs. The structure base will have four legs approximately 40 feet by 40 feet wide. The structures will be between 130 to 160 feet tall.

What is the footprint of the structures?
The footprint of each structure is less than 1% of the easement area. Each of the structure’s four legs will have a cylindrical cement foundation that is around 4 to 6 feet wide and about 15 feet deep. These dimensions will vary somewhat based on localized soil conditions.

But GBE's "virtual" open house says its structures could be monopoles, lattice mast, or 4-legged lattice structures. The footprint of the monopole and lattice mast structures is estimated to be 6-8 sq. ft. However, the footprint of the 4-legged lattice structure is estimated to be 27 x 46 ft. (1242 sq. ft.).

How do the structures in Illinois vary so significantly from the structures in Missouri and Kansas? The answer is that they don't. Kansas and Missouri were also promised monopoles during the permitting process, which were then switched out for the larger lattice structures after permission to build was granted. Why is that? Because lattice structures are cheaper to build and less of them are required per mile. It saves GBE money by increasing the burden on affected landowners.

What else sounds like an empty promise on GBE's virtual open house?

GBE repeats that its project will be build AT NO COST TO TAXPAYERS. What? Electric transmission is not generally charged to taxpayers. Electric transmission is a strictly "beneficiary pays" enterprise. The users of the system who receive the benefit of the infrastructure are the ones who pay for it. This concept follows through on GBE's unique merchant transmission negotiated rate scheme. Under this rate mechanism, GBE would negotiate rates charged with voluntary customers who sign up to use the line. Only those customers who voluntarily sign a contract to use GBE would pay for the line. So, if nobody in Illinois is going to have to pay for it, that also means nobody in Illinois is going to get any benefit from its use. It's a flyover project causing burden in Illinois for the benefit of electric customers in other states and regions.

GBE says it will improve reliability... but reliability for whom? Not Illinois, who will not use the project. This is nothing more than political opportunism... a scheme laid bare by other claims of "energy independence." Fact: Electric grid reliability is planned and ordered by regional transmission organizations. GBE is not a regional transmission organization project and therefore is not needed for reliability reasons. Why are you being sold "reliability" you don't need?

You're also being sold "new opportunities" that don't exist.

...providing new opportunities to local communities along the route

Fact: GBE is a high-voltage direct current line. Our electric grid is alternating current. Direct current must be converted into alternating current before it can be connected to the electric grid. Converter stations are hugely expensive and may only be located at the beginning of the line and the end of the line. Therefore, there is no way any locality along the line could use the electricity passing through. So, where's the "opportunity?" The "opportunity" to be paid a pittance for the use of your land for the benefit of others and in a way that makes the transmission project owner very, very, very, very, very, very rich. Not such a great opportunity after all.

GBE pretends that is is being responsive to landowner concerns and is designing its route accordingly. It says it learned the following things at the Round 1 meetings last month:

Proximity to homes
Farm operation impacts, including irrigation and spraying
Construction impacts including on crop yields and drain tile
Hunting/recreation
Planned/platted development

But yet it hasn't adjusted its routes at all for Round 2. And I'm pretty sure GBE "heard" suggestions that it should route its project buried along a major interstate highway instead of across private property during the Round 1 meetings. But obviously, GBE didn't listen. GBE only heard what it wanted to hear, not what was actually said. Why are there no underground and/or public right of way routing options? When will these options be developed? Will they be developed?

GBE prattles on about jobs, jobs, jobs. It's the same computer program-generated hogwash every transmission project uses to pretend its an "opportunity" for rural areas. Fact: Most jobs are specialized and workers who perform them are hired from just a handful of specialized companies who bring workers onsite from other states. There are few jobs for local workers. In addition, GBE will contract for materials and supplies from the cheapest source. They don't care if that supplier is local or not. But, like all transmission projects, GBE pretends it is going to use local workers and supplies "as much as possible." It's an open-ended, empty promise.

GBE is paying 110% of the market value of easements. That's 110% of GBE's calculated market value of your land, which may not agree with an independent appraiser's value. There's no review of this value, GBE simply wants you to trust their valuation of your property. That's like the fox guarding the hen house! When (IF!) you sign an easement, GBE will pay you 20% of the amount you are entitled to. Wait... what? GBE strikes a deal to pay you a certain sum and then only pays you 20% of that? Have you ever tried to buy real estate by only paying for 20% of it? Promises to pay the balance later are open-ended and maybe empty. When will you be paid? Is that written in the contract with a firm date? How long should you have to wait to get the full purchase price when GBE gets full access to your land once you sign? Can your contract be written so that you receive full payment on signing?

And take note that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of Clean Line Energy's structure payments.

Structure Payments In addition to easement payments, you will be compensated for any structures on your property. You can elect an upfront, lump sum payment of $18,000 per structure, or receive annual payments starting at $1,500 per-structure in Year 1 and escalating at 2% each year as long as the structures are on your property.

Looks like Illinois landowners are not getting these payments that were promised to landowners in Missouri and Kansas. After all, why try to butter up the landowners when the crooked and compromised Illinois legislature has passed an unconstitutional law written for Invenergy's benefit that grants it eminent domain in each county? GBE doesn't have to fairly compensate landowners, so why bother?

But is this whole project nothing but one giant empty promise? A merchant transmission project must have contracted customers to pay for its construction before it builds anything. Try asking GBE who its customers are... GBE has no customers other than a small group of Missouri municipalities who signed up for a measley 5% of the project's capacity at a bargain price. That won't pay to construct the project. Ask GBE if they will be posting a bond before beginning construction on a project with no paying customers?

So much complete and utter baloney. P.T. Barnum would be proud. Is he going to be at your Round 2 Open House meetings? Or just his spirit?

2 Comments

There's Nothing "Peaceful" About Eminent Domain Threats

2/28/2022

4 Comments

Invenergy sure is laying it on thick in Illinois these days. Do they think the people of Illinois don't have internet access where they can read about how the project is playing out in other states where it has been permitted by state utility commissions?

How about this article from Kansas? Invenergy is shopping around a "road use agreement" that it wants County Commissions to sign. Invenergy wrote this agreement for its own benefit. It's most likely not in the best interests of the counties, judging from this statement:

Brown said the roads would not take the wear and tear that building a wind farm would entail, as they aren’t traveling in with heavy loads such as big wind turbines. He said the transmission stations will be brought in pieces and put together on site.

The components of a steel lattice transmission tower and miles of metal cable don't weigh as much as a fiberglass wind turbine blade? Or the sections of a steel tower to hold the blade? This is ludicrous. A transmission line's components weigh as much as a wind turbine's components. Both are assembled on site, piece by piece. Who does Brown think he's kidding? Also, a transmission line will require huge AC/DC converter stations on both ends. The converter station uses enormous transformers that come fully assembled. Some of them are so huge that they cannot be moved by truck and must be brought in by rail and then trucked the last little bit to the site. That would probably produce a whole bunch of "wear and tear" on local road systems.

And because Brown is blowing smoke at the county commissions that there will be no road impacts, can we assume that Invenergy's agreement does not compensate for "wear and tear?"

And what about "wear and tear" on local landowners?

Brown also assured commissioners that the easement talks were peaceful and so far only a handful of requests have gone to court.
“We don’t want to use imminent domain,” he said. “We don’t want to use attorneys, we would rather have a conversation with landowners.”

Peaceful? Is that like a "mostly peaceful" protest where shop owners are shot and the city is in flames? Or is it more like the "peaceful" way some folks are said to pass on?

Taking private property through eminent domain, or the mere threat of it, is never "peaceful." It's stressful, maddening, and invasive. There's nothing peaceful about being forced to do something against your will. It's not a "conversation." It's a war, albeit one that takes place in legal offices and courtrooms.

If Invenergy doesn't want to use eminent domain, then why apply to use it? Facts on the ground say that Invenergy does, after all, want to use eminent domain.

... only a handful of requests have gone to court.

How many is a handful? Does that include the fistful that have been filed in Missouri as well? Invenergy claims that it has acquired 65% of the easements it needs in Kansas and Missouri. Does that mean that Invenergy will take the remaining 35% using eminent domain? Hardly a "handful."

Invenergy doesn't even mention its recent use of eminent domain in Kansas and Missouri during its PR blitz across Illinois.

“Eminent Domain is something of a last resort used here,” Pnazek said. “In Kansas and Missouri to date, Invenergy has signed up about 65% of the affected parcels on a voluntary basis, and those are the approach that we’d be taking here as well as we progress the project through Illinois.”

He conveniently forgot to mention the eminent domain filings his company has made in Kansas and Missouri.

And then there's this from Kansas...

Brown also told commissioners that there need not be concern over pushy land agents, stating that Invenergy hires reputable and credible agents but told the commissioners to contact him with any concerns.

As if Invenergy would even want to do anything about "pushy" land agents that hound landowners to sign agreements instead of going to court. The fox is watching the hen house here! Funny he didn't mention the Grain Belt Express Code of Conduct for Landowners. See all those items that begin with "do not"? That's because land agents DID these things. It's how they do their job. Coercion is a job without a moral compass. When landowners have complained about "violations" of this "code" to GBE, they have been completely dismissed. Nobody here in the hen house but us foxes!

Hope you've got your snow shovels poised at the ready, Illinois! (Or maybe another kind of shovel would be more appropriate).

4 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

How The Media Sausage Factory Cranks Out Fake News

FERC Mistakes Grain Belt Express for Shinola

How Propaganda Works

Powerful Farmers Harm Poor, Downtrodden Michael Polsky

Invenergy and Special Interest Groups Mischaracterize Legislation to Prevent Passage

Censorship and Propaganda Will Fail

Putting Congress in CHARGE of Energy Regulation

Energy Independence Means Producing Your Own Energy

Is Grain Belt Express Making Empty Promises in Illinois?

There's Nothing "Peaceful" About Eminent Domain Threats

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