Grain Belt Express is also making procedural headway at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Grain Belt asserts that, with respect to the reasons for delaying the In-Service Date of the GBX Line, Ameren Missouri did not mention that its affiliate, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois, was awarded a number of transmission facilities under MISO’s Long-Range Transmission Planning process, which it is constructing with planned In-Service Dates of 2028 and 2030. 

In GBX’s view, the Commission has no jurisdiction over GBX’s activities until GBX hammers iron into the ground (GBX Limited Answer, pgs. 2-3); until that time, GBX is free to transfer that negotiated rate authority like a collectable baseball card. GBX’s logic makes a mockery of both the process by which the Commission determines whether an applicant should be granted negotiated rate authority and the Commission’s authority to review and approve sales, mergers and other transactions under FPA Section 203. 

20231228-5092_motion_for_summary_disposition_final_public.pdf
File Size:	8859 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

(i) recovery of all pre-commercial costs not capitalized and authorization to establish a regulatory asset that will include all such expenses that are incurred prior to the time costs first flow through to customers, including authorization to accrue carrying charges and amortize the regulatory asset over five years for cost recovery purposes (“Regulatory Asset Incentive”); (ii) use of a hypothetical capital structure of 60% equity and 40% debt until NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s first project achieved commercial operations (“Hypothetical Capital Structure Incentive”); and (iii) use of a 50-basis point return on equity (“ROE”) adder for Regional Transmission Organization Participation (“RTO Participation Adder”). 

(i) recovery of 100 percent of prudently-incurred transmission-related costs of the Project if it is abandoned or canceled for reasons beyond the control of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana (“Abandoned Plant Incentive”); (ii) authorization to include 100 percent of prudently incurred Construction Work in Progress (“CWIP”) in rate base for the Project (“CWIP Incentive”); and (iii) authorization to assign the requested Abandoned Plant and CWIP Incentives, if approved, to any newly-formed PJM affiliate of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana that is involved in the development and construction of the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project.​

In addition, the Project requires construction of approximately 129-line miles of 500 kV transmission lines, 24 miles of which is located in a greenfield corridor that crosses through Loudoun County, Virginia, which is one of the wealthiest counties in America. Project opposition from residents in this County is foreseeable and may result in permitting delays, undergrounding requirements that may increase the costs associated with the Project, and/or litigation over the Project’s scope and construction. The Project also spans across four different states—West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania—which will require NEET MidAtlantic Indiana to obtain necessary permits and approvals from a large number of different state and local regulatory bodies and will subject the Project to numerous different environmental and other regulatory standards and requirements. Finally, the Project is directly reliant on the construction of a 36-mile increment of 500 kV transmission lines being developed by First Energy as the incumbent transmission owner. Delays or cancellation associated with First Energy’s construction of its 36-mile increment may impact NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s ability to obtain permits, finalize construction, and place into service the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project in a timely fashion. 


Additionally, the Commission has also recognized that large, new interstate projects can face substantial risks and challenges not presented by more ordinary transmission investments. Like other large interstate projects, the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link Project will span across four different states and many more localities, each with its own regulatory permitting requirements. The Project also traverses across regions of Virginia, such as Loudon County, that have traditionally been litigious when it comes to new, significant transmission build, and similar opposition is expected here. This opposition could result in Project delays or the inability to obtain certain required permits, such as a certificate of public convenience and necessity, ultimately resulting in cancellation of the Project for reasons outside of NEET MidAtlantic Indiana’s reasonable control.

PJM utilizes a hybrid cost allocation method, which the Commission found complies with Order No. 1000, for Regional Facilities and Necessary Lower Voltage Facilities that address a reliability need.  Under this method, PJM allocates 50% of the costs of Regional Facilities or Necessary Lower Voltage Facilities on a load-ratio share basis and the other 50% based on the solution-based distribution factor (DFAX) method.  PJM allocates all of the costs of Lower Voltage Facilities using the solution-based DFAX method.  Cost responsibility assignments pursuant to the Order No. 1000-compliant cost allocation method are included in Schedule 12-Appendix A of the Tariff. 

PJM has told us that if we fail to approve those transmission projects in this RTEP driven by the closure of the Brandon Shores coal generating unit located in Maryland, the grid will likely suffer a severe voltage collapse in Baltimore and the surrounding zones, including Northern Virginia, the District of Columbia, Delaware and southeastern Pennsylvania. Such a result could be potentially catastrophic.
While these projects are very costly – and I take seriously the concerns expressed by the Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI), Maryland Public Service Commission (MD PSC) and Maryland Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) – given this Hobson’s choice I concur with approving PJM’s RTEP filing.
While I concur, I note that this element of the RTEP filing raises more questions than it answers, and some of those questions are extraordinarily important.  

Let me emphasize that the State of Maryland, within its sovereign police powers, clearly has the authority to mandate any particular mix of generating resources it prefers.  Maryland’s new climate law is well within its inherent authority to enact.  Such policies are for Marylanders to choose, not RTOs or FERC.  But if the resulting transmission projects under protest in this RTEP filing are caused more by Maryland’s policy choices than by organic load growth and economic resource retirements, then a salient question that may be asked is whether these transmission projects are more accurately categorized as public policy projects, essentially the same as the transmission upgrades caused by New Jersey’s offshore wind projects?
And if they are more accurately categorized as public policy projects, should such projects be regionally cost-allocated, potentially to consumers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, et al.?

It is ultimately the job of each state to ensure resource adequacy to serve its consumers, even in a multi-state RTO. ​

Clean Line Investment LLC (“Clean Line Investment”) is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that was formed for purposes of investments in independent transmission projects.  Clean Line Investment was a financial partner in Clean Line Energy Partners LLC, which originally developed the Grain Belt Express Project.  While Invenergy has acquired ownership and control of the Grain Belt Project, Clean Line Investment maintains a long-standing, direct interest in the successful implementation of this project.  Given its originating role in this project, Clean Line Investment’s interests cannot be represented by any other party.  Therefore, this intervention is in the public interest.

20231108-5040_er24-59_response_final.pdf
File Size:	133 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

“No public utility shall, without first having secured an order of the Commission authorizing it to do so -- sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the whole of its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any part thereof of a value in excess of $10,000,000.” 

Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of Project structures.

The Project is designed to have a minimal impact to land.  In Phase I for the HVDC Main Line approximately 9 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. For Phase I Tiger Connector approximately 0.2 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. And for the Phase II HVDC Main Line, approximately 7 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. 

There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources. We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement toward renewable energy. The energy on the Project provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally-friendly energy that will increase resiliency of the grid. The Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, with the conditions set out below, in the public interest. 

Grain Belt has a viable plan for raising the capital necessary to finance the cost of constructing the Project on a project financing basis. Specifically, after advancing development and permitting activities to a status at which developers of wind and solar generation facilities and other potential customers of the transmission line are willing to enter into commercial agreements for an undivided interest (purchase or lease) or long-term contracts for transmission capacity on the Project, Grain Belt will enter such contracts with interested parties that satisfy necessary creditworthiness requirements. Grain Belt will then raise debt capital using the aforementioned contracts as security for the debt.


Grain Belt anticipates utilizing a combination of commercial and governmental sources of financing, and, at this time, is still evaluating all potential options for financing. Options for governmental sources of financing include the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP); and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Transmission Facilitation Program; Department of Energy loans to non-federal borrowers for transmission facilities pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act and potentially other government funding options. Additional equity capital may also be raised to help finance construction of the Project, or Grain Belt’s existing investors may make additional equity investments in the Project.

Consistent with the Commission’s requirements for obtaining and maintaining negotiated rate authority, Grain Belt Express’s negotiated rates will continue to be just and reasonable. In the context of negotiated rates, the Commission considers whether the merchant transmission developer has assumed the full market risk for the cost of constructing its proposed project, and is not building within the footprint of the developer’s (or an affiliate’s) traditionally regulated transmission system. The Commission also considers whether the merchant transmission owner (or an affiliate) owns transmission facilities in the same region as the project, what alternatives customers have, and whether the merchant transmission owner is capable of erecting any barriers to entry among competitors, and whether the owner would have any incentive to withhold capacity.
Here, Grain Belt Express has assumed, and will continue to assume, the full market risk for the cost of constructing the Project. Grain Belt Express has no captive pool of customers from which it could recoup the cost of the Project. ​