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

Advice for GBE Landowners

7/30/2020

1 Comment

 
Picture
Good advice for Missouri landowners from Block Grain Belt Express this week:
Denlow and Henry Law Firm Packet
By now, landowners on the path of Grain Belt Express have likely received a packet in the mail from the condemnation law firm, Denlow and Henry of St.Louis, Missouri.  While most of the information in the packet is accurate and helpful, the third sentence of the first paragraph states that the Grain Belt Express project has been fully approved. As discussed below, this statement is somewhat misleading. The project has not been fully approved.
 
Grain Belt/Invenergy Has Not Been Fully Approved
Grain Belt Express has not been approved in Illinois.  In fact, the company has not even applied for the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the Illinois Commerce Commission, the state’s equivalent to our Public Service Commission. That application process could take 18 to 24 months. There is no guarantee it would be approved when it does apply.
 
Grain Belt also must obtain consent from each of the eight Missouri counties it is slated to cross before it can begin construction.  And, to the best of our knowledge, after it was granted permission to build the line in Missouri the company has not approached any of the eight impacted Missouri county commissions for their consent.
 
Finally, the company has not yet obtained the financing to construct the line and doing so would require the project to be fully approved.
 
Reminder of Landowners’ Rights
At this time, neither Grain Belt Express employees nor any of its contracted agents including surveyors may enter a landowner’s property without the landowner’s permission.
 
Furthermore, landowners are under no obligation to allow access to their property for any reason.  They also are under no obligation to talk or negotiate with the company’s representatives or agents.
 
Grain Belt is currently Attempting to Acquire Easements from Landowners Voluntarily. The offers to purchase easements by land agents do not constitute the required 60 day notice of intent to condemn property.
 
We do not expect Grain Belt to begin condemnation proceedings until all the regulatory approvals and financing have been obtained. Easements obtained through condemnation would be very much more expensive for the company than those acquired by negotiation.
 
Owners Need Not Contact Attorneys until Receiving the Required 60 day Notice
As we have said many times before, we believe landowners faced with condemnation will fare better if they retain an experienced condemnation attorney. At this point, however, condemnation attorneys are not likely to get involved.  Only after the 60 day notice of intent to condemn has been sent to landowners will condemnation attorneys normally get involved.
 
We suggest that landowners do not sign anything. However, if you are inclined to do so, we do suggest you either call us or an attorney before signing anything the company or any of its agents ask you to sign.
 
Important Factor about Easements Obtained Through Condemnation
Another reason why we believe landowners will fare better if they retain a condemnation attorney rather than sell an easement to GBE outright is the Public Service Commission approval order of GBE. The order stated that all easements acquired through condemnation must be dissolved with full ownership reverted back to landowners without reimbursement to the company if financing for the construction of the line has not been obtained after five years by the company.
 
However, the Public Service Commission did not order GBE to dissolve the easements purchased from landowners voluntarily nor has the company made any commitments not to seek reimbursement for payments they made for negotiated easements.
 
Landowners should remember that although it was approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission, GBE still lacks key approvals and financing. We should also remember that the Grain Belt/ Invenergy project is a highly controversial, privately owned speculative project that does not meet the typical public use requirements required by most states. That is, the project would not service all users in a territory and that all users of similar types are charged the same rates. Instead the company would deliver power only to utility companies at rates it would negotiate with each one separately. And the project certainly is not necessary to bring electricity to any area in Missouri or to update the grid in any way. GBE seeks to acquire, through condemnation, if necessary, approximately 800 miles of easement through thousands of farms and other private properties across three states.          
So, what's the rush?  GBE is in a big hurry to coerce landowners to sell easements voluntarily right now.  This should be a GIANT red flag for targeted landowners.  No matter how much GBE threatens to use eminent domain to hurry landowners along, it's an empty threat designed to acquire easements as quickly and cheaply as possible.  Under the law, landowners will receive a 60-day notice before condemnation is filed.  Landowners can safely ignore GBE until that happens.  In the event it does, landowners are safer going the condemnation route than signing voluntarily.

I'm going to tell you a story about my own experience with eminent domain and how I got the best price possible for my land by holding out until the bitter end.  It's not the first landowner to sign that gets the biggest payday, and it's not the landowner who signs somewhere in the middle of the process.  It's the landowner who holds out until the condemnation hearing.  I used to own undeveloped land that had been in the family for years.  We'd been faithfully paying our taxes and holding on to it for future use.  But then the county got into cahoots with a developer who wanted a large parcel of land for a private development.  The county attempted to acquire this big parcel by piecing together a bunch of small, undeveloped parcels held mostly by out-of-state landowners.  The county's first offer was insulting... it wasn't even as much as we paid for the property 30 years ago, never mind the taxes we had paid to the county over that time period.  I refused to negotiate.  Then a second offer showed up, more than the first, but still low-ball.  Then the threat of condemnation showed up.  I got a lawyer.  With my lawyer, we continued to reject the county's increasing offers while the case headed to condemnation hearing.  Literally on the court house steps on the day of the condemnation hearing, the county finally made an offer I could accept, and the deal was done.  I was one of only a handful of landowners who had resisted all the county's efforts, and it was worth a bundle to the county not to have to face the judge.  How much did my resistance yield?  The offer I accepted was six -- 6 -- times the county's original offer.  Lesson:  It pays to be stubborn in a condemnation situation, and it is the landowner who holds out the longest that gets the biggest pay day.  The county/company cannot afford to pay everyone top dollar, but it can afford to pay it to a handful of stubborn landowners at the end of the process just to get their project done.  Be that landowner!

Grain Belt Express doesn't have all its permits, and has not even applied for some of them.  The question you may want to ask yourself is why they're willing to spend money acquiring part of the land they need for a project with no substantial customers and no financing?  This is not normal.  It's risky behavior that most corporations shy away from.  Remember Clean Line?  It lost around $200M of investors' money engaging in risky behavior by spending so much on projects that didn't have permits or customers.  Are we supposed to believe Invenergy has no sensitivity to risk?  That Invenergy has pockets so deep that spending millions acquiring easements for a project that is not fully permitted means nothing?

I didn't fall off the transmission turnip truck yesterday.  Invenergy is up to something.  Does it think it doesn't need a permit in Illinois?  Does it think it doesn't need county assent?  Does it think it doesn't need customers?  Hmmm... who creates a giant money suck without a revenue stream to balance it out?  Maybe Invenergy doesn't actually want to sell transmission service to others?  Maybe Invenergy wants to be its own transmission customer?  That situation could be very profitable, but it's unlikely eminent domain could be used to condemn easements for a private use transmission line.  Is Invenergy nothing more than a paper tiger, trying to acquire easements voluntarily before changing its business plan?  Until the first 60-day notice gets issued, it's all voluntary acquisition.

Grain Belt's plan has a bunch of holes in it right now.  Some things don't make sense.  Block GBE has some good advice, folks!  Solidarity is safety!
1 Comment

A Transmission Line In Every Back Yard:  The Democratic Vision For Overbuilding Electric Transmission

7/11/2020

1 Comment

 
Picture
Our federal government is completely dysfunctional.  The two houses of Congress don't agree on anything and neither one is willing to give an inch.  As a result, nothing gets done except through Executive Order.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is wasting its time creating, on paper, their own utopian vision of how our country should be, even though the legislation they produce is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.  It's completely pointless, except as a roadmap for how things *could* be if the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.  Their little committees have been hard at work, and their "House Select Committee on the CLIMATE CRISIS" (all caps because they're shouting, I guess) has just released a "report" entitled "Solving the Climate Crisis, The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient and Just America."

Really?  The very small section on electric transmission that I read seemed more like a plan for an unjust, poor, and dark America.  I'm not quite sure how they crammed so much bad into just 6 pages.  Reads more like a renewable energy company lobbyist's wish list than a just and effective plan for electric transmission.  See for yourself -- and you only need read pages 51 - 57 of the report.

First, this section is premised on things that just aren't true.  It states that the cost of wind and solar have fallen dramatically, but they fail to mention how much federal production tax and investment tax credits have subsidized the cost of renewable energy.  What does it really cost without taxpayer handouts?  Not so cheap anymore, is it?  Nevertheless, these swamp creatures think we need to build some sort of "National Supergrid" (Macrogrid, anyone?) to act like the world's largest Energizer battery, to suck up renewable generation and deposit it thousands of miles away, just like magic.  Very expensive magic.  We'd get along just fine if we built renewables near load, and all loads have their own unique sources of renewable energy.  There is no place without renewable energy resources.

First thing the Democrats want to do is "modernize" the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) that were part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  These corridors, dreamed up by energy industry lobbyists as a "fix" for the poor maintenance and operation of the existing grid that caused a major blackout, were not designed for renewable energy transmission lines.  As if there even is such a thing... because the electric grid is a un-sortable mix of both "clean" and "dirty" electrons.  Once a transmission line is connected to the existing grid, it is "open access" to all generators who want to use it.  There is no such thing as a "clean" line.  And speaking of Clean Line...
To meet its climate goals, the country needs to build cross-state High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission lines to significantly ramp up renewable electricity generation. The five HVDC transmission lines Clean Line Energy Partners unsuccessfully tried to develop to deliver renewable energy across the country are high-profile examples of these challenges.
This ridiculous report then had the audacity to footnote that with a reference to Russell Gold's hero-worship fantasy story about a failed energy idea (the whole book!).  The "challenge" that killed Clean Line Energy Partners had nothing to do with planning, permitting, or siting.  Clean Line Energy Partners could not find any customers to pay for service on its lines.  No customers, no revenue, no transmission line.  It's as simple as that (there, I saved you from reading a really awful book).

The report admits that NIETCs have been a miserable failure due to two separate federal court opinions that completely neutralized their use, hence the new brainfart to "modernize" them.  NIETCs, as currently written, task the U.S. Dept. of Energy with designating corridors for new transmission to connect areas rich in energy generation with areas of high population.  One of the corridors so designated once upon a time covered a long swath of the Mid-Atlantic and was designed to connect the Ohio Valley coal generation plants with the east coast cities.  Once a corridor is designated, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is anointed with "backstop siting authority" for a transmission line proposed for the corridor, in the event a state does not have authority to issue a permit for a new line in a corridor.  Except states do have authority to site and permit, and the court decided that a state's denial was the end of the road.  FERC could not preempt state authority in the event of a denial.

Changes to NIETCs include taking DOE out of the loop and allowing FERC to designate corridors that it will then have permitting and siting authority within.  This does away with any "checks and balances" that exist within the current split authority system.  In addition, FERC can only designate corridors that coincide with transmission projects proposed by energy companies.  This way, energy companies drive the entire NIETC program and may use it to ram through their transmission wish lists.  The Democrats think it works best like this.
... requiring DOE to designate broad areas as corridors before project proponents have developed specific, narrow proposals can strain relationships with landowners and communities. Allowing project proponents to apply for corridor designation after having laid the groundwork with landowners and communities may be better.
In what universe?  Project proponents are horrible at "laying the groundwork" with landowners and communities.  Nothing foments entrenched opposition to new transmission like an energy company telling them that they "need" a new transmission line through their home.  Instead, project proponents want to wield the authority of the federal government to designate corridors as a sledge hammer to beat down developing opposition.  This can't end well.

The NIETCs also have a new goal.  It's not just about transmission in general anymore... "the goals of the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors program are to help achieve national climate goals, including enhancing the development, supply, or delivery of onshore and offshore renewable energy."

The new NIETCs are also about usurping the authority of states to site and permit electric transmission.
Consistent with requirements under NEPA, Congress should amend the Federal Power Act to clarify that FERC may exercise backstop siting authority for an interstate electric transmission facility within a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor if one or more states have approved the project, but one or more states have denied the proposed project or have withheld approval for more than two years.
Under the new rules, if even one state approves a multi-state transmission project, then FERC may step in and take control of the siting and permitting process.  Other states crossed by the project would have no say in it and their authority would be preempted by FERC.  In this way, the Democrats want transmission siting and permitting to be a federal process, which removes the current state authority to site and permit.

Why would any state give up its transmission siting and permitting authority?  The new NIETCs are nothing more than heavy handed preemption of current state authority to allow project proponents to run roughshod over any state that resists their proposal.

Just in case the crushing new authority scenario doesn't work for you, the Democrats also want to create a new federal slush fund using your tax dollars so DOE can  bribe state, local, and tribal authorities to approve new transmission lines.  DOE could provide "economic development incentives" to entities that agree to approve the new transmission line within two years.  A host of federal acronym agencies will "offer" their expertise to review the transmission application for the local governments, and help to pay for the review.  It won't cost you a thing... except your soul.  Seriously though, this is merely a way to bribe your local government to throw you under the bus in exchange for cash for them.  The landowner doesn't benefit from these bribes, but local governments will be encouraged to sacrifice landowners in exchange for cash.  The biggest insult may be that this is YOUR cash the federal government is bribing your local government with!  The government doesn't have any money of its own... all its money comes from your pocket!

In keeping with the new federal theme, Democrats want FERC to develop a "National Policy on Transmission."  This "policy" is intended to "guide the decision-making of government officials at all levels as well as reviewing courts, the private sector, advocacy groups, and the general public."

As if the general public is going to be "guided" by some rent-seeking corporate transmission policy.  Not sure who the "advocacy groups" are supposed to be, but let's assume it's the big green NGOs whose private financiers have their own agenda to control your life.  The real scary one here, though, is the idea that some corporate lobbyist's self-serving "policy" is supposed to drive the judiciary.  The courts are our safety net against an overbearing and unjust government.  The courts guide the policymakers to keep their policies within the law and the limits of the Constitution, not the other way around.  The Democrats have lost all sense of democracy in their eagerness to "guide" the courts.  Our government is split into three branches for a reason just like this!

What do the Democrats think is in "the public interest?"
Congress should establish a National Transmission Policy to provide guidance to state and local officials and reviewing courts to clarify that it is in the public interest to expand transmission to facilitate a decarbonized electricity supply and enable greenhouse gas emissions. The policy statement should also encourage broad allocation of costs. Congress should amend Section 111(d) of PURPA to require consideration of the national benefits outlined in the National Policy on Transmission in any proceeding to review an application to site bulk electric transmission system facilities.

First, let's get the comedy out of the way...  Democrats want to "enable greenhouse gas emissions."  Well, gosh, fellas, then let's start mining more coal!  *can't even produce a report without serious typos*

Now, let's think about how this mandate of federal considerations conflicts with existing state laws.  Each state with transmission permitting and siting authority is doing so in accordance with their own state laws.  It is up to the states to decide if they want to make federal policy part of their transmission application considerations.  This idea doesn't work.

And, hey, look what they tossed in this section... The policy statement should also encourage broad allocation of costs.  This idea is sprinkled liberally (haha) throughout the report.  Democrats want to spread the cost of new transmission over a broader pool of captive electric ratepayers.  Currently, transmission is paid for by its beneficiaries.  Benefits are pretty concrete, such as lower costs, needed reliability, or state public policy requirements (and within this subset, only the citizens of a state are responsible for its public policy transmission cost -- a state cannot shift the cost of its public policy requirements onto citizens of another state).

But what's the real reason for broader cost allocation?  It's because building all this new transmission is going to be astronomically expensive!  If they left current cost allocation practices in place, people would notice a huge increase in their electric bills.  They would notice how much all this new transmission costs.  However, if they can spread it around to more people by inventing new "benefits" for everyone, then it's less likely to be noticed.

Once the Democrats have diluted the costs by spreading them among more consumers, they also plan to increase the costs by allocating the cost of connecting new generators to consumers.  Currently, FERC's policy assigns not only the cost of interconnecting the generator to the system, but also the costs of upgrades needed in the regional network caused by the interconnection, to the new generator.  It's been this way for a long time.  When someone builds a new electric generator, it's a commercial enterprise to sell electricity for a profit.  It's up to the generator to pay its cost to connect to the system, and also for any upgrades to the system it causes to be necessary.  It would be like building a new widget factory -- the factory pays for its costs to build the factory and any private driveways it needs to connect to the public road system.  If the factory has so much traffic that the public road needs to be widened, the factory would have to pay for that, too.  The public shouldn't have to pay for a private corporation's burden on their road system when the corporation is making money by having that connection.  The same is true of electric generators.  But now the Democrats want the public to pay for grid upgrades made necessary by new generators making a profit selling electricity.  The current policy ensures that new generators are sited in the most economic places, instead of willy-nilly all over the place.  If a generator has to consider the cost of upgrades it may make necessary, perhaps it would site its new generator in a different spot near existing strong connections to minimize its upgrade costs.  The Democrats want to do away with this important safeguard so that new generators can be built anywhere without any economic considerations because consumers are paying the cost of the upgrades.  This is bad policy and will result in higher electricity costs.

The Democrats also want government incentives to increase the capacity of existing transmission lines.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just bad execution.  The Democrats' idea is based on a fallacy... "Over the last few years, the costs caused by transmission congestion have been increasing."  This isn't universally true.  In fact, in the PJM Interconnection region, congestion costs have been decreasing over the past few years.  In addition, the Democrats want to create a "shared savings" incentive whereby the transmission owner keeps a share of the "savings" created by increasing the capacity of existing lines.  Sounds reasonable, until you realize that their share is based on the projected savings, not the actual savings.  So, a transmission owner could tell you its project would save ten hundred bajillion dollars and then charge you its share of that amount.  There will be no measurement to verify that consumers actually saved a dime.  Why not just write these fellas a blank check from the Electric Consumer Savings and Loan?

Another bad Democratic idea is mandating interregional planning of new transmission lines.  Currently, each interconnection region plans transmission that serves needs within its own region.  That's what they're supposed to do.  FERC has also tried to get them to plan for joint projects that bring benefits to more than one region, but it hasn't worked in practice.  Why?  Because nobody needs interregional transmission lines, and nobody wants to pay for them.  Interregional transmission lines don't benefit both regions equally.  One region's consumers receive the energy (benefits!) while one region's consumers receive nothing (exporting energy is only a benefit to energy corporations, not consumers).

The Democrats' plan is so bad that they want regional grid planners to develop plans that "proactively plan transmission lines in anticipation of renewable energy development."  It's not about building transmission lines that are needed, it's about building transmission lines that are not currently needed with the hope that someday they will be needed.  What the everliving spit would we do that for?  Transmission is not only incredibly expensive, it also takes private property using eminent domain and violates the sanctity of people's homes.  Why would we do that for transmission that's not even needed?  Sounds like some Congressional Committee got a little too big for their britches, doesn't it?

But wait, they're not done yet!
Congress should provide financial support for priority HVDC transmission lines, such as through an ITC. Congress should provide an option for direct pay for the tax credit.
Democrats want to use taxpayer funds to pay money to transmission developers for building new lines.  Wait... who thought this was a good idea?  The current tax credits for renewable energy generators are costing taxpayers billions.  Is there some money fountain spewing in Washington, D.C., that we don't know about?  In addition, all of the long-distance HVDC transmission lines that have been proposed to date have been merchant transmission projects.  That means that all the risk of building them goes to their owners and investors.  A transmission project with a mandated public revenue stream cannot be a merchant transmission project because that would shift risk from the project to the ones who pay that revenue stream (taxpayers).  This idea just doesn't work.

The Democrats also want to create a national RTO/ISO to manage its new "national grid."  We already pay billions of dollars in our electric bills to support our regional RTO/ISOs.  This would add a whole new layer of costs to consumer electric bills.

What does this all add up to?  YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT!

And if you think you will somehow benefit from this federal effort to usurp state authority, you'll be thinking differently when these clowns propose a new transmission line across your property and your only venue to be heard is in Washington, D.C. 

If this is the Democrats' plan for electric transmission if we elect them to office in November, I won't be voting for them.  Think hard before you vote.  The electric bill and back yard you save just might be your own.
1 Comment

The Truth About The Macrogrid Initiative

7/7/2020

8 Comments

 
Picture
Renewable energy companies, transmission builders, and Bill Gates have come together to brainwash the American public into thinking that they need a "macrogrid."  And, of course, the mainstream media is only too eager to assist by publishing thoughtless propaganda designed to guide your thinking towards their goal.  Here's one of the first examples, from the Los Angeles Times.

Renewable energy has been using your tax dollars for years to build infrastructure that provides small amounts of intermittent energy.  Because they are financially rewarded with your money for building, they've built more than the people can use in certain areas, like the Midwest.  They have gobbled up a lot of the available transmission capacity to export their product to cities, where people expect all the benefits of energy without any of the sacrifice that goes along with creating it.  In order to keep building renewable energy generators in places where there is no need for the electricity, these piggish profiteers want to build a whole bunch of new transmission.  They presume if they can get their energy to populated areas, consumers will be forced to buy it.  Absolutely not true.  The populated areas are also busy building their own renewable infrastructure so they can create both renewable energy and economic development in their own cities, states, and regions.  We don't need new transmission to switch to renewable energy.  Even if we overbuild transmission, it doesn't mean distribution utilities in New Jersey will choose to buy wind energy generated in Iowa.

Let's take a look at the one-sided propaganda these racketeers are spreading.

1.  A macrogrid can save consumers billions of dollars per year.

THE TRUTH:   The "studies" that supposedly proved all these savings are skewed.  The biggest problem?  All renewables studied were terrestrial sources.  Offshore wind wasn't part of the study, although offshore wind provides the best source of wind power and is conveniently located near the largest population centers -- both coasts and the Great Lakes.  When offshore wind is removed from the equation, the best sources of wind become the Midwest, and the best sources of solar are the south and southwest.  But is it cost effective to build a gigantic new grid to move this generation to the population centers?  No, they already have a better source closer at hand.  I also don't trust the magic math taking place here that prices this new grid.  It's going to take a lot longer, and cost a lot more, than a bunch of scientists think it will.  None of these guys know the first thing about utility ratemaking.  And what are these scientists comparing their new utopia to in order to produce a "savings"?   The most expensive sources of energy they can find shipped the longest distance they can imagine on the most congested transmission lines they can find?  That's how magic math happens... change the variables until you arrive at the desired answer.  If we don't build a macrogrid and force people to use energy produced thousands of miles away, how much will energy prices actually rise?  But it's not really about the price of energy, it's about "climate change" and changing how we produce energy.  Telling the people that it's going to save them money on their power bill is a dirty lie.

2.  We can power our country with 100% renewable energy.

THE TRUTH:  Not feasible with today's technology.  Just the other day, the Midwest ISO ran into an issue with not having enough supply on a hot day.  This is a region that has built a lot of wind turbines.  But those turbines weren't producing when the region needed it most on a hot day.  Here's a graph showing the generation sources for MISO's power on a hot, summer afternoon.
Picture
Without coal, gas and nukes, the power would have gone out. 

MISO was also importing more than 5,700MW of power from neighboring PJM Interconnection, the grid authority for a number of eastern states.  MISO was importing an astonishing 39% more power than scheduled from PJM in order to serve its load.  Here's a graph of the generation sources operating in PJM at that time.
Picture
Again, coal, gas and nukes.  Without them, a good two thirds of the country would have blacked out yesterday afternoon.

These graphs show the cheapest resources available being dispatched in real time.  If renewables were cheap and available, MISO and PJM would have been using them.  The resources necessary to run everything on clean "renewable" energy do not exist.

However, some "studies" and "reports" have suggested a massive build out of new industrial wind and solar under the pretense that we can have enough renewables to meet load.  How much wind and solar does it look like we're going to need to meet peak load on a hot day?  This report calls for 62,626 square miles of new wind and solar installations.  For comparison, that's an area just a little bigger than the state of Georgia, and just a bit smaller than the state of Wisconsin.  Imagine the entire state of Georgia covered end to end, side to side, with industrial wind turbines and solar panels.  How much do you think that would cost?  And if the government keeps giving them tax credit handouts with our tax dollars, how much additional cost would that add?

The capacity factors for renewable energy are surprisingly low because they cannot store fuel on site to run when called.  When they produce energy, it's a happy accident, not on purpose.  Because renewable generators can only be counted on to produce energy a very small percentage of the time, you'd need to overbuild them by perhaps factor of 10.  Example:  If you need a generator with a dependable capacity of 100MW, you'd need 10 wind farms with a nameplate capacity of 100 MW each.  Even then, you're taking your chances that those resources would produce the power you need when you need it. 

Wind and solar are poor choices for a 100% carbon-free power source.

3.  Renewable energy provides jobs and we need jobs to restore our economy after Coronavirus.

THE TRUTH:  Are we supposed to spend money building stuff we don't need in order to create jobs?  That's absurd.  We build stuff we need, and jobs happen.  Why would we spend a bunch of money creating make work jobs building stuff we don't need?  The renewable energy industry isn't at any greater risk than any other industry in the wake of Coronavirus.  In fact, they seem to be getting additional help other industries aren't.  Because Coronavirus put a short pause on the renewable energy industry, the federal government has extended the amount of time they have to claim the fading production tax credit.  What other industries are getting taxpayer handouts for making things?  Are restaurants getting tax credits for each meal they sell?  Of course not.  Renewable energy, however, is getting a tax handout for each unit of power they generate for 10 years after being put in service.  Remember, that money they're earning comes directly from your pocket because the government does not have its own source of income.  All its income comes from you!

We've been subsidizing industrial wind and solar for decades.  At first, perhaps it needed a leg up to compete with conventional generation, but over time it developed an appetite for government handouts and now doesn't want to exist without them.  In fact, the renewable energy industry has asked the federal government to convert the tax credits it currently earns into straight up cash payments.  A tax credit is just that... a credit for the recipient's tax burden.  Because many renewable energy companies pay little taxes, they have been converting the credits they earn into cash by selling them to other corporations that can use them to reduce their tax liability.  But just like those companies that will convert your long-term legal settlement payments into instant cash, they only give you a portion of the value of the settlement (or tax credit) in exchange for some cash now.  Renewable energy companies don't want to lose the full value of tax credits they earn but can't use, so they want the government instead to just give them cash they can use.  Pretty bold, isn't it?

And then the industry speaks out of the other side of its mouth about how mature its industry is, how cheap the power they generate is, and how mainstream it's become.  They claim they are competitive with conventional generation.  If that is true, why do they still need a handout to stay in business?

Renewable energy companies have opportunely seized upon the Coronavirus crisis to pretend they can solve the economic crisis.  Never let a good crisis go to waste!

Renewable energy is back in business, and they're building things.  We don't need to give them more money to create new jobs... we need to concentrate on other industries that haven't fully re-opened in order to restore jobs.  We don't need to spend our money building out an existing industry.

4.  We need to "modernize" our grid.

THE TRUTH:  Our grid is adequate for its purpose.  Old lines and equipment are constantly re-built and upgraded.  Transmission operators and reliability organizations make sure the grid stays reliable.  They order fixes, re-builds, and new lines as needed.  Interestingly enough, this call to build a new "macrogrid" doesn't even contemplate fixing the existing lines, it just wants to build a new system to work in conjunction with the existing one.  If the existing one fails, it's going to take the new "macrogrid" down with it.  The macrogrid is about building new transmission to ship energy further from its point of generation.  It's got nothing to do with the existing grid.

And a couple more things about that crazy LA Times article...

It starts out talking about a newly built power line in operation.  It mentions that there was opposition to the project because it would "saddle energy consumers with unnecessary costs, degrade sensitive wildlife habitat and interrupt a series of gorgeous landscapes."  And then the Times points out that it was built anyhow.  Logic leap!  Just because the project was built doesn't mean it obviated all those concerns.  It merely means that those concerns were run over in the process of approving it.  Unnecessary costs and degradation of habitat and landscapes happened anyway.  Building it didn't make them disappear.

The article tells you that building billions of dollars of new transmission will make you less likely to catch Corona.  So will wearing a mask, and that's only going to cost you a buck.

Landowner concerns about eminent domain and sacrifice for the benefit of people far, far away are glossed over and minimized with the idea that if they don't accept it, we're all doomed.  The idea that we have to sacrifice something and may only choose which sacrifice to make is overblown.  We can have it all if we choose to build renewables near load.  It's as simple as that!

On the subject of Clean Line Energy Partners... that company failed because it had no customers.  It wasn't the fault of landowners or regulation.  Those things merely slowed the projects, they didn't kill them.  CLEP failed because there were no places "where the energy is needed."  If nobody needs imported "clean" power, why would we spend billions building new transmission?

The article points out that California, a huge importer of power, has plans for 100% clean electricity by 2045.  But what happened when California recently debated the issue of installing wind offshore?  The fishing industry, the U.S. Navy, and coastal residents got their shorts in a wad, claiming that offshore wind would hurt them.  Where does California plan to get its renewable energy if it doesn't make it in state?  Why, it plans to put those hurtful burdens on other states to produce it and export it to California.  The politically disconnected are ground zero.  This is the epitome of environmental injustice!  If you want renewable energy, you must sacrifice.  You!  Not someone else!  Only when these states are forced to make their own sacrifices will all the impossible clean energy goals begin to wane.

One more thing... this "macrogrid" has been proposed in one form or another ever since I've been doing the transmission thing... a dozen years now.   Except it's only recently been about "clean energy."  It used to be about moving coal-fired resources around the country "cheaply."  It's just been re-packaged to fit today's narrative.  It's not about "clean energy."  It's about building a whole bunch of transmission in order to make billions of dollars of profit at consumer expense.

And about the House Democrat's newly released climate plan?  Ahh... that's another blog post soon to come!  Keep checking back!
8 Comments

How Wind Companies Are Reinventing Clean Line's Business Plan To Take Your Land For Their Own Use

7/5/2020

0 Comments

 
Once upon a time, Don Quixote Skelly had an idea.  He envisioned a company that would build transmission lines to move wind generation across the country.  Skelly had left the wind industry to become an electric transmission magnate.  Skelly would no longer sell the wind generation upon which he'd built his career, he would now be an independent transmission owner selling transmission capacity to wind developers.  Skelly planned to use the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Negotiated Rate Authority to sell transmission capacity to generation owners.  Negotiated rate authority allows the transmission owner to sell service to unaffiliated companies essentially at auction.  All companies desiring service would submit a bid for service.  FERC requires the selection of customers to be fair, setting the criteria for the transmission owner's selection of customers.  A transmission owner wishing to sell service to itself or its affiliate has a very high bar to jump to prove to FERC that it did not give its affiliate undue preference.  All bids, including those from a transmission owner's affiliate, must be evaluated using the same criteria.  The transmission owner must provide open access to its merchant line, allowing all bidders to receive equal treatment.  If an unaffiliated generation owner offers more for service, the transmission owner cannot turn it down in order to provide service for its own affiliate at a cheaper price.  But, because Skelly did not own any generation, there was no way he could give his own affiliates any preference.  FERC's Negotiated Rate Authority worked perfectly for Clean Line's business plan.

But Skelly's business plan didn't work in reality.  He couldn't find any companies willing to pay for service on his transmission line.  Eventually, Skelly's company went broke and sold its failed projects to other companies.  Funny that... all the new owners of Skelly's projects were renewable energy generators.  How was the project's negotiated rate authority going to work for these new generation-owning companies?  Were these new owners really going to build transmission lines and sell service on the line to their competitors?  Remember, under negotiated rate authority, the line must be open access for all bidders.  The new owner could not restrict its competitors from bidding on service on the new line, and the new owner cannot give preference to its own generation.  Why in the world would a renewable energy company want to build transmission that allowed its competitor's generation to be sold in higher priced markets?  You never actually believed that the new owner was planning to enable its competitors, did you?  Of course not!

The new owners needed to jettison Skelly's negotiated rate authority so they could keep the transmission they built for their own use.  The new owners want to use Skelly's transmission project to connect the stranded generation they own.  The new owners needed a new rate scheme!

Pattern Energy, the new owner of Clean Line's Western Spirit transmission project, wanted to use the project to connect its future wind farm sites to a strong point in New Mexico's existing transmission grid so that it could sell that generation, perhaps for export to other states.  New Mexico's RETA had already been "partnered" with Western Spirit to realize Skelly's negotiated rate business plan.  Clean Line had been "making contributions" to RETA for years in order to use RETA's eminent domain authority to take private property for its "public use" negotiated rate project.  RETA used its eminent domain authority to force landowners to sell, believing that the project would be open access for all renewable generators who wanted to connect and purchase service.

But, Pattern didn't want to share.  It wanted to use all of Western Spirit's transmission capacity for its own new wind farms.  That's a private use, not a public use.  An apt comparison could be made using roads... a public road or highway allows anyone to use it, therefore taking private property to build it is a "public use."  However, a private driveway is only for its owner's use, it's a private use.  It's not a "public use" to enable eminent domain.  Clean Line wanted to build a public road.  Pattern wants to build a driveway. 

The use of eminent domain in this country is limited to situations where the land taken is put into public use.  We don't use eminent domain to take private property from one person for the private use of another.   There was considerable outcry when the Supreme Court ruled that private property could be taken from one person and given to a private company if "economic development" happened as a result.  SCOTUS decided that economic development was a "public use."  In the wake of that awful decision, many states made changes to their eminent domain laws to prevent its use for purely economic development reasons.

But not New Mexico.  New Mexico invented a quasi-governmental authority to build and own electric transmission for the purposes of promoting economic development in the state, and it gave its creation eminent domain authority.  It also took authority away from its Public Regulation Commission and allowed RETA to call the shots on the building of new transmission in the state.

Maybe RETA thought it was providing a public service by taking private property for Clean Line's "public use" project?  That seemed to be settled.  But what happened when Pattern bought the project and the "public use" became a private driveway?  Did RETA ever consider how this change upended its justification for using its eminent domain authority?

Pattern Energy came up with a new business plan for Skelly's old project.  Pattern Energy will build the transmission project using RETA's eminent domain authority and then sell the project to New Mexico's incumbent public utility, Public Service Company of New Mexico.  That way they could pretend the project was still a "public use" worthy of eminent domain.  But what about Western Spirit's legacy negotiated rate authority?  Could Public Service Company auction off service on the line to other companies?  No, Public Service Corporation applied for a new rate scheme from FERC -- Incremental rates, whereby a generator would pay a transmission service provider its costs to build new transmission to serve the new generator.  No sharing required.  Under federal laws, a transmission owner must allow a new generator to connect to its system, as long as the generator pays the cost of the new connection.  This scheme allows Pattern to sign a transmission service agreement with Public Service Company to use the new line.  It allows a generator to make exclusive use of a new private driveway to connect its own generation because the generator is paying all the costs.  This kind of transmission line is a generation tie line.  It does not allow public access because other companies are not paying for it.

A company proposing a generation tie line is treated much differently from an open-access transmission line.  While an open-access "public use" transmission line is like a public roadway, a generation tie line is a private driveway.  A generation tie line would not meet the definition of "public use" under the laws of many states and therefore is not an appropriate use of eminent domain.  For example, if another Clean Line project, say Grain Belt Express, had applied to the Missouri Public Service Commission for a generation tie line across the state, it would have virtually no chance of approval and being awarded eminent domain authority.  But Grain Belt Express was approved as an open-access "public use" project that would sell service to voluntary customers, like MJMEUC.  GBE is still pretending to use the negotiated rate authority rate scheme, but it doesn't have enough customers to make the project economically feasible.  Invenergy, GBE's owner, is planning to sell service on the line to its competitors who want to move their generation from western Kansas to Indiana.  You believe that, right, even though Invenergy has done nothing to apply for a permit in Illinois while it is going hammer and tongs to acquire property in Missouri under the threat of eminent domain?

There's this bridge in Brooklyn...

Anyhow, Pattern Energy has completely changed Don Quixote Skelly's business plan for the Western Spirit transmission project in New Mexico.  The formerly independent open-access transmission roadway has now become Pattern's private driveway.  Isn't it time for New Mexico to pause and give adequate consideration to Western Spirit's changed business and rate plan before it takes property from its citizens and gives it to a for-profit corporation for its private use?
Picture
0 Comments

Can Grain Belt Express Cure Coronavirus?

7/2/2020

2 Comments

 
OF COURSE NOT!
Leave it to the Missouri Times to publish a bogus editorial claiming that GBE could be solely responsible for Missouri "avoiding a catastrophic recession."

Hold your nose (and maybe a barf bag) while reading this pack of prevarications.  It's GBE spokespuppet Lee Barker, back again to try to convince Missouri how great GBE is going to be.  C'mon, Lee, who are you trying to convince?  GBE has been bumping around Missouri for at least a decade now.  There are no minds left to change.  Glossing over the repugnance of the project only serves to set more opposition to the project.  Is the purpose of this diatribe an attempt to make the guilty feel better about themselves?  I really don't think the guilty care.  They know they did wrong, but they did it anyhow because they wanted to please an out-of-state corporation who wants to make a whole bunch of money off the backs of Missouri citizens.

Where to start?
The developer of this clean energy infrastructure project has begun sending letters to landowners about the financial compensation they’re entitled to. Soon, rural Missourians will start to receive some of the more than $20 million that this project will pay to landowners over its life.
However, contributing landowners aren’t the only Missourians who stand to benefit from the Grain Belt Express Transmission Line.
Yeah, we know... and landowners simply don't care.  The "letters" are going right into the trash.  Nobody is going to receive anything because they're not signing easement agreements.  Tell me, Lee, how do you know how much GBE is going to pay landowners?  Did Invenergy share that information with you?  That would be untoward, don't you think?  Invenergy hasn't negotiated anything with anyone yet, but yet Lee knows how much this is going to cost the company.  $20M divided between 700 landowners -- but Invenergy stands to make billions BILLIONS on this project over its lifetime.  Does this seem fair to you?  I also noticed that Invenergy is trying to get landowners to select to receive their "compensation" over decades, instead of when their land is taken using eminent domain.  Why would anyone do that?  There's a whole lot to digest in an Invenergy "letter" and it's best to discuss it with your attorney and tax advisor before taking any action (other than using it for animal bedding).

Lee seems confused about the difference between compensation and benefit.  He uses both words.  They mean entirely different things.  Compensation is something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.  Compensation is an attempt to make a victim whole.  Benefit, on the other hand means an advantage or profit gained from something.  The landowners are gaining nothing in this deal.  Eminent domain merely requires "just compensation", it doesn't require "benefit."  There is no benefit for "contributing landowners."  Contributing?  Yes, these landowners are contributing a portion of their wealth, peace of mind, and sense of place to a for-profit corporation in Chicago, and they're being forced to do it against their will.  I wonder how much of Lee's 401(K) he "contributed" to Invenergy's profits?  I'm going out on a limb here to guess none.  Lee doesn't contribute anything, but he thinks others should.
Local energy suppliers will have the opportunity to use the more affordable electricity and pass the savings onto their customers. This will lower utility bills by more than $12 million every single year. 
Oh, please.  The savings aren't guaranteed and there is no requirement that any municipal utility "pass the savings" onto customers.  Your city utility could use the entire savings to host a ritzy shindig celebrating Michael Polsky and you'd get nothing.  Or maybe the woke mob can commission a statute to their new leader?  Tell me about the savings after they happen.  What guarantee is there that Invenergy won't pull out of the MJMEUC contract entirely?  Better check that contract again...
The Grain Belt Express will also put a serious dent in the staggering unemployment rate by hiring 1,500 Missourians to work on the transmission line. While most infrastructure projects demand massive tax breaks in return for this level of job creation, the Grain Belt Express hasn’t asked for a single state incentive. In fact, it will inject more than $7 million into local communities through taxes. 
1,500 jobs are going to pull Missouri out of a sure recession?  Doubtful, even if 1,500 Missourians were offered jobs building the transmission line, which they won't.  So far, landowners have seen a handful of land agents from out of state.  The highly specialized labor required to build a project like GBE is also going to be imported.  Jobs for Missouri aren't a part of GBE.

Of course GBE has asked for a state incentive!  It's asked for the solemn power to take private property for its own use in order to make a profit.  Much bigger than a minor tax break... and speaking of taxes... really.... $7M?  That's chump change!  How much will Missouri communities have to spend fixing roadways destroyed during construction?
Economic stimulation on this scale is quite rare, but it should come as no surprise. Under new ownership by U.S.-based Invenergy, the Grain Belt Express has become much more than a means of transferring clean, renewable energy across the state. It also includes a plan to bring broadband internet to communities in need. 
Today, over 40 percent of counties in Missouri are without improved health care, education, business, communication, and entertainment because they lack broadband. Grain Belt Express aims to bridge the so-called “digital divide.”

Well, maybe the local communities can use their $7M windfall (spread among 8 counties, mind you) to actually make GBE's broadband accessible?  Putting a wire on a pole doesn't create broadband by magic.  You make Missouri sound like a straight-up slum, Lee!  These poor communities don't have health care, education, businesses, communication or entertainment and only Invenergy can come to their rescue?  Pure hogwash!
Hey, maybe you could use your "letter" to wash your hogs, or other fattened pigs wandering around your communities spreading manure?
2 Comments

A Transmission Horror Story

6/30/2020

0 Comments

 
Not exactly the right time of year, but gather 'round, boys and girls.  This is the tale of the State Transmission Infrastructure Authorities Monster.

Who?  If you're not a resident of one of seven unfortunate western states where the monster lives or has lived, this may be no more than a cautionary tale for you.  However, if you live in one of the seven states that comprise the monster's stalking grounds, the horror is real.

Between 2006 and 2008, the monster was born as an idea to encourage the building of electric transmission within a state in order to increase export of energy produced in the state.  It was just a pumped up economic development authority for energy.  The idea was to give these state transmission authorities the ability to issue revenue bonds, allow corporations to avoid tax liability, and most importantly to utilize eminent domain to take private property from citizens and give it to corporations in the name of "economic development."  These authorities like to pretend they are "catalysts" or "incubators" to bringing incredible riches to their state.  In reality, they are steamrollers... flattening a path through the state in order to create profits for out-of-state corporate interests.

Despite a whole bunch of initial hype, this monster turned out to be kinda lazy.  It hasn't accomplished much in more than a decade.  In fact, the monster has been killed in several states (Kansas and South Dakota) after the people saw how lazy and ineffective their monster really was.  Other states quickly defunded their monsters in an attempt to starve them out of existence.  For the most part, that worked.  The vast majority of the surviving monsters are weak do-nothings that barely survive on scraps tossed to them by out-of-state energy companies still toying with the idea of needing a good monster in the future to ram though a highly-profitable transmission idea.

And then there's New Mexico's monster.  The Renewable Energy Transmission Authority, or RETA, is fat and happy on the cash out-of-state energy companies are feeding it.  And, in exchange for a 3 squares a day, RETA is shambling around the countryside, gobbling up private property under threat of eminent domain, and stockpiling it for future ownership of the out-of-state energy companies that feed RETA.

RETA was established by the New Mexico legislature in 2007 to plan, develop, finance and acquire energy transmission and storage projects for the purposes of economic development.  New Mexico figured it has excellent wind and solar energy resources, but not enough transmission to export it out of state.  New Mexico is currently planning to permit just one out-of-state developer to build many more megawatts of wind energy than New Mexicans need.
The 3,000 MW potential for Pattern Energy would produce enough electricity to power 1,095,000 homes in New Mexico, according to Public Service Company of New Mexico. New Mexico has 948,000 housing units, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
This energy isn't for New Mexicans.  It's not about making energy "cleaner" in New Mexico.  It's about harvesting cheap energy in New Mexico and making a huge profit selling it to other states (like California) that will pay a premium for imported "clean" energy instead of junking up their own state with the necessary turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines to make it themselves.

At what point will New Mexico wake up and realize it's nothing but a cheap date for out-of-state energy companies?  The real money isn't staying in New Mexico, it's being shipped out of state right along with the energy.  Only a few New Mexicans will see income from being California's energy doormat.  The majority will find their properties irreparably damaged and turned into industrial energy plants while they feast on a few crumbs and "fair market value" attempts to make them whole in the wake of eminent domain takings.  You'd think New Mexico would be at least as smart as some eastern states who are using economic development to produce energy for their own use.  Produce energy in state, use energy in state, and all the economic development dollars stay in state for the benefit of its people.  History should have already taught the lesson of what eventually happens to states that throw wide the doors for exploitation by out-of-state energy companies.  The out-of-state companies get the gold, and the people of the state get the shaft.

Let's take a look at RETA's most recent financial audit, which is the best look you're going to get at RETA's finances.

Where did RETA get its money in 2019? 
The Authority did not receive a State appropriation for the 2019 fiscal year. However, SunZia and Pattern Energy provided developer contributions totaling $550,000 to facilitate ongoing operations.
...........

In 2019, the significant revenue sources were developer contributions from Pattern Energy LLC, of $525,000 and Sun Zia Transmission, LLC, of $25,000.

All of RETA's money came from private developers in 2019.  ALL OF IT.  How is it that a quasi-state agency, using the power of the state, can be 100% funded by private corporations who can profit from the agency's actions?  Isn't that a huge conflict of interest?  If RETA doesn't do what its funders want, perhaps it won't receive additional funding.  This is nothing more than a for-profit corporation masquerading as a "state agency" in order to take from the citizens of the state.

And to make matters worse, Pattern has signed an agreement with RETA to "lease" the property RETA obtains using the eminent domain power of the state.  Pattern also will make RETA the "owner" of its Western Spirit transmission project.  RETA doesn't pay state taxes... it is the state.  See where this is going?  RETA, on behalf of the State of New Mexico, is so eager to have Pattern "developing the economy" of New Mexico that it doesn't have to pay taxes.  Pattern can take private property for its own for-profit use and doesn't have to pay taxes.  How does New Mexico benefit from this again?  The state is granting the right to take private property to an out-of-state company for its own profit.  Doesn't exactly scream "move here for prosperity," does it?  Economic development?  Or corporate lackey?

RETA likes to pretend it was created mainly to issue revenue bonds.
The Authority’s Purpose and Highlights The Authority was created in 2007 based on the Laws of 2007, Chapter 62. The purpose of the New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission Authority Act (the “Act”) is to create a governmental instrumentality to finance or plan electricity transmission and storage facilities within the State of New Mexico. The financing or acquisition of an eligible project would be accomplished through the issuance of renewable energy transmission revenue bonds or other debt instruments.

However, in the 13 years of its existence, it looks like RETA has not issued any bonds.
The Act created the Renewable Energy Transmission Bonding Fund, which shall consist of revenues received by the Authority from operating or leasing eligible facilities, fees and service charges collected and, if the Authority has provided financing or eligible facilities, money from payments of principal and interest on loans. Money in the Renewable Energy Transmission Bonding Fund is pledged for the payment of principal and interest on all bonds issued pursuant to the Act. Bonds issued pursuant to the Act shall be payable solely from the Renewable Energy Transmission Bonding Fund or, with the approval of the bondholders, such other special funds as may be provided by law. These bonds do not create an obligation or indebtedness of the state within the meaning of any constitutional provision. No bond has been issued thus this fund has no activity.
RETA is not financing transmission.  It's also not "planning" it.  RETA is simply responding to the out-of-state energy corporations who pay its bills.  Its main purpose seems to be to acquire private property using eminent domain in order to create transmission rights-of-way that out-of-state energy corporations use to make a huge profit.  RETA is nothing more than a corporate sugar daddy for Clean Line, Pattern, and Sun Zia.  If you're a corporation that thinks it can make a lot of money exporting renewable energy from New Mexico, RETA is your sugar daddy monster!

Is it democracy when state government is funded by "donations" from corporations with a pecuniary interest in the actions of the state government?  This isn't even hard to figure out... it's a straight up conflict of interest!  And when you toss the taking of private property through eminent domain into the mix, it's a horror show!

Haven't we all been down the eminent domain for economic development road before?  What happened, New Mexico?  Were you out sick that day?

RETA's window dressing says it's all about protecting landowners, claiming on its website "We're here to help."

But when you get inside, it's a house of horrors.  RETA is all about helping developers, not landowners.  RETA needs a cash infusion from the legislature.  Think about that... it needs state funding.  Where does state funding come from?  It comes from taxpayers.  The state government has no source of revenue except taxpayers.  RETA wants the citizens of New Mexico to pay its bills while it takes their private property and gives it to an out-of-state for-profit corporation.

Any touted cash payments to landowners are from wind farms, not the transmission lines RETA "develops."  Not all landowners benefit equally from the construction of new transmission lines.  Some landowners get royalty payments for hosting energy generators, but others get one time "make whole" payments for exporting the electricity across their property.  The royalties wouldn't happen without the landowners exporting the energy, but yet these landowners are expected to participate basically for free.  No wonder RETA needs to use eminent domain to set up its scheme whereby the few profit at the expense of the many.

When is the legislature of New Mexico going to wake up to the stink coming from its own monster?  When is New Mexico going to stop acting like a cheap date for out-of-state energy corporations?

More about New Mexico coming soon:  How Pattern changed Clean Line's rate scheme for Western Spirit in order to build a private-use generation tie line....
0 Comments

Out-of-State Corporate Money "Wins" in Missouri

6/24/2020

0 Comments

 
Just when you think you've seen everything 2020 has to offer...

An ousted "journalist" pens an article about "winners" of the 2020 Missouri Legislative Session.  It's all about corporate lobbyists "winning" in their interference between the Missouri people and their elected representatives.  Corporate money may be "free speech," but it cannot yet cast a vote.  Seems like elected officials swayed by the smell of corporate money need to take a lesson at the next election.
The team lobbying for Grain Belt Express –  Led by Nexus Nexus with Rodney Boyd, Kate Casas, and Brian Grace, along with Aaron Baker and Hannah Beers with Clout, the group put together a team early on in session that looked like there was little chance to succeed. It was rocky at the end, but they fought off what is almost certain to be the largest challenge to the project.
And who paid these "winners" for their time and effort?  Invenergy, a corporation based in Chicago.  So, what an out-of-state corporation wants to happen in Missouri is more important than what the people of Missouri want to have happen?  Missouri got bought by a Chicago corporation.  The legislators who did their bidding need to be replaced by legislators who want to work for the people they represent (Missourians!  Not Chicago corporations!) 

There was "little chance to succeed," but after a nice, long Coronacation, things mysteriously changed.  I wonder how much that cost?  I guess we'll find out when the campaign finance reports get published. 

So, if Invenergy was the "winner," who's the loser?  The people of Missouri.

The largest challenge to the project?  Scottie, you ain't seen nothing yet!

0 Comments

Not In Microsoft Bill's Yard

6/17/2020

5 Comments

 
NIMBY!

Super-rich Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates is funding a new initiative to brain wash the American people into believing they need a "national" transmission system.

Don't fall for it!

Of course, none of these new transmission lines would be in Bill's yard, they would be in yours!  He thinks you need a nationwide, high-voltage direct current (HVDC) network optimized for the nation's best wind and solar resources.
Thanks to generous support from Breakthrough Energy, an organization founded by Bill Gates that is working to expand clean energy investment and innovation, the Macro Grid Initiative will undertake wide-ranging educational efforts in support of transmission expansion to connect areas with low-cost renewable resources to centers of high electric demand. This can be accomplished by connecting grid regions like MISO, PJM and SPP.
Take a look at this propaganda group's maps of "America’s centers of high renewable resources".  What's missing?  Offshore wind.  Offshore wind doesn't exist in this group's scenario.  Why not?  Because offshore wind doesn't require a "national transmission system."  In fact, it requires very little new terrestrial transmission at all.  Now guess who's paying for this little brainwashing expedition, and who might benefit if they can succeed in making America dumber, and completely upend the way we plan and build transmission and generation in this country.

And how do they plan to do that?
The Macro Grid Initiative seeks to build public and policymaker support for a new policy and regulatory environment that recognizes the substantial nationwide benefits of new regional and interregional transmission. Priority areas include:

An expanded nationwide and eastern grid with a focus on the regions of MISO, PJM and SPP.

The next round of regional and interregional transmission planning.

A fully planned and integrated nationwide transmission system.

A new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission transmission planning rule.

Achieving the Macro Grid vision will require new policies at the federal, regional and state levels that recognize the substantial nationwide benefits of an interregionally connected transmission network.

New policies at the state and federal level?  Like usurping state jurisdiction to site and permit new transmission and planning the grid on a national level so that uncooperative states are run over in the process and affected landowners are left with nowhere to turn?  How else would they:
...reduce barriers to development...

...overcome the barriers to siting long-line transmission facilities...

...upgrade our nation's aging and creaky transmission network...

...connect all this clean energy to our homes...

...expand regional and interregional transmission...

... build a strong national power grid...
Barriers?  They mean you.  They mean hundreds of thousands of landowners whose private property will be condemned using eminent domain in order to place an unwanted transmission line on private property and generate a huge profit to the owner of the new transmission line.  Affected landowners will get nothing, not even one electron from the transmission line.  HVDC is an unbroken line from beginning to end and requires outrageously expensive substations to convert it from DC to AC in order to connect with our existing transmission system.  It's an electric highway on your property that you cannot use.  Landowner payments are merely compensation for the market value of the land taken.  They are an attempt to make landowners whole, not to realize any sort of profit.

Creaking?  I've honestly never heard a transmission line creak.  It whines, it hums, it crackles.  It doesn't creak.  Replacing existing lines to upgrade conductors and equipment happens when needed because our system must remain reliable at all times.  This is so much crap. Bill's NIMBY initiative is about building NEW lines, not upgrading existing ones.

Instead of connecting centralized electric generation to our homes, people are increasingly installing their own electric generation on their homes.  Corporations are installing on-site renewables on their stores, offices, and factories.  We don't need to "connect" anything, just generate our own clean energy!

And this one.  It deserves to be quoted in its entirety.
Michael Skelly, Founder, Clean Line Energy Partners; Senior Advisor, Lazard:
"Building out our grid brings jobs, efficient markets, and cheaper and cleaner power. No individual or company can do this alone. But together with a broad public and policy maker consensus I have no doubt it can and will be done. I'm excited to see ACORE and ACEG's Macro Grid Initiative take on this important effort."

YOU FAILED, Michael Skelly!  You proposed building the same kind of "national" grid a decade ago, and you failed miserably after wasting $200M of investor's money.  (Bill Gates beware!)  A national grid isn't feasible.  It's not what the people want.

Why not?  Because they want to build renewable generation for clean energy in their own homes, neighborhoods, states and regions.  They don't want to create a hole in their own economy where they stop creating local energy and economic development and begin to send their energy dollars to other regions.  For example, let's look at New Jersey.

Yesterday, NJ Governor Phil Murphy announced plans to build a new port in Salem County to support the development of offshore wind farms off the Jersey Shore.  Officials say the New Jersey Wind Port will create 1,500 permanent jobs, generate $500 million in annual economic activity, and help the state reach its goal of gradually relying more on so-called clean energy.

Does Governor Murphy want to pay for an outrageously expensive "national grid" so he can import energy from other regions and cancel his port project?  My suspicions point to "no."

Likewise other eastern states, who plan to jumpstart their own economies by creating a robust offshore wind industry.

Nobody wants an exorbitantly expensive "national grid."  And if you need an example of how such an initiative will fail, maybe you can ask Michael Skelly?

Take your propaganda and shove it, ACORE.  Quit pretending you represent consumer interests, ACEG.  Everyone knows where you get your funding, and it's not from consumers.

And while we're at it, next time your crappy Microsoft PC gets infested with viruses and quits working, toss it in the dumpster and buy a MAC.  It might cost more upfront, but you won't have to buy a new computer every couple years.  Unlike his proposed "national grid" your boycott of Microsoft products will end up in Microsoft Bill's Yard.
5 Comments

Invenergy Decides Not to Compete With Itself in Missouri

6/14/2020

0 Comments

 
Invenergy has pulled the plug on a wind farm in southwest Missouri that it has been planning for the past three years.
“Invenergy has decided to change course in Barry County,” said Meredith Jeffrey, manager of renewable development for Invenergy, in a statement to The Times.
That's it.  Oh, there's also some speculation about interference with air traffic and wildlife, but when has Invenergy ever cancelled its money-making plans because they caused community impacts?

Now that Invenergy is going hammer and tongs on its Grain Belt Express transmission line to ship wind energy from "better places farther west with fewer people that are better suited", it has bagged its plan to build wind in Missouri.  After all, why compete with itself and let Missourians partake of wind energy produced in their own state?  Isn't it better for Missouri communities to pay Invenergy a bunch of money to create wind energy elsewhere and import it to Missouri?  That idea has worked so well for goods manufactured in China, hasn't it?  Things are so cheap!  But a lot of local jobs dried up and the imports can't be depended upon.

Sorry, City of Monett, you're going to have to buy service on the Grain Belt Express if you want wind energy.  You can't have locally produced power.
As an electric service provider, the City of Monett is interested in renewable energy and expanding our resource mix that already includes wind, gas and coal resources. The city may have an interest in procuring a local source of wind energy, but we have to balance that with concerns for the operation and future expansion of our airport and electric generator’s potential impact on our airport tenants and users.
Well, isn't that hypocritical... the city and county officials want wind energy, but they don't exactly want it in their own backyard.
“The thing about this area is we’ve got the wind, but the demographics and geography just are not conducive for wind towers,” Schad said. “We’ve got too many small concentrations of homes and two airports. It’s not so good when you look at the details.”
Well, guess what?  None of the communities on the GBE route are conducive for transmission lines.  They've got too many concentrations of homes and airports.  But nobody seems to care about that when eminent domain has been granted.  And speaking of eminent domain, here's a whopper....
As power producers and not as a utility, the company’s activities did not fall under oversight by the Missouri Public Service Commission.
When Invenergy is a "power producer" it's not a utility.  But when it wants to build transmission to make its power production available at a different location,  it is magically a utility with eminent domain authority.

I'm not fooled.  A HVDC transmission line with no available connections except at an end point converter station acts more like a generator than a transmission line.  It injects large amounts of power to the grid at a fixed location.  It's not an open-access highway that will provide fixed-rate service for all customers who request it.  It will only provide service for customers who offer to pay the most.  That's not a public utility.

It remains to be seen if Invenergy will pack up its bindle and leave Missouri altogether when it finds out that Missourians want nothing to do with its GBE project either.  Landowners have been resisting this company for more than a decade.  They're not likely to cave in now.
0 Comments

GBE's Monopoles Bite The Dust

6/2/2020

2 Comments

 
Invenergy says it is sending out this letter to its landowner victims.  I'm guessing it's supposed to endear them to you?  Instead, I think it demonstrates how little Invenergy knows about issues that matter to landowners.  I wonder what kind of an ignoramus wrote that thing... and designed the new "landowners" page on their website?  Sort of looks like someone who has never done this sort of thing before and doesn't want to learn.  It's like some socially inept twit going door to door trying to sell you rubber baby buggy bumpers.

First off, Invenergy wants you to know that it bought the rotten GBE hot potato from Clean Line Energy Partners.  Well, good for you!  W.C. Fields would be proud!  Does anyone really care to find out about Invenergy, or want to read more about Invenergy tooting its own horn about how great it is?  Probably not.  Landowners most likely don't care about the pedigree of an out-of-state company who wants to take their land using eminent domain.  It's about the eminent domain, not how great Invenergy thinks it is.  Nobody is likely to be impressed.  I do like how Invenergy tries to toss Clean Line under the bus though, gushing about how it has no affiliation with Clean Line, as if all the problems with the project were the fault of Clean Line?  How badly do you have to behave to have people consider you worse than Clean Line Energy Partners?  If you thought Clean Line was bad, maybe you should hold onto you hat!  It looks like it's fixing to get much worse.  Silly Michael Skelly may look like a hero when this faceless company is done with you.

Invenergy offers this reassuring nugget:
Please note that Grain Belt is seeking an easement – which is typical in linear infrastructure like electric lines and pipelines – and that you will retain full ownership of the land in the easement area.
Hey, great!  You get to continue to own a strip of land that you've lost all control of.  The only thing the owner gets is liability and tax burden... and of course a perpetual tenant they can't evict.  Was this supposed to make the landowners feel good?  It actually adds insult to injury.  I'm thinking nobody wants to be Invenergy's landlord in perpetuity.  Invenergy wants to take use of your land, but not the responsibility of ownership.

GBE/Contract Land Staff say they will be phoning you in the future to negotiate over land you don't want to sell.  How many people answer the phone when their caller ID tells them it's some random cell phone caller from another area code?  My new phone has a great feature button named "call block."  If I don't like the looks of a caller, I simply press that button and they're gone for good.  And even if I do mistakenly pick up the phone, there's no guarantee that I will be able to hear the caller clearly, phone service out in the boonies being what it is and all.  So, watch your phones, folks!  You'll soon have a new friend calling!

And then there's the blabber about how much Invenergy is going to help your community.... while taking from you personally.  Why, you "could" have expanded broadband!  Sure, you "could."

And speaking of could...  GBE has been promising landowners for the past 10 years that the transmission tower structures "could" be monopoles.  But, hey, guess what?
Picture
 The structures will be lattice steel designs.  All of them.  Not a monopole to be had.  Spare no expense for your comfort!  Lattice structures are the cheapest ones to build.   You didn't really believe all that Who Shot John about the monopoles, did you?  Most landowners did not, so it's not really a disappointment.  Landowners expected every promise made by Grain Belt Express to be broken.  It's just one more. 

I do feel bad for the Missouri PSC and the media though... they bought that 9 acres of land disturbed thing hook, line and sinker. 

40x40=1,600 sq. ft. per tower.    If for 200+ miles in Missouri need at least  4 towers  per mile than 800 towers x 1,600 sq. ft. = 1,280,000 sq. ft divided by 43,560 sq. ft. per acre = 29.38 acres.

Is the PSC going to issue a revised press release on this?  How about some breaking news stories?  That number was always a fiction... as if only the base of the towers is disturbed for a transmission right of way stretching more than 725 miles across four states?*

Be sure not to miss the "example" easement map on the website.  Because you mere farmers probably don't know how to look at a plat of your land without coaching from some land sharks from Texas and their know-it-all bosses in Chicago.  This "example" shows a transmission right of way crossing the shortest side of a rectangular parcel in parallel to the parcel's border.  Gosh, I sure hope Invenergy's straight line from Kansas to Indiana won't cross any parcels diagonally through the middle.  Because that would make the example the exception, not the rule.  Talk about using fiction to paint yourself in the best light possible...  This is a ridiculous addition to the website.  Whoever thought this up is a dolt.  Especially because the "example" parcel shows some drainage being crossed.  Hint:  Don't use those kind of aerial photos... pretend the farmland drains by hidden magic!

Don't fear though, landowners, Invenergy will "minimize" its interference with your drain tile and repair any damage it does to an even better condition!  Make sure any easement agreement you see guarantees that Invenergy will improve your drain tile.  I'll believe it when I see it!

And don't fear having permanent roads laid down on your land.  That only happens when there is no existing access to the right of way via public roads.  It will be extremely RARE!  Because every good farm field has public roads running through it already.

So, what's in it for you?  Significant annual revenue for your county!  You sacrifice your land and everyone in your county benefits from it.  Oh, Invenergy, you sweet talker!

And how might you get paid?  You'll get an amazing 20% of the value of your easement when you give it up.  You can get the rest "prior to construction" (isn't the signing date prior to construction?) or you can be really silly and elect to get a fixed rate payment annually for the life of the easement.  I wonder if you have to play a one-armed bandit to make this choice?

And if you have any questions not covered in Invenergy's generic letter or ridiculous website, who you gonna call?  No, not Ghostbusters, although I would like to see a few land agents and well-fed corporate executives sucked up in the Ghost Trap.  You're supposed to call Invenergy's land agent for advice.  Worst advice, ever.  Ask a lawyer... one not being paid by Invenergy.  Invenergy land agents are representing Invenergy's interests here.  They're not representing yours.

Remember, according to GBE's Code of Conduct, Invenergy must obtain your unequivocal permission before entering your land for any reason.
*As if anyone believes this lie anymore.  Get ready, folks, it's the next one to go.
2 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

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

    About
    StopPATH Blog

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

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

    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me

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

    RSS Feed

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.