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

Pennsylvania PUC Denies Transource IEC Project Application

5/24/2021

2 Comments

 
Picture
Late last week, the PA PUC voted on an Order denying the application of AEP affiliate Transource to build the Independence Energy Connection in Franklin and York Counties.  Today, the PUC issued the Order.

Denied, denied, denied, denied and denied!  The PUC also rescinded Transource's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project, and ordered all related dockets closed.  As far as the PA PUC is concerned, the Transource nightmare is over and done.  Of course, Transource may (and probably will) ask the Commission to reconsider its decision.    After that, Transource may have certain rights to appeal the decision of the PUC.  However, chances of that being successful seem to be hovering between slim and none.

The Commission adopted the Recommended Decision of Judge Barnes, except as modified in the Order.  The modifications are few.  The Commission addressed all the exceptions to Judge Barnes' decision, and granted only one.  That one was the Judge's finding of fact regarding interference with GPS systems used in farming operations.  The Commission struck that finding, but it did not change the outcome.  The second bone of contention was Judge Barnes' recommendation that the Commission should issue a Rule to Show Cause why Transource's CPCN should not be rescinded.  The Commission simply skipped bothering with another proceeding and straight up rescinded Transource's CPCN in this Order.

The Commission reprimanded Transource over several of its exceptions.  One was its contention that ALL the findings of fact by Judge Barnes should be disregarded where they don't agree with Transource's contentions.  Transource forgot to mention WHY, or provide any facts whatsoever, to support this exception.  Exceptions must be specific, or the Commission cannot even consider them.  Denied!
In its Exception No. 8, Transource asserts that the ALJ’s recommendation to deny Project 9A is based on “faulty findings” without specifying any alleged factual or legal error.  In footnote to its Exception, Transource takes issue with certain specified findings by the ALJ and asserts, as a general matter, that all the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law should be disregarded to the extent the findings “are inconsistent with [Transource’s] Exceptions, Briefs and Testimony in this proceeding.”  Transource Exc. at 39, fn. 27 (emphasis added). 
 
We note that Transource’s Exception, as stated, fails to conform with Commission Regulations for stating exceptions, and lacks sufficient specificity to enable our review.  See 52 Pa. Code § 5.533 (pertaining to exceptions, requiring that the exceptions be stated with supporting reasons for each exception).  A general assertion that all the ALJ’s factual findings and legal conclusions should be disregarded to the extent they are “inconsistent” with a party’s filings does not state a supporting reason to disregard any of the findings and conclusions.  
Transource's team of crack lawyers (the best our money can buy!) should have known better.

They also should have known better regarding their crazy contention that the PA PUC has no authority (under federal law) to deny a project ordered by PJM.  Pennsylvania must evaluate the need for the project under statute.  Pennsylvania's statute is not satisfied by abdicating to PJM's findings of need.  I think this might be my favorite part:
... “need” from a PJM planning perspective may or may not be, as Transource asserts, “consistent with the standard for need under Pennsylvania law.”  It is for this Commission, not PJM, to decide whether the PJM planning perspective is, or is not, in line with the Pennsylvania standard for “need” under the Code, Commission Regulations and relevant caselaw.
BAM!  Read it and weep, Transource.  Of course, Transource must have known that this argument would lead nowhere, and possibly tick off the Commission.  But they went there anyhow.  Was it because Transource simply had nothing else?

Pennsylvania's Consumer Advocate deserves an MVP award for its work on this case.  The Consumer Advocate provided the experts and data that demonstrated how the transmission project would cause additional costs to ratepayers in Pennsylvania, and how PJM refused to consider these impacts.  PJM's claims simply were not true, no matter what lengths it went to in order to continue to push this project along towards approval.  It's refreshing to see all the PJM flim-flam stripped away, and for regulators to evaluate a transmission proposal based on its actual merits, instead of the glammed up package presented by a regional transmission organization.  The judge and the Commission are not buying PJM's story, and are not impressed in the least by PJM's self-importance or overly-complicated geek speak.  It is what it is, and IEC simply isn't needed.
Isn't it time for PJM to fall gracefully on its sword and cancel the project as it has done in the past for the PATH project, the MAPP project, the Monmouth County Reliability Project, and others, when the need for the project simply and magically evaporated?  C'mon, PJM, the time has come!

PJM's first foray into competitive market efficiency projects has been an overly expensive failure.  Transmission congestion is fleeting, and PJM's planning process simply takes too long.  The IEC was no longer needed by the time the PJM Board approved it.  But once PJM decides it wants a project, actual need no longer matters.  It's about the project, not the process.  The lengths PJM went to in order to continue to prop up this project are truly shameful.  It's time for PJM to come to terms with reality and fix its broken processes that allowed this travesty to play out over the last five years, including the changes it made to FERC-approved mechanisms that allow PJM to ignore cost increases to parts of the region caused by projects that lower costs for others, and to ignore new generation coming online on the other side of the transmission constraint.  It has now been proven that neither one of these policies will fool a state regulator on the question of "need."  When PJM does these things, it damages its credibility as a regional transmission planner.  How many times can PJM order and support projects that are not truly needed before they are simply unreliable and unbelievable?  PJM is not acting in the best interests of regional electric consumers when it orders unneeded projects.  It's acting in the financial interests of its utility members.  How many hundreds of millions of dollars have PJM electric consumers paid in their monthly electric bills for projects that were never built?  Transource's IEC, like other cancelled projects before it, will collect all its project costs through FERC-jurisdictional transmission rates even though the project was never built.  FERC transmission incentives allow the owner of a cancelled project to file to collect all its costs in the event of abandonment.  Transource gets made whole, and even earns a return (interest) on its investment until the project is finally paid off.  But what about the citizens, landowners, and communities who made a huge investment in legal fees in order to participate in the PUC case and uncover the truth?  What do they get?  Are they made whole?  No, they simply enjoy not being burdened by a new transmission line in their community, and the personal satisfaction of victory when speaking truth to power.

If it strikes your fancy, go ahead and tell PJM what you think about their actions, and urge them to cancel IEC before it costs you any more money.

Of course, this story would not be complete without recognizing the hundreds of concerned citizens who stepped up, organized, attended meetings and hearings, and participated in the regulatory process.  Ordinary people doing extraordinary things!  Their hard work and determination changed the course of history!  Despite PJM's original "constructability" analysis that the only impediments to this project sited on "vacant land" were bats and crossing state game land, the people have proven that there is no such thing as "vacant land" that nobody cares about.  People care deeply about their land and community, and they will do remarkable things to protect the places they call home.

Let's end with my favorite quote from cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Congratulations, folks!  Let the parties begin!
2 Comments

It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is...

5/19/2021

1 Comment

 
Picture
Briefs have been filed in the Missouri Public Service Commission case alleging that Invenergy is building a materially different project than the one the PSC permitted.  If the "new" Grain Belt Express project that Invenergy announced last summer is being built, then Invenergy has effectively abandoned the project it had permitted.  No permit, no project.  Invenergy admits that the "new" project would require new approvals from the PSC, but says it alone will set the timetable for when it applies for new approvals.  Meanwhile, Invenergy wants to use its current permit to build a different project, and ask for approval after the fact.

What's the harm in this?  Two words -- eminent domain.  The currently permitted GBE was granted eminent domain authority.  The possibility of eminent domain can be used as a tool to coerce landowners to sign voluntary easements.  Without eminent domain, there is no coercion.  It's as simple as that.  However it remains to be seen if the threat of eminent domain is enough to acquire necessary easements.  How scared are landowners?  Do they believe they will get a better deal before condemnation?  Why should they?  The "fair market value" of their property will not change and will be debated  at any condemnation proceeding by a panel of their peers.  Would landowners believe that they can get more by signing a voluntary easement?  My experience with eminent domain had a different result.  Because I resisted and forced the condemning party to face a court hearing, my value suddenly went up.  It was worth a lot of money to them to avoid the court.  How much?  Six times the original offer, and double that offered before condemnation.  It's a straight up poker game... who's bluffing... and who is forced to show their hand?

Anyhow... back to the briefs.  Invenergy claimed the Missouri Landowners Alliance presented no evidence that it was building a different GBE.  The MLA brief pointed out the specific language Invenergy used in its press release and other documents  and examined the definitive nature of its statements.  It wasn't about maybe, or perhaps, it was a straight up declaration of a new plan.  For example,
Among other indications that Grain Belt now intends to materially change the original project are these additional, unequivocal statements from their press release:
● “Invenergy Transmission, the owner and developer of the Grain Belt Express transmission line project (‘Grain Belt’) today announced plans to increase local clean energy access and accelerate billions of dollars in economic investment in Kansas and Missouri.” The statement does not say Respondents “might” or “are considering” those plans. It says they are hereby announcing them.

● “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, said Kris Zadlo, SVP [with Invenergy] .... 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.” (emphasis added). No ambiguities there.

● “As the new owner of Grain Belt, Invenergy Transmission plans to increase the project’s delivery capacity to Kansas and Missouri to up to 2,500 megawatts of the line’s 4,000 megawatt capacity .... Previously, 500 megawatts of the transmission line’s capacity was slated for delivery to Missouri.” (emphasis added). Again, Respondents’ plan to increase delivery of power to these two states was expressed in unequivocal terms.

● ”Grain Belt will provide critical power infrastructure to the region benefiting residents for decades to come.”

● Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas is quoted in the press release as stating that “[t]his impressive project is the latest example of Kansas’ place as a wind energy leader in our region and beyond.”

● According to the Kansas Secretary of Commerce, “the unwavering commitment from Governor Kelly to further support renewable sources is paying off in many ways, including this tremendous step forward in the Grain Belt Express.” He is further quoted as saying that the revised project “will deliver a significant economic boost to our rural communities in particular. The news couldn’t come at a better time.”

Clearly, these statements from the two Kansas officials would have been authorized for inclusion in the press release only if those individuals had been convinced that Respondents actually plan to move forward with the changes announced in the press release. Had Respondents told them that the revised plans were merely under consideration, the reaction from the Kansas officials would no doubt have been different from what they are quoted as saying in the press release.

● A representative of Renew Missouri is quoted in the press release as saying that “the benefits of Grain Belt have only grown with billions of dollars of added savings ....” Again, this statement is nonsensical unless the speaker had been led to believe that Respondents are committed to moving forward with the changes announced in the press release.

● Perhaps the clearest commitment by Respondents to materially change the original project is the following statement from the press release: “With increased delivery to Missouri ... Grain Belt will double its overall economic investment in Missouri to $1 billion .... Grain Belt will now make available as much as half or more of the project’s total capacity for Missourians.”

The importance of this statement lies in how this additional $500 million is to be spent on the project. As Mr. Zadlo acknowledged, the additional $500 million announced in the press release represents the added cost of increasing the capacity of the Missouri converter station by five-fold: from the original 500 MW to 2,500 MW.35 One could hardly argue that this change is not material.
And Respondents did not state that they were merely “considering” or “contemplating” the additional $500 million investment, which was earmarked for quintupling the size of the Missouri converter station. Instead, the press release states unequivocally that the new plans for the project “would” double the investment in Missouri to $1 billion.
In addition to the press release, in a letter sent from Respondents to landowners just this past December, Respondents included the following statements, again made unequivocally and with no hint that the plans announced therein were anything short of a firm commitment:

● “As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project’s delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.”
● “Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt’s 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers .... This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri.” Again, Respondents do not equivocate. The new plan “requires” the expansion of the Missouri converter station. As it turns out, it requires a five-fold increase in the size of that converter station. ● “Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan.” Again, this is a firm commitment to proceed with the project as modified by the announced changes. If Respondents had not already committed to making these changes, there would be no need to state that they “will be seeking regulatory approval” for the changes. This statement also recognizes that the changes being made are “material” enough to require Commission approval under the terms of the CCN decision.

● The letter also states that Respondents will be seeking approval to begin construction of the line prior to obtaining approval for the Illinois segment of the project. This statement confirms the description of the new project in the press release as constituting a “phased construction plan.”

And as counsel for Respondents conceded, “if phasing was to occur so that the Missouri and Kansas portion of the line was built before the Illinois and Indiana portion of the line, then we would likely consider that a material change and be before the Commission.” So the newly announced phasing plan definitely constitutes a material change to the project.

● A series of emails shown at Exhibit 6 indicate that a woman named Kimberly, acting on behalf of Grain Belt, was soliciting comments from the Governor of Kansas to be used in the August 25 press release. In an email of August 6, she informed a number of Kansas officials that “The project is moving into its next phase and the company plans to announce this development.” (emphasis added). She did not tell the Kansas officials that the project might be moving into a new phase. Instead, she unequivocally assured them that the project “is” moving into the next phase.
● Finally, in
his response to Data Request No. 8, Mr. Zadlo simply answered “yes” to the following question:
Do Respondents presently plan to eventually seek regulatory approval from the Missouri Commission for the changes described in the press release attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint in this case, assuming no other significant changes are proposed to the project as originally approved?

This answer says, plainly and simply, that Respondents do in fact “presently” plan to seek Commission approval for the changes they announced in the press release. Mr. Zadlo did not say they might do so, or that they were considering that as an option. He said they will be seeking approval for those changes, which necessarily means they have already decided to make the revisions announced in the press release. It follows that Respondents have abandoned the project as approved in the CCN case.
The press release also mentions that Grain Belt will seek regulatory approvals “to the extent necessary” for the revised project. That of course is a given. Respondents have no choice but to seek regulatory approval for what amounts to a new transmission project. But that fact has no bearing on the question of whether they have already decided, as they have said, to move “full speed ahead” with the revised project. And again, the statement reinforces the fact that Respondents themselves consider the proposed changes to be “material” enough to require Commission approval.

In attempting to explain away their answer to Data Request No. 8, Respondents claim that the revisions announced in the press release are merely “contemplated changes.” But that explanation misses the point. As of today the specifics of the new plan may well be in the “contemplated” stage, with final details still to be determined.

However, that does not mean Respondents have not already committed to building the project in accordance with the announcements in the press release, as opposed to the project approved in the CCN case. In fact, they have as much as promised officials in Kansas that those changes will be forthcoming.
Perhaps at some point Respondents realized the potential consequences of their announced changes to the project. But taking them at their word up to that point, they have clearly stated they are already committed to making material changes to the project originally approved by the Commission. For Respondents to now dismiss the press release as nothing more than “a marketing exercise” simply demonstrates a complete lack of transparency and credibility.

The same holds true for their after-the-fact attempt to dismiss the press release as merely announcing the supposed benefits of the line and “an openness by Grain Belt to increase the converter station and dropoff in Missouri.” That document goes well beyond that characterization. In fact, the additional consumer benefits would materialize only if the chances announced in the press release were implemented.

The more credible statements from Respondents concerning this project are those made before the Complaint was filed here. Assuming Respondents were not deliberately misleading Missouri landowners, public officials, and the general public up to that point, those statements can only mean that they have already decided to materially alter the project approved by the Commission.
Based on the foregoing, the design and engineering of the project presently being pursued by Respondents is materially different from that approved in the CCN case.

... she unequivocally assured them that the project “is” moving into the next phase.

Is it, or is it not?  I guess that depends on what your definition of is is.  Famous words from a famous equivocator.

The language clearly stated that Grain Belt Express was being changed.  The claims about the vagueness of this new plan only came after GBE realized it had stepped in it.

Is the MO PSC going to allow Invenergy to dictate how it regulates by allowing the company to permit its new transmission project after the fact?  I think the PSC has a greater duty to the citizens of Missouri than it has to an out-of-state corporation who appears less than honest.

1 Comment

Calling all Hypocrites...

5/19/2021

2 Comments

 
When is hypocrisy not hypocrisy?  When it enables corporate profit and political goals!

The divide between using eminent domain for gas and oil pipelines and using it for renewable energy transmission lines is becoming an issue.  For years, environmental groups have raged against eminent domain to acquire right of way for fossil fuel projects.  However, they are being advised to think differently when it comes to electric transmission "for renewables."  For some reason, this use of eminent domain is okay.  Can we just admit that it never was about eminent domain in the first place?  It's about politics, and these politics are riddled with hypocrisy.

This article just goes too far.  Written by a law firm scrounging for clients who want to re-write eminent domain law, it proposes to change the definition of "public use."  Cue the Supreme Courts...

The 5th Amendment of the Constitution reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Each state has its own version of this.  What is "public use?"  Your personal definition of it may differ, but we can all probably agree what it is not... it's not the confiscation of private property by others seeking to make a profit using it for their own purposes.  I cannot force my neighbor to sell me the use of his backyard so that I can plant a vegetable garden that will enable me to open a booth at the local farmer's market and make a profit selling produce.  So why should we allow a for-profit corporation to acquire my property to build a transmission line from which they will realize profit?  We did this in the past because the transmission line enabled others to have electricity.  The public was getting a benefit from having electricity.  We use it still when it enables the public to realize a benefit.  When a transmission line is needed for reliability, for instance.  However, we need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build transmission that may lower prices for a small segment of the population at the expense of another.  We need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build transmission for political reasons.  We need to draw the line at using eminent domain to build unneeded transmission designed for corporate profit.

This law firm proposes:
Soon enough, eminent domain policies will have to evolve to align with renewable energy policies in order for a complete overhaul of the grid system to be attainable. State and federal lawmakers will eventually have to address the issue by having to revise the definition of “public use” to account for transmission lines transporting renewable electricity.
We're going to have to re-define "public use" to suit your political goals and corporate profit? 

NO!

The last time the definition of "public use" arose was in the context of a high profile Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London.  In that case, the Court narrowly decided that economic development (increasing the tax base) was a "public use."  The backlash was enormous.  Many states enacted new laws to thwart this ridiculous decision.   Any corporation can increase the tax base by turning residential property into commercial property, but are the tax benefits to the community a "public use?"

The same goes for taking private property to enable new generation choices.  Everyone who wants electricity has electricity.  Where's the public need?  It's nothing but politics, folks.

And here's something to consider that you may find surprising.  The liberal justices were the ones who supported eminent domain for economic development purposes.  Conservative justices dissented.  How might a new battle be decided?  And just how long might that take?  It would be much, much longer than renewable energy companies are willing to wait.

Can they quietly change the definition of "public use" written in the Constitution and in individual state law?  And if they did, how could they still use it to oppose eminent domain for fossil fuel use, but enable electric transmission "for renewables"?  The hypocrisy here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
2 Comments

What Will You Give?

5/5/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Joe Kalin in News-Press Now
Will you remember him when you turn on the "clean" electricity the media tells me you're "demanding?"

Read Joe Kalin's story in the St. Joseph, Missouri, News Press.
Joe Kalin has fond memories of growing up in the Buchanan County countryside.
His father came from Switzerland and turned 87 acres near Faucett, Missouri, into a successful dairy farm, where Kalin lived and worked with four brothers and a sister. Before passing it to the next generation, Kalin’s father instilled a deep appreciation for the land and its productive capacity.
“My parents both come from the old country,” said Kalin, now 84. “My father, he loved to farm. It was given to us boys as an inheritance. We were always told to take care of it, that it would care of us.”

Mr. Kalin is being threatened with eminent domain so that a merchant transmission company can build an overhead electric transmission line across his family farm. 
It’s a 780-mile, high-voltage transmission line that threatens to cut through the land that brought John Kalin to America in the 1920s. The project, known as the Grain Belt Express, seeks to transfer wind power from western Kansas to population centers east of the Mississippi River.
Perhaps for you, dear reader.  Are you a person east of the Mississippi who has been demanding "clean energy?"  Do you know and appreciate what it's going to take to fulfill your "demands?"  There are millions of Joe Kalins between your house and that fictional "Saudi Arabia of Wind" located vaguely somewhere in the Midwest.  It's time to get acquainted.  Remember his face!  And think about what he's being asked to sacrifice so that you can assuage your climate guilt by pretending the electricity you freely use is "clean." 
For his part, Kalin said he isn’t against green energy but opposes being forced to pay the price while others reap the benefits. He doesn’t want to look out the window and see 150-foot power poles where his father once saw a landscape reminiscent of an alpine meadow.
“I don’t like the government telling people what they can do and can’t do with their land,” he said.

Mr. Kalin isn't going to use any of the electricity that's proposed to cross his farm.  He gets no benefit.  Just sacrifice.  If he has to sacrifice in the name of "clean energy," what sacrifice are you making?

No, I'm serious.  I want to know what you're sacrificing for the sake of the climate.  I mean personally, not some generalized feel good buzzwords.  Go ahead, post a comment.  I want to hear from you.

Are you donating a portion of your private property for the use of a profit-generating corporation?  Mr. Kalin is being told he must allow an easement across his own property so a corporation can make money.

Are  you donating a portion of your 401(K) to some climate change reversing business?  How much?  A farmer's retirement is his land.  When his land is appropriated for someone else's use, it reduces the productivity and future uses for his farmland.  It reduces the value of his retirement nest egg.

I have yet to hear from one person demanding clean energy, just one for goodness sake, who can say their sacrifice in the name of "climate change" is as significant as Joe Kalin's.

Don't turn a blind eye to the reality of "clean energy."  And don't give me a list of "whataboutisms".  They don't impress me.  Everything you do affects someone else.  When are you going to be responsible for your own needs?  Or are you just that type of person who gladly walks over others to benefit yourself?
0 Comments

22 Transmission Ideas + Free Government Cheese = Rat Infestation

4/30/2021

4 Comments

 
He's back!  Thought you were done with Michael Skelly for good when his Clean Line Energy Partners went belly up after wasting $200M of investors' money?  Sorry.  The smell of free government cheese was apparently too much for him.  He's back... as a "founder" of Grid United.  Grid United LLC was just created a couple weeks ago and registered in Delaware.  Gosh, where have we seen all this before?
Picture
Isn't this the way the Clean Line money burner started?  I wonder if he's called up Jimmy and Jayshree to join him again?  So... what sparked this sudden interest to join the transmission world again after such a spectacular failure?

Free government cheese!  If you put out the cheese, the rats will come!

It appears that the people and corporations who will make enormous profits from overbuilding new transmission, along with "big green" non-governmental organizations who seek to fatten their own bottom line and reach their own political goals, have been elected to the White House.  It's no coincidence that the cabals seeking political power and riches beyond imagination have taken control of U.S. energy policy.  It's also no coincidence that the White House announced new actions to "upgrade America's power infrastructure" at the very same time that one of the cabals announced a new list of 22 "shovel ready" transmission projects.  It's quite clear who is in control here.  It's corporate interests.  The swamp has been rewatered and the creatures are multiplying.

Along with the 22 "shovel ready" transmission projects, the White House announced more than $8B of federal loan guarantees for "innovative" transmission projects.
“DOE is making financing available for projects that improve resilience and expand transmission capacity across the electrical grid, so we can reliably move clean energy from places where it’s produced to places where it’s needed most,” said Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm.
Holy Solyndra, Batman!  Gosh, what if Skelly could get his hands on $8B of free government cheese to spend on a new suite of Clean Line... err... Grid United... transmission ideas?  Since no private investor would be likely to give him another penny for his transmission ideas, it's up to the federal government to give OUR money away for Skelly to play with.  And where are those "places where it's needed most?"  I've been trying to get this meaningless platitude defined for years now without success.  I think it means turning rural America into an industrial power plant for urban needs.  For some reason, urban needs are "most" and rural needs are sacrificed.  Environmental justice?  No, just a bunch of hypocrites of the highest order who intend to place their energy infrastructure on precious farmland and through the backyards of hundreds of thousands of rural residents, even though these "peasants" won't get any benefit from it.  The DOE pretends that its free government cheese is only for "innovative" transmission projects, however the list of 22 "shovel ready" transmission projects includes mostly old technology  projects that have been bumping along unsuccessfully for decades.  There's nothing innovative here... overhead wires and hulking lattice structures hundreds of feet tall are something that Thomas Edison would recognize!  There are only a handful of quasi-innovative projects on the list -- those that are buried underwater or along existing rights of way.  And even then, they are based on the century-old idea of centralized generation and miles of transmission wire.  What's truly innovative?  This!  Distributed generation, making power where it's used, is our future however there is no free government cheese for this truly innovative new energy idea.

What projects are on the list?  Of course, Grain Belt Express makes the list, but it's not the project Invenergy is trying to build.  The project on the list includes the leg through Illinois, although Invenergy has announced that it only wants to build the portion through Kansas and Missouri.  It seems the "list" only includes Skelly's version of it.  Is he going to buy it back from Polsky?  Stab him in the back this time?  Completing Skelly's dream is the Plains and Eastern project.  It's on the list, although it was abandoned more than 4 years ago!  Is Skelly going to buy that one back from NextEra?  Adding to the mystery is the "new" Plains and Eastern's route.  It ends abruptly at the Arkansas border.  It does not continue through Arkansas to make the connection at Memphis that Skelly originally envisioned.  In fact, Skelly never envisioned a connection point at the Arkansas border.  What's there?  Is that a strong connection point where a gigantic 4,000 MW converter station can be built?  Nobody knows... it all seems like simple artwork fantasy.
Picture
Observing the report’s map, Skelly said, “If you squint a little bit, you can see the beginnings of what would be a nationally connected system. Obviously, there are plenty of gaps here, but … if these lines get done, then we have the beginnings of a something” that could “grow organically into a national grid.”
Ahh, geez, if you squint a bit you can also see an infestation of fat rats swarming the cheese.  A squinting transmission plan and free government cheese?  Is this what now passes for national energy policy?  Stop the crazy!  But wait, there's more...
Among the projects are a few originally proposed by Michael Skelly’s defunct Clean Line Energy Partners, including the Grain Belt Express and the Plains & Eastern Clean Line.

“The reason we put these projects on the list is because they’re sited, and they’ve got interconnect agreements, and they’ve got studies; they’re ready to go,” said Skelly, now a senior adviser at Lazard, who joined ACEG Executive Director Rob Gramlich and several representatives of the listed projects’ developers in presenting the report.

Say what?  These projects have interconnection agreements?  That is a BIG FAT LIE.  Neither of these projects have signed interconnection agreements for both ends of the extension cord.  In fact, Grain Belt Express seems to be hedging its bets about where it will interconnect lately.  Will it be Ralls County?  Will it be Randolph County?  Will it be Indiana?  Invenergy says it has no idea.  No idea at all.  In addition, nobody knows what NextEra intends to do with the Oklahoma portion of Plains and Eastern that it purchased.  It's done nothing to make a new project out of the ashes of the old one.  However, Skelly's new cabal has some more policies it wants to put in place using its new perch at the White House.

Given the scale of transmission need discussed above, other policies to enable large-scale expansion of transmission over the longer-term are also needed.

Anchor Tenant

Legislation could be enacted to direct the federal government to directly invest in new transmission lines as an “anchor tenant” customer, and then re-sell that contracted transmission capacity to renewable developers and others seeking to use the transmission line. This would help provide the certainty needed to move transmission projects to construction and overcome what is called the “chicken-and-the-egg problem,” in which renewable developers and transmission developers are each waiting for the other to go first due to the mismatch in the length of time it takes each to complete construction.

FERC Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation Reform
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has authority over how transmission is planned and paid for. FERC can use that authority to break the transmission planning and cost allocation logjams that are preventing large regional and inter-regional lines from being built. Legislation to direct FERC to use that authority could also be helpful.

Streamlined Permitting
While most authority for permitting transmission lines is held by states, federal agencies have authority over lines that cross federal lands. Steps can be taken to streamline and expedite that process, which can currently take a decade or more.

Hey, remember why Plains and Eastern failed in the first place?  It was because the TVA (federal power marketer) refused to sign on as an anchor tenant and be Clean Line's customer.  Skelly aims to fix that by requiring that the federal government hold the hot potato of transmission capacity nobody wants or needs.  The government would pay Skelly for his project and then maybe re-sell capacity to someone else as a middle man.  And if the government is as unsuccessful as Skelly at selling transmission capacity to a utility that wants it?  Well, then, no harm done.  The government can just continue to fund unneeded transmission that nobody uses... forever.  This is absurd, uneconomic and just plain stupid.

There's so much free government cheese here it makes my head spin!

Free transmission tax credits.
Free government loan guarantees.
Guaranteed purchase of new capacity.
New federal government siting and permitting.
Wider cost allocation so consumers don't notice how expensive it is.
New rate incentives for transmission.
New federal planning to increase transmission expansion.

It's like different branches of the federal government are trying to out-do each other by providing layer upon layer upon layer of new cheese handouts for transmission developers.  None of it is coordinated and designed to work together.  It's a buffet line of government handouts for transmission.  A tax credit here, a loan there, a customer contract on the side, a handful of new federal permitting authority, a bowl of new rate incentives.  This is the epitome of bloated, ubiquitous government controlling your life and your wallet.  Nose to the grindstone, little serf, we've got lots of big government to pay for!!

Let's take a sanity break for just a moment, shall we?  Nearly all of the 22 transmission projects on the "shovel ready" list are merchant transmission projects.  What are merchant transmission projects?  Merchant transmission projects are distinguished from those planned by traditional public utilities in that such projects assume all the market risks, and have no captive pool of customers from which to recoup the project's costs.  Merchant projects assume ALL market risk!  They pay for themselves.  They do not have any guaranteed stream of revenue from any captive customers.  Because they have no captive customers, they are not regulated.  Transmission with captive customers (such as the proposed federal government anchor customers, or perhaps the taxpayers who are paying for all the free cheese being handed out) must be regulated because the regulation serves as stand-in for competition in a free market.  You cannot allow these monopoly constructs to charge as much as they want when there is no competition.  But, yet, that is exactly what the federal government is now proposing.  It is proposing to make itself a captive customer of an unregulated monopoly.  It is proposing to make U.S. taxpayers captive customers of an unregulated monopoly.  If we're going to start handing cash and guarantees to merchant transmission developers, THEY MUST BE FULLY REGULATED!  When they are regulated they can no longer charge negotiated rates, and they must pass cost/benefit tests that guarantee consumers will receive more benefit than the project costs to build.  There must be a fully vetted reason to build them, aside from corporate profit.  You cannot hand public money to unregulated monopolies!

And let's end, for the time being, with a little irony, shall we?  After he flamed out in the world of transmission, Michael Skelly became an activist against highway expansion in his own hometown of Houston.  Let's take a look at his comments in a recent news article about the highway project:

Community opponents of the highway expansion said TxDOT’s only solution to ease traffic problems and congestion is to build more highways, which, besides allowing more cars on the road, also covers more city area with asphalt and concrete. This has considerably increased flooding in areas surrounding highways, many of which have suffered disproportionately since Hurricane Harvey in August 2017, they said.
Michael Skelly, a local activist with the Make I-45 Better Coalition, said TxDOT has consistently ignored residents’ input on project design despite several public hearings. “In 2015, a few of us residents got together and submitted our comments to TxDOT on a 2017 draft project,” he said. “It soon became clear they were not going to commit to anything.”

4 Comments

Moving Missouri Forward To New, Beneficial Solutions

4/23/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Missouri Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment held a hearing on SB 508 this week.  Dozens of Missourians came from all over the state to voice their support for this important legislation.  They spoke from the heart.

But a handful of folks on Chicago-based Invenergy's payroll, along with some who think they may personally profit from using the solemn power of eminent domain to force the acquisition of private property for Grain Belt Express, were also on hand to deliver company talking points opposing the legislation.

Those company talking points were balm for uneducated and closed minds.  It wasn't about reality,  it was about providing cover for those who have already made up their mind to support the project.  Let's take a look at the pure nonsense of these talking points.

1.  The legislation is unconstitutional and will result in a $30M verdict against the state.

REALITY:  It's not Invenergy's place to dictate to the Missouri legislature about the constitutionality of legislation.  Of course they said that!  It's one of the only cards Invenergy has left to play.  Constitutionality is determined by the judicial system.  Invenergy lawyers (and others in cahoots with them) are not judges.  They say whatever benefits their position that they think dumb people will believe.  As if a lawyer for one side can pre-determine what an impartial judge would decide.  Lawyers are always trying to convince people that the side they represent is right.   However there are always two sides before a judge and one of them will lose.  Which one will it be?  That's for the court to decide.

The legislature's job is to craft law necessary to serve the state and its people.  In this instance, the legislature is closing a gaping hole in the state's eminent domain law.  The statutes that allow eminent domain for public utilities are old and never contemplated the rather recent creation of merchant transmission.  There was no such thing when the current statute was written.  Back then, public utilities served the public in the state.  Merchant transmission is not a public utility because it does not have an obligation to serve all persons who want service at the same rate.  Merchant transmission serves only those who bid the highest for its service.  Only those who pay the most are allowed to use the transmission line.  In addition, Invenergy has significant financial interest in electric generation, and there's little safeguard against favoring its own financial interest in selecting the project's users.  In fact, there's absolutely nothing stopping Invenergy from deciding not to sell service on Grain Belt Express at all and instead keeping all the transmission capacity for its own use as a private driveway across the state to move its own generation to higher priced markets.  Grain Belt Express doesn't have to allow any "public" in Missouri to use the project.  Do you trust that Invenergy will keep all its promises?  You know what they say... Marry in haste, repent at leisure!

Where are all the Missouri customers?  A handful of cities who were cut a sweet deal by old owner Clean Line Energy Partners in exchange for support at the Public Service Commission is only 10% of the service the company claims it could make available in Missouri.  Why are there no other customers?  I can't find where Invenergy has even opened another bidding window to negotiate with new potential customers in Missouri.  It's almost like they're not even trying to find new negotiated rate customers in the state.

The reality here is that a substantially similar law to limit eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission projects was signed into law in Iowa four years ago.  In that instance, the legislation was inspired by a different Clean Line project, the Rock Island Clean Line.  What happened after it passed?  Was it determined to be unconstitutional and was a $30M verdict against the State of Iowa awarded?  NO.  In that instance, Clean Line scrapped its project and moved on.  No court battle, no verdict.  If the legislation was so certain to be unconstitutional and worthy of such a huge payout, Clean Line would have taken it to the court.  But it didn't.  And it's not like Iowa even lost much when the project was abandoned.  In the wake of the new law, a better solution was proposed.  SOO Green Renewable Rail is in the process of developing an underground high-voltage DC transmission project built entirely on existing railroad rights of way.  The state still gets the "benefits" of new transmission without any of the impacts to private property.  Preventing eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission turned into a big win-win for Iowa!  Why would Missouri roll out the red carpet for a dated, invasive project when it could have the latest technology without any landowner impacts instead?

The Missouri legislature could accomplish the same thing by passing SB 508.  Invenergy's threats are empty.

2.  Grain Belt Express would prevent future blackouts.

REALITY:  Texageddon has become more than it was in order to use it to push new transmission for profit.  Dig past the shallow talking points.

First of all, Invenergy has not committed to building its project through Illinois and into the PJM Interconnection grid.  Lately, it's been claiming that it will only build the Kansas and Missouri portions of the project.  GBE's chances of being permitted in Illinois are far, far from certain, thanks to an Illinois Supreme Court decision in the Rock Island Clean Line case that questioned whether merchant transmission is even a public utility under Illinois law. 

However, Invenergy is pretending it can magically reverse its transmission project and suck power out of PJM on a whim.  The legal and practical ramifications of this are not even talked about, instead Missouri is being fed a glossed over fantasy.  Reality is that GBE's customers will own all the transmission capacity on the line... 100%.  Invenergy has not explained how it can commandeer that capacity back from the customers who own it in order to sell it to someone else for a different purpose.  In the Texageddon situation, which Invenergy spins for its own purpose, additional transmission would not have been useful.  Surrounding areas were also low on generation due to the weather event.  There simply was no power to be had.  Grain Belt Express is not for the purpose of "reliability," it's simply a profit center for Invenergy.  Building a DC transmission line with limited connection to Missouri's grid does not create reliability benefits.  If it did, the project would have been planned and ordered by one of the regional transmission organizations, such as SPP or MISO.  That it was not speaks to the lack of reliability "need" for GBE.

3.  The PSC and the Court has approved and upheld GBE's use of eminent domain.

REALITY:  The PSC shoehorned GBE into existing statute, although the statute did not contemplate merchant transmission and was a poor fit.  It's just the only statute that it had.  Ditto for the Court.  The PSC is a creature of statute.  It receives all its power from the legislature, not the other way around.  Likewise, Courts only interpret existing law, they do not create new law.  They have to work with what they're given by the legislature.  It is the Missouri legislature's job to craft the statutes that the PSC and the courts use for merchant transmission projects.  

Isn't it time for Missouri to update its statute to fit today's reality?  Opposing this legislation is nothing more than anchoring Missouri in the past where huge, outdated, overhead lattice transmission towers impede Missouri's agricultural progress and destroy the right to own and enjoy private property.  It is a wrong-headed obstruction to the possibility of a new, profitable energy future for Missouri.

Support SB 508!
0 Comments

Evasive, Defensive, and Quarrelsome

4/16/2021

2 Comments

 
That pretty much sums up the demeanor of the Grain Belt Express witness and counsel yesterday during the Missouri Public Service Commission Hearing on a complaint filed by Missouri landowner groups.  The complaint alleges that GBE has materially changed the design and engineering of the transmission project that was approved by the Commission in 2019.

Grain Belt brought this on itself by its big announcement last summer that it was changing its project to deliver not just "up to" 500 MW of electricity to contracted customers in Missouri, but that it would deliver 2500 MW of electricity to consumers in Kansas and Missouri, a 5 fold increase.

The MO PSC Staff witness also seemed quite evasive and quarrelsome, taking forever to answer complainant's questions and concocting non-answers.  If there was nothing untoward going on here, the staff witness should not have had any trouble communicating and answering questions.  After all, he's supposed to be impartial, right?  Working in the best interests of Missourians, right?  Why did he sound like he'd just consumed a whole bunch of
Picture
It wasn't just normal abnormal demeanor, because the demeanor changed when the judge was asking questions (but not necessarily the hedging and long thinking pauses).

Let's start with GBE's counsel who was just way too aggressive.  Counsel objected to witnesses, objected to evidence, insisted public information was confidential, objected to questions, and kept asking to have the case dismissed before it could even be heard.  Seems like odd behavior for a company who is doing nothing wrong, doesn't it?

Counsel told the PSC during its opening (38:33 on the video) that the design and engineering of the Grain Belt Express project would only be determined after construction.  In that case, why even bother permitting it ahead of time?  Let's just let transmission developers build whatever they want, however they want, and let them tell us about it after the fact. Iis GBE admitting it has no plan for its transmission project?  That it's just building willy-nilly without a plan?  It seems like GBE had a definite plan for design and engineering of its project at the time it filed an application back in 2016, and it had a definite plan when that project was approved by the Commission in 2019.  Now we learn that GBE apparently isn't following ANY plan whatsoever... just making it up as it goes along so that there is never a material change to its existing plan.  If there is no plan, there's nothing to change, right?

GBE counsel also had a whiny moment around 42:00, when it bleated angrily about complainants raising money for lobbying at the state capitol.  Nice to know that our contributions made GBE so angry, isn't it?

GBE counsel also made a change to stipulated facts submitted earlier.  He explained that the stipulation that no construction has occurred was no longer true.  GBE has begun construction, although he was really vague about it.  Since there is no plan, and design and engineering for the route is only 30% complete, (Kris Zadlo, 2:51) what the heck are they doing?  Constructing a single tower in each county, like a dog marking its territory?  Are Missourians supposed to be intimidated by that?  Or are they just symbolic "construction starts" meant to prevent the CPCN from expiring this year?  Those wind companies sure know how to pretend to construct things that they're not actually constructing in order to qualify for tax credits from the federal government, don't they?
Picture
But, hey, guess what?  That's not how real transmission developers build projects.  They actually have checked and double checked design and engineering plans before they build anything.  They have their substation (interconnection) sites nailed down before any route design.  How could you design a route if you don't know the beginning and end point?  Once a real transmission developer begins building, it's a continuous line.  It saves the cost of transporting material and workers all over the place to construct random towers across the state.  It also ensures whatever it builds lines up correctly.  I'd hate to see how these guys lay tile... one piece here, one piece there, then hope you can fill in the empty spaces to complete the project?

But we really should give the evasive, defensive and quarrelsome trophy for the day to Invenergy's Kris Zadlo (or Zaldo, as the judge repeatedly referred to him).  Whatever his name is, he's not somebody you'd ever want to find answering your questions.

Zaldo said the GBE's press release announcing changes to the project was "a marketing exercise" to indicate GBE's openness to exploring the potential of dropping off more power in Missouri. (2:20).

Dropping off?  Like Door Dash or something?  The only "dropping off" would be if a customer contracted to take delivery at that point, right?  It's not like GBE is the Johnny Appleseed of free electricity.  So, is Zaldo saying that GBE was just trying to drum up customer interest in Missouri?  You'd think they would first want to sell the full 500 MW they first offered to Missouri, before trying to offer 5 times as much, right?  This whole "marketing exercise" thing rings hollow.  Maybe the judge should have asked him if his marketing exercise actually turned up new customers?

And, demonstrating just how argumentative he could be, Zaldo claimed just a minute later (2:21) that he never mentioned the press release.  He also claimed there is no design for the converter stations at all, and then claimed that the only material difference between a 500 MW converter station and a 2500 MW converter station was that "it would be bigger." (2:27). This guy's pretending to be an engineer?  I wouldn't let him build a lego set.

But perhaps the evasiveness reached its pinnacle when the questions about grid interconnections began.  GBE's counsel used plenty of interruptions, objections, and claims of confidentiality to try to derail this line of questioning.  Got something to hide, GBE?  Your behavior gives you away.

Zaldo finally admitted GBE had "multiple" interconnection requests at MISO.  When pressed to define "multiple" he said "about 5." (2:33:20).  When asked if all 5 were located at the original interconnection point for 500 MW, Zaldo waved his special magic cape of confusion once again. (2:35).  When asked if the other requests were significantly farther away... or at different places, Zaldo claimed they were not far apart because they're "all in Missouri."  Uhh... sport... Missouri is a big, BIG, BIG place.  Building a big converter station in Ralls County (original plan) is materially different than building a gigantic converter station in Randolph County (new interconnection request points).

Zaldo admitted GBE had "a couple" interconnection requests in PJM as well.  He couldn't recall the capacity.  (2:36)  Is that because the PJM interconnections had shrunk in size from the original plan?  Turns out GBE has only requested 2,000 MW of interconnection to PJM. Maybe, Zaldo isn't sure.  The original plan called for 3,500 MW and counted on the higher prices in PJM to make the project profitable enough to construct.  If GBE has cut its revenue from PJM by a significant percentage, does that mean that electric consumers in Kansas and Missouri would have to pay more in order to make the project marketable and profitable?  I thought Kansas ratepayers were not allowed to pay for ANY of the project without permission from the panacotta-fueled KCC?

At this point, GBE's counsel attempts to hand Zaldo a "safe word" to get out of a really tough interconnection question by claiming confidentiality. (2:38)  It didn't take long for Zaldo to use it.  And off they all went to a confidential break out session.

Really, GBE?  Your interconnection requests are public information on the MISO and PJM websites.  It may not have your name on it, but who else is requesting to make large HVDC connections along the GBE route?  We've known about your changing interconnection requests for quite some time.  Interconnection requests are not cheap, and they not frivolous actions that can be made and withdrawn with great frequency.  Changing interconnection requests indicate material change of plans.  Perhaps the most important thing about a transmission project is its ability to interconnect to the existing transmission system.  Without that interconnection, the project is nothing but a floppy extension cord not plugged in on either end.  No wonder GBE was so defensive, evasive and quarrelsome about changing interconnection requests.  That, perhaps more than any other evidence, demonstrates material change.

Parties will file post-hearing briefs by the middle of May, and the judge will make his recommendation afterwards. 

Let's hope the PSC finally recognizes that Invenergy *could* be scheming to string the state along while it builds a completely different project.  Maybe it could be a generation tie line for Invenergy's exclusive use to move its generation across Kansas and Missouri in order to sell it at a higher price?  Why would the PSC allow Invenergy to threaten landowners with eminent domain takings for such a project?  Why is Invenergy claiming to be constructing the project when it doesn't have all its easements?  Why has Invenergy not yet filed any condemnations?  Why is Invenergy hiding behind the old GBE project in order to use the threat of eminent domain against landowners?  It's a mystery.

An evasive, defensive and quarrelsome mystery.
2 Comments

Updating an Old Law to Reflect Today's Reality in Missouri

4/13/2021

3 Comments

 
Picture
Ever read something and feel that it made you dumber?  That's pretty much my summation of a news article and OpEd that recently appeared in Missouri, along with an article in a law school journal.  A law school journal?  Isn't that supposed to be an in depth examination of the law using facts?  The things they're teaching kids these days...

Let's start with the law journal piece, because it's just so much fluffy opinion.

Missouri’s Chance at Low-Cost Renewable Energy ‘Gone with the Wind’? in the St. Louis School of Law Journal uses references to opinion pieces to make its point.  Is that how current law students intend to win future court battles?  "Because Sierra Club told me this should be my opinion, therefore, it shall also be the opinion of the Court...".  All "facts" are unproven, one-sided claims and studies.  There is no balance here.  If this was a journalism student writing for the school newspaper, he should receive a failing grade.  But it's law, where reality is molded to support a desired outcome.  Works great unless there is an opposing side. And there's always an opposing side!  Maybe the author should have spent more time researching eminent domain and its requirement that property taken must be put into "public use."  Public use and public "benefit" are two separate things.  The public may not use  Grain Belt Express.  It's a privately owned project for the exclusive use of its selected customers.  Just because some wrongly believe it provides some economic public "benefit" does not mean it's for public use.  Building a Walmart in your Mom's backyard would provide economic benefits to the public, right?  Or how about a casino in your spare bedroom?  A McDonald's next door?  All businesses spur commerce, new taxes, and convenience to users, however we don't use eminent domain to site them.  It's not like anyone can come in off the street and sell its cheap Chinese goods at Walmart, sell their own burgers at McDonald's, or set up their own shell game in the casino's lobby.  That would be public use.  I hope the law school soon includes a class on the 5th Amendment, maybe some study of Kelo v. City of New London.  It's desperately needed before these new lawyers are unleashed on society.  This piece discusses political opinion, not the law.

Next let's look at this article in The Kansas City Star.  It also concentrates on purported "benefits" and opinion, not the law.  Granted, it is a newspaper, but the article is about proposed legislation to change the law.  Shouldn't they be concentrating on the law?  There's nothing in there that sheds any light on changes to the actual law, or why legislators and voters believe the changes are necessary.  It nothing but a trojan horse of "benefits" that aren't really necessary.  It toots loud and long about "reliability" benefits, claiming that GBE will bring "needed" reliability to the electric grid.  However, reliability is something studied, planned and ordered by regional grid operators, such as Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO).  If you need new transmission for reliability, SPP or MISO will order it to be built.  GBE has not been ordered for reliability.  It is a merchant project planned by private interests for their own pecuniary gain.  Its only purpose is to make money for Invenergy.  It's "reliability" you don't need.  If you did, SPP or MISO would order it, but they have not.  It also makes some crazy claims about the ability to redirect the project to bring power to Missouri from Indiana, instead of the other way around.  Maybe that would work if it was a public access transmission line, but it's not.  GBE plans to sell 100% of its capacity to generators on the Kansas end of the line and load serving entities who supply power to consumers at the Indiana end of the line.  These entities would own all the capacity on the line for their own use.  The idea that MISO or SPP could commandeer this private use transmission line and use it to ship power from generators in Indiana to load serving entities in Missouri doesn't work.  How would the contracted customers be compensated for that?  What would happen if the load serving entities on the Indiana end of the line were counting on GBE's capacity to meet their own power needs, and GBE suddenly stopped delivering power and, instead, began sucking locally generated power out of Indiana for use by load serving entities in Missouri?  There's a lot more to this story that isn't told.  It's an idea that makes little sense but it is spoon fed to an ignorant public as possible.

The article also attempts to convince that we need to "upgrade" the wider electric grid, and GBE will accomplish that.  No, not even close.  Our current grid is often compared to an interstate highway, open for the public to use.  However, GBE is not a part of the wider electric grid.  It's a private toll road from Kansas to Indiana that charges a fee to its contracted users.  Only those contracted users can use the highway.  It does not provide benefit to communities crossed because they cannot use it.

In addition to providing a source of affordable, renewable energy to communities along the route, Invenergy says it expects to provide broadband capability to internet service providers — connecting as many as 1 million Missourians with high-speed internet.
No, it does not provide a source of energy to communities along the route.  And it doesn't provide broadband either.  Just putting broadband capabilities on the project does not connect communities along the route.  The communities would still have to make the connection and construct the "last mile" of infrastructure that makes the actual connection to users, and that's expensive.  Another "benefit" that's not useful.

And then perhaps we should consider the comments of Invenergy's Kris Zadlo, and maybe the MO PSC wants to consider them as well during its hearing this week regarding purported changes to the project.  Is Invenergy changing the project?  Depends on what day it is.  In some media, they claim they will build the project without the leg through Illinois that connects to Indiana, and increase the offering of capacity to Missouri.  But it tells the PSC it's not changing the project... and then it reverts back to the original project it had permitted for purposes of lobbying against new legislation.  Which is it, Invenergy?
Aside from Missouri’s proposed legislation, Zadlo said the project only needs final regulatory approval in Illinois before construction begins. It’s expected to be online by 2025, he said.
Invenergy has more personalities than Sybil!

Last, let's take a look at today's Op Ed from Senator Bill White in The Missouri Times (still pretending to be a news source?)

White claims that the legislation is unconstitutional because it changes the law.  Hang on a minute... is he saying that the legislature is prevented from changing the law?  The legislature's job IS to change the law! 

GBE was approved using a law that doesn't fit.  The MO PSC's authority to approve transmission and grant eminent domain was created before merchant transmission was invented.  The  law was written for public use projects that the PSC determined were needed for reliability, economic purposes, or to provide service to customers who don't have it.  Missouri doesn't have any laws regarding merchant transmission, therefore the PSC tried to shoehorn GBE into the existing law, even though it was a poor fit.  The current legislation amends the existing law to include provisions for merchant transmission.  Because merchant transmission is for private profit, and not for public use, it shouldn't receive eminent domain authority.  It is entirely within the purview of the legislature to update existing laws to fit today's reality, and that's exactly what the legislature proposes to do.  Senator White purports that Invenergy could sue the state for making new laws that frustrate its profits.  How ridiculous is that?  Why is Senator White inviting an out-of-state corporation to sue the state for making laws that benefit its citizens (but not necessarily foreign corporations)?  Does Invenergy want to invest more time and lots more money engaging in a long-term legal battle?  At some point, Invenergy needs to cut its losses and move on.  Either bury this project on existing rights of way to quell landowner opposition, or abandon this project entirely.  What would people in Senator White's district think if a merchant transmission project was granted eminent domain to take their land?  I don't think they would be any happier than landowners in other parts of the state.  White isn't thinking long term for the benefit of his constituents, he's only thinking about the immediate effects in his own backyard.  Not In My Back Yard?  Sure, great, let's build it!  How short sighted and self indulgent is that?

Every year about this time, Chicago-based Invenergy pours money and influence into Missouri in order to protect what it sees as future profits.  Isn't it about time for Missouri to shrug off out-of-state lobbying and make laws that benefit its citizens?  Support HB 527!

Why is this legislation needed?  Because existing eminent domain laws are dangerously out of date.  Changing old laws to reflect today's reality provides vital protection to Missouri's citizens!
3 Comments

About Those Overhead Cash Registers...

3/9/2021

2 Comments

 
The best ever euphemism for aerial merchant transmission is back. 
Overhead Cash Registers
We first saw the term bandied about in public in 2018, when one fake news source gushed about a renewable energy conference that was being held.  But the writer got so excited about it all that he captured the private love language of renewable developers and shared it with the public.  Who couldn't love that?

Now the "overhead cash register" euphemism rears its ugly head again in this article from Recharge.
On the other hand, a fully utilised and well-managed 50-plus-year merchant wire asset delivering an initial several gigawatts of electric power could be a potential overhead cash register for its owners.
Let's see... a merchant wire asset delivering an initial several gigawatts?  Sounds an awful lot like the Grain Belt Express project, doesn't it?

So the industry thinks GBE is an "overhead cash register" for Invenergy?  Maybe the real reason Invenergy bought the project and continues to try to build it is simply for profit?  When you strip away all the green propaganda, that's exactly why Invenergy is building it.  It's all about the Benjamins, my friends.
Picture
And Invenergy thinks it should be allowed to use eminent domain to take private property for its "overhead cash register" money-making scheme?

That's not what eminent domain is for. 
Eminent Domain:  the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.
Missouri's Public Service Commission made a mistake by not recognizing the differences between GBE and an open-access transmission line for public use, and then granting eminent domain authority to Invenergy.

Now the Missouri legislature must step in to make a correction.  There's nothing stopping Invenergy from negotiating with landowners to purchase an easement at a fair, open market price.  Invenergy should not, however, be permitted to use the sledgehammer of eminent domain as a threat to acquire easements easily and cheaply.

If GBE is going to be such a money-maker for Invenergy, it should not enjoy the government's power to take land from private owners to make a place for its overhead cash register.

And now let's take this blog in a little bit of a different direction inspired by another news story.

This big transmission cheerleader took a break from urging Congress to make transmission siting and permitting a federal affair under FERC's jurisdiction to write about a revolutionary new idea to build the transmission they want without the opposition from landowners.  Say what?  Yes, there is a project in the works that would build new transmission buried in a shallow trench completely within existing rail rights of way.

Isn't that a better idea?  Without landowner opposition, transmission projects usually sail through permits and siting.  However, companies like Invenergy have been complaining for years about how expensive and infeasible it is to bury HVDC transmission on existing rights of way.  Well, guess what?
But it’s also because developers still have an inflated sense of the cost of undergrounding lines. The news hasn’t widely spread that modern lines require less conducting metal, horizontal drilling has been perfected by natural gas frackers, and inverter stations are as little as 25 percent the size they used to be.
Here’s what Dr. Christopher Clack, an energy modeler at Vibrant Clean Energy (VCE), told me:
"Data that I was provided from Tier 1 transmission vendors shows that the cost of underground HVDC transmission has a similar price point to the same overhead capacity of HVAC when the transmission line is over approximately 250 miles. This includes the cost to build inverter and rectifier stations at each end."

And of course the sticker price of building overhead lines does not include the unpredictable expenses of regulatory hassles and intransigent landowners. A line can not be cheap if it never gets built.

In terms of long-distance transmission, underground HVDC is now the smart choice.

Just think of all the money Invenergy could save on transmission towers, and separate deals with each landowner along its route, not to mention the expensive propaganda and lobbying campaigns Invenergy engages in every year about this time...

But wait... Invenergy prefers to build an outdated, hated, overhead cash register?  Why, Invenergy, why?

Is it because you think outdated, intrusive transmission is going to make your cash register ring a little louder at the end of the day, especially if you can use eminent domain to take private property at a bargain basement price?

Maybe if Missouri stopped enabling Invenergy's abuse of its citizens, better solutions could happen?
2 Comments

Invenergy Calls Landowner Eminent Domain Concerns "Fake"

3/2/2021

1 Comment

 
Picture
No, really!  Yes, my jaw dropped, too.  How DARE they?

Here's the entire quote in a new article from a publication named The Center Square.
Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley said the bill was expected and is no different than previous efforts to use property right concerns as a fake reason to derail the delivery of “clean energy” overwhelmingly supported in Missouri and across the country.
So Beth thinks opposition to GBE is just an effort to derail delivery of clean electricity?  Any landowner concern about eminent domain is merely "fake" window dressing?

She's really, really, really gone and done it now.
And she should know better.
She was bought up from Clean Line along with the GBE project.  She's been working on this project as long as you have.  Beth thinks landowner concern about property rights has been nothing but an act for 10 years?

You know, 10 years is a long, long time for busy farmers to carry on a "fake" grassroots movement to prevent "clean energy."  Like farmers have nothing better to do than spend a decade of their lives, and a big chunk of their savings, just to make sure "clean energy" isn't delivered to Missouri and other states.

Landowners across Missouri have shown up in Jefferson City to support property rights legislation again and again.  I've honestly lost track of how many years legislation has been proposed.  Does Beth think it's easy for these folks to take a day out of their work schedule to travel to the capitol?  Unlike Beth, these people never take a day off.  Animals still must be fed and cared for.  Crops still need attention.  There are a million different things farmers need to accomplish every day, and there is no time clock to punch out for a day to visit Jefferson City just to fight against "clean energy."

What is wrong with you for suggesting such a thing, Beth?

Missouri landowners are about the most genuine people I know.  They don't have time or money to play fake political games.  They are fighting to protect their property rights because they are deeply concerned.  They are concerned that their generational farms are being slowly gobbled up by development for benefit of others far, far away.  They are concerned that construction of a new transmission line across their farm is going to hinder their productivity and lower their yield.  They recognize that GBE isn't a necessary power line needed to provide electric service to their neighbors who don't have it.  Instead, it's a private, for-profit roadway through their farms that's going to make Invenergy a bundle of money.  GBE won't benefit these landowners in the least, and for their trouble Invenergy wants to pay them a "market value" pittance.  Worse yet, if the landowner resists Invenergy's offer, Invenergy wants to use the solemn power of the government to condemn and take the land of uncooperative landowners.  Nothing at all "fake" about being concerned about that.

Maybe Beth should take a look in the mirror?  After all, isn't there an active complaint at the Missouri PSC regarding Invenergy's fake claims about what project it's trying to build?  Beth herself claimed in a podcast that Invenergy was building transmission for gen tie and started that ball rolling.  Invenergy has been all over the media (and at the Kansas Governor's place) touting its changed plans.  But yet, Invenergy has been telling the MO PSC that its project hasn't changed a bit and that it's still entitled to use the threat of eminent domain to coerce landowners to sign agreements.

Seems to me that Invenergy is the fake one.  Pretending to build one thing while planning another.  Pretending it's about to condemn property in order to get landowners to sign early and cheaply.  Pretending that it's bringing "benefit" to Missouri.

Pretending that GBE could prevent a Texas-style power outage in Missouri.  Now that's really FAKE!  The project Invenergy says its building in Missouri will sell 100% of its capacity through negotiated contracts with load serving entities in other states (less a tiny fraction for Missouri municipalities looking for a free lunch at the expense of landowners miles away).  Another option for Invenergy is to sign with a generator who wants to deliver to customers at the other end of the line.  The point is that ALL GBE's transmission capacity will be owned by other entities.  These entities control what flows over GBE and where it goes.  Beth and Invenergy cannot commandeer GBE back from the customers who own its capacity in order to ship energy to other customers elsewhere.  So, let's say another big freeze happens across the Midwest and Missouri's generators freeze up and go offline (this would never happen because Missouri generators are protected from winter weather).  If that happens, Missouri would need a big shot of power to keep the lights on.  Except Missouri's neighbors are probably also having issues and have no power to spare.  Even if they did, unless they owned some of GBE's capacity to use for this purpose (or could purchase or rent it through someone who did), GBE is about as useless as a bucket underneath a bull.  GBE is not a public access transmission project that anyone can use.  It's a private transmission project for the exclusive use of private customers who pay the most to use it. 

Grain Belt Express should not have the power of eminent domain. 

Beth needs to get herself back to the land of the fake in Chicago and quit insulting rural Missourians.  Does she really think that's going to help the situation?  Make sure your legislator knows exactly what Invenergy thinks of Missourians.

The race is on... who is going to stop Invenergy's fake condemnation of private property in Missouri first?  The legislature, or the PSC?
1 Comment
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.