Category:

The Swamp's Energy Circus

1/12/2020

Holy Swamp Circus, Batman! The House Energy & Commerce Committee is working on a "CLEAN Future Act" that renewable energy industry group ACORE says is based on a report it recently released.

And what in ACORE's report? This

I'll sum it up for you in as few words as possible.

Require every state to set a renewable energy standard under federal law. This will require states to pay increased prices for renewables, even if they are more expensive than conventional sources of energy.
Provide new, perpetual federal tax credits to renewable energy, so it can appear to be "cheaper."
Charge federal penalties to sources of energy that contain "carbon" so that these sources of energy become more expensive than the expensive renewable sources.
Supersize the electric transmission network to provide free transportation for more renewable energy.

Of course, the devil is in the details. One huge detail conveniently left out of this report is HOW MUCH WOULD THIS COST? All of ACORE's great ideas come at a huge cost to electric consumers, you and me! None of this stuff is free or cheap, in fact, it's going to cost us trillions if implemented.

But, the climate, the planet, civilization, for goodness sake! Oh, the humanity!

How much good would this plan actually do? ACORE's basis for this is full of holes.

The U.S. accounts for 15% of the world’s total GHG emissions, making it the world’s second largest emitter.
Only 28% of U.S. GHG emissions are attributable to the electricity sector.
Today, 22% of America’s 1,047.6 gigawatt (GW) utility-scale, electric generation capacity is renewable, while 67% of our electrical capacity produces GHG emissions. In 2050, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that 60% of the generation mix will still produce GHG emissions. Replacing this projected emitting capacity with pollution-free renewable power will require nearly 30 GW of additional renewable capacity each year between 2020 and 2050, a roughly 50% increase above the current growth rate of U.S. renewables.

So, let's see... spending trillions on decarbonizing the electricity sector would result in a 28% reduction to 15% of GHG emissions. Do you know how small a number that is? ACORE is also talking about CAPACITY FACTORS. A generator's nameplate capacity is the amount of energy it could produce if it ran at maximum capacity all the time. The capacity factor is the actual energy produced, because generators don't run all the time. The capacity factor of a generator with a continual supply of fuel allowing it to run at maximum capacity at any time is pretty high. Renewable generators, such as wind and solar, on the other hand, have miniscule capacity factors because they cannot be counted on to run at their nameplate capacity at any time because their fuel supply is variable. Therefore, in order to produce the kind of capacity factor ACORE is talking about using wind and solar, we'd have to build ten times as much generation. How cost effective is it to build 10 times the generation you actually need just so you can get a 10% capacity factor out of a renewable generator? I'm really not convinced here.

But wait... there's more!

About those new, permanent tax credits for renewables:

Qualifying technologies should include all current and future resources that meet emissions criteria, including enabling technologies like energy storage and expanded interstate, high-voltage transmission that accesses clean energy resources.

The tax credit recommended in the report is:
The electricity title of the Clean Energy for America Act (S. 1288) would provide a minimum credit to any clean electricity facility that is at least 35 percent cleaner than the national average, with zero-emissions facilities receiving a production tax credit of up to 2.4 cents per kWh or an investment tax credit of up to 30%, at the election of the taxpayer. The PTC would be available for ten years after the facility is placed in service, and the credit in its entirety would phase out when emissions from the electricity sector fall to 50% below 2019 levels. Additionally, the Clean Energy for America Act would repeal a range of existing preferential incentives for fossil fuel companies, including the expensing of intangible drilling costs, percentage depletion, deductions for tertiary injectants, and credits for enhanced oil recovery and marginal oil wells.

So, 2.4 cents tax credit per kwh generated for qualifying sources. And how is that going to be applied to electric transmission? First of all, there is no such thing as "clean" electrons. All electrons look the same and get all mixed up in the transmission network, so there is no way to judge whether the electricity on a transmission line is 35 percent cleaner than the national average. What's the national average of the cleanliness of electricity? Second of all, how would this be measured? Measuring the generation of electrons to calculate a production tax credit is simple. They are measured as they are created. Once they are transferred to our current AC electric transmission network, they get all mixed up with other electrons and nobody can tell where they go. Complicating this, a lot of electrons are simply lost along the way. Is it the clean ones? Or the dirty ones? If you measure how many "clean" electrons you add to the transmission system, then you're overestimating because some are lost. But you can't measure them at the receiving end because they're all mixed up (and some just go around in a circle forever and nobody ever uses them). Ya know what? A production tax credit (or investment tax credit) for electric transmission is about the most imprecise and stupid thing I've ever heard. It can't work. They'd just be guessing at how much to pay these transmission owners.

And here's the big thing... tax credits for generators and transmission owners mean they pay less taxes. If they pay less taxes, WE pay MORE taxes to make up the difference. So it's not like these "credits" actually make the energy any cheaper, we just pay for the energy in our tax bill instead of our electric bill. The end game here is that electricity will get even MORE expensive.

And just to make sure renewables appear to be "cheaper", let's remove any existing credits for conventional generation, and then add "carbon" penalties to them.

But all this pretend "cheapness" might end up being more expensive for "the poor." Oh, look, it's Renewable Robin Hood!

Since energy is an unavoidable expense, putting a price on carbon could also, at least initially, have a disparate impact on lower-income households. To prevent that outcome, any equitable carbon pricing program should be designed to avoid economic regressivity. One possible solution is to return revenue from carbon pricing to citizens in the form of a pro-rata carbon “dividend.”

Let's tax the hell out of carbon and make energy really expensive, and distribute that tax revenue to "the poor" so that they can have cheap energy. Rob from the rich, and give to the poor (because "the poor" have lots of votes!!)

And then let's bring back the NIETCs that big green accidentally killed in 2011 when they were being used to justify new transmission for fossil fuels, except now we'll use them to usurp state authority to site new transmission for our wondrous "clean" energy transmission.

Additionally, Congress should clarify federal backstop siting authority by restoring Congressional intent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which would encourage and accelerate investment and development of needed transmission infrastructure when that infrastructure is in the national interest and advances the objectives of a comprehensive climate plan.

National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) were established in 2005. Essentially, the U.S. DOE can designate these corridors through studies that identify transmission constraints. Once a corridor is designated, backstop siting and permitting authority shifts to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the event that a state cannot approve a transmission project within one of these corridors. They tried to do it right after the legislation passed, but the effort failed in the courts. Ironically, it was the big environmental groups that fought NIETCs in the courts to have them vacated and the backstop permitting authority neutralized. All a state has to do is simply deny a permit and that nullifies FERC authority. But now ACORE wants Congress to re-vamp this idea with the requirement that NIETCs facilitate transmission for "clean" energy.

Guess what? NIETCs didn't work the first time. They won't work this time, either. Transmission siting and permitting is state jurisdictional, and that's never going to change. There's simply nothing ACORE or Congress can do to usurp state authority over transmission.

This report is a swamp clown horror show! It will make electricity so expensive that we can't afford it. Well, if we sit in the dark, I guess that will take care of a very, very small percentage of carbon emissions.

We can't afford the "CLEAN Future Act" and we can't afford ACORE's pie-in-the-sky recommendations. Where's Batman when you need him?

6 Comments

Missouri Court Avoids The Obvious

12/19/2019

0 Comments

The Missouri Court of Appeals issued its decision the other day in the matter of Missouri Landowners Alliance vs. the Missouri Public Service Commission. The Court found that the PSC properly approved the Grain Belt Express project. There were some pretty interesting arguments presented regarding a company's use of eminent domain for private profit, so I was interested in the court's basis for dismissing them. I was sorely disappointed.

The Court's opinion pretty much skipped over the entire eminent domain issue, choosing instead to devote much of its opinion to other issues, such as evidentiary challenges, where GBE refused to show its challengers "confidential" information the PSC relied on to approve the project, and "need" for the line. Little was said about eminent domain. In fact, the words "eminent domain" are nowhere to be found in the Opinion. Instead, "public utility" gets a scant mention. The Court recognized that a public utility must be for public use.

Regarding “public utility,” the relevant statutory definitions contain no explicit requirement that an entity be operated for a public use in order for it to constitute a public utility. However, Missouri courts have held that such a “public use” requirement was intended.

Recognizing that, the Court found a "public use" for GBE that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of its HVDC technology and federal negotiated rate authority. GBE is not a part of our transmission system for public use, it is a completely separate system that serves as a private extension cord for its select customers who pay the most for service. The Court figured because one of those customers (who got a sweetheart deal below cost in order to provide an appearance of "public use") was a public utility that served all customers equally, that GBE must be offering a public service. The Court transferred MJMEUC's public utility status to GBE, even though GBE is a private service for select customers only. This completely fails. GBE will serve other private customers. In fact, GBE may never even serve MJMEUC at all because MJMEUC's service depends upon other private customers willing to subsidize the cost of the MJMEUC contract in order to make the project economic. If there are no other customers willing to cover MJMEUC's costs, the project will fail and be scrapped. This is the danger of allowing a customer's public utility status to filter up to the service provider. MJMEUC does not make GBE a public utility. See how the court did that?

Here, the evidence showed that when the Grain Belt project is constructed and begins operation, it will transmit energy from wind farms in Kansas to wholesale customers in Missouri. In the case of MJMEUC, those customers are Missouri cities and towns that serve as electric providers to approximately 347,000 Missouri citizens. An entity, such as Grain Belt, that constructs and operates a transmission line bringing electrical energy from electrical power generators to public utilities that serve consumers is a necessary and important link in the distribution of electricity and qualifies as a public utility. Therefore, Grain Belt’s project will serve the public use, and Grain Belt qualifies as a public utility.

We should all be concerned that the Missouri court just set a horrible precedent for the use of eminent domain to benefit private companies and their select customers.

Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst gets it just right:

“We vigorously disagree with the court’s ruling upholding the Public Service Commission’s decision authorizing the use of eminent domain for the Grain Belt Express merchant transmission line. Grain Belt Express is not a public utility. Investors who want to negotiate rates privately and enter into contracts to sell electricity to the highest bidders should not be able to condemn land in order to build their dream project. Contrary to the court’s assertion, the Missouri Supreme Court has not suggested otherwise.”

Courts don't make laws, legislatures do. Perhaps the law in Missouri needs a bit of an overhaul? With all the time and effort devoted to opposing GBE at the PSC and in the courts, it can be quite liberating to realize that Missourians have had the power to kill it all along.

Block GBE-Missouri tells us:

One more potential obstacle that GBE faces is at the capitol. Legislation was recently pre-filed in both the Missouri House and Senate on our behalf. The House bill was filed by Representative Hansen and the Senate bill was filed by Senator Brown. We came very close to passage of the bill last session before time ran out. Since this year’s bills have been pre-filed in both houses with continued strong support from the Speaker of the House and other key leaders, we are optimistic the bills will be passed this session which begins at the first of the year. Stay tuned as we may be announcing a rally in Jeff City for the bills sometime this winter or early spring.

This battle is far from over. The opposition is committed and will not give up. I've seen this same commitment from transmission line opponents in Maine, who are gathering signatures to place a proposed fly-over transmission line on next year's ballot as a referendum. That transmission project, the New England Clean Energy Connect, was approved by a captured state utility commission and politically supported by the state's governor. The state legislature passed legislation last year aimed at the project, but the governor vetoed it. Undaunted, the opposition has continued its push to give citizens a voice in the decision, no matter how hard corporate and political interests attempt to silence them. I've seen this same spirit alive in Missouri during the nearly 10 years GBE has been futilely banging its head against the wall. We can get this done!

GBE is no closer to being built after this court decision. All the hurdles are still in front of it. What killed the other Clean Line projects? Legislation and the courts killed Rock Island Clean Line. Lack of customers killed the Plains and Eastern Clean Line. Whatever happens, I am confident that GBE will also fail. Keep fighting!

0 Comments

Transmission Tax Credits Are Dumb

11/23/2019

1 Comment

A bunch of schemers who profit from building transmission have announced their "Statement of Principles" for overbuilding transmission. Big deal. The "principles" are just so much glittering generalities, such as:

Policy makers in the United States and its several states and municipalities and in Canada and its several Provinces, Territories, and municipalities are urged to review and improve the regulation of the infrastructure that comprises the electrical grid, to (1) streamline processes governing economic and environmental reviews of projects where possible, (2) promote economic and energy efficiency, (3) deliver important environmental benefits, and (4) ensure equitable sharing of the cost of needed infrastructure, as appropriate;
As applicable, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Department of Energy, and state economic regulators should assess the need to improve upon and revise regulatory processes and corresponding regulations and policies governing the planning and cost allocation of high voltage electric transmission, balancing the public's interest in expedition, cost savings, care of the environment, and an equitable sharing of burdens;
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces and Territories that adopt renewable electric generation (fuel) requirements for their domestic utilities and other generators should, at the same time, recognize and take into account the extent to which such policies necessitate the development of additional transmission lines and/or the deployment of advanced technologies;
Canadian and U.S. industry leaders and public policy makers must ensure that investment in grid infrastructure in both countries responds effectively to threats from extreme weather and cyber intrusion.

"We want new laws that gut regulation and make it easier for us to do whatever we want." Why use 1,000 words when 18 will do? Really, there's nothing in the "principles" that a good lobbyist couldn't cure.

These "principles" were supposedly cooked up at the first "International Summit on the Electric Transmission Grid." Apparently, it was a frothy good time!

"This will be a frothy presentation of new planning approaches driven by new technological developments."

WTF? Frothy? Who wrote this garbage? An intern who moonlights at Starbucks?

All the usual suspects were there... trade groups, unions, and environmental organizations. These guys will support anything that makes them money or checks a box on a grant deliverable. Doesn't make it necessary or needed. Oh, c'mon, quit pretending that your money making goals benefit anyone other than yourselves.

Sounds like this "summit" was a bit of a joke and the only guys there that weren't biased towards more transmission as a money maker or grant deliverable made fun of the other speakers.

“The turf wars and feuds between RTOs are legendary; MISO and SPP, these people, for reasons that are often lost to the mists of time, they don’t really like each other that much, and they don’t work well together,” Skelly said. “So the notion that FERC’s going to pass something that says, ‘Hey, you guys, coordinate and work together’ … come on. It has not happened, and it’s not going to happen.”

In a later panel, MISO President and COO Clair Moeller disputed that, saying, “I’d submit we don’t actually have a planning problem. We have an objective problem. The reason we don’t get the answers that everybody agrees with is that people’s objectives are different.
“Lanny and I had a fistfight in the bathroom because RTOs don’t get along well,” he joked, referring to Lanny Nickell, SPP senior vice president of engineering, who was in the audience. “Well, that’s simply not true. The simple fact is the objectives are different.

Making crap up... and being called out on it. Way to go, Mikey! RTOs are set up to serve their own regions. They're not set up to provide benefits for other regions. Just because Skelly failed to find any economic need for his interregional transmission projects doesn't mean there's a problem with the RTOs. There's just a problem with Skelly. He keeps trying to pin his own failure on everyone else.

Skelly also had this terrible idea:

Skelly also described the confusion that state regulators have to endure when being pitched multiple interstate lines. “We need policy mechanisms so that the RTO shows up and FERC shows up. Somebody needs to show up from some sanctioned body to say, ‘Yes, this makes sense.’”
But FERC commissioners “hate telling state regulators what to do,” Gensler said. “That is a fate worse than death for most FERC commissioners.”

FERC Commissioners hate telling states what to do because they have no authority or jurisdiction to do so. It doesn't matter what FERC or the RTO thinks about a transmission project. The state doesn't care. Its regulators are following state laws and policy. In fact, the heavy handed interference of FERC and RTOs in state regulatory proceedings can have the same compelling effect as your mother suggesting you wear a hat and boots to school when you're a teenager. It inspires secret rebellion for rebellion's sake alone.

Lots of "formerly" important people were there, such as former DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz, who got all excited reminiscing about the Paris climate change thing and an "absolutely beautiful" attempted rape of Arkansas.

“For the United States, the integration with Canada, and the opportunities for getting additional carbon-free electricity is absolutely essential” to reaching the targets under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, said Ernest Moniz, former secretary of energy under President Barack Obama. “We have to get the infrastructure to support it.”

He talked about “an absolutely beautiful case” under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Clean Line Energy Partners’ Plains & Eastern Clean Line. “It was a beautiful example to implement, and the only problem was called ‘Arkansas.’”

Maybe it's the hair? Why didn't Arkansas just submit to Clean Line's advances? Why did Arkansas think it had any rights to say "no?" Next thing you know, Arkansas is going to start smoking cigarettes and thinking it should have the right to vote!

But maybe this was all about something else...

As a potential solution, Skelly pointed to Sen. Martin Heinrich’s (D-N.M.) announcement that he would introduce bills to create an investment tax credit for “regionally significant” transmission projects and to direct FERC “to improve its interregional transmission planning process.” Heinrich, however, has been introducing similar legislation since 2015 to no success.

Oh, right, Martin Heinrich, legislative utility pet. This guy has more electric utility and energy company and environmental group political donors than any fossil fuel company I know. He could make a Koch brother blush!

But, as RTO Insider tells us, Heinrich's legislation is rarely successful. Thank goodness for that! Especially because Heinrich's new "idea" that came out of this ridiculous transmission-lovin' circus is completely unworkable.

“Where this is right now, I have floated this with people across the industry who have done this type of work, and they have said it would make a real difference,” Heinrich told E&E News in a brief hallway interview.

Right. All the folks at his Transmission Summit never look their gift horse in the mouth.

So, what makes this idea so bad?

Heinrich said the general framework of his bill would enable an investment tax credit for transmission development that meets a “regionally significant” threshold.
Such an incentive, he argued, would represent a more cost-effective way to help promote transmission development than other measures, although the New Mexico Democrat admitted he’s still working out the exact bar for how much the credit would be worth and what projects would qualify.
The need for additional transmission lines to help move power from rural outskirts to more heavily populated corridors has increasingly come to the forefront of energy planning and the push to add more renewable energy onto the grid.
“It could potentially be a game changer,” Heinrich said. “We are going to have to build a lot more transmission to have a completely green grid. You have to be able to move those electrons from where they are generated to where they are used.”

How are we going to define "regionally significant," and who is going to make that determination? Let's face it, your real purpose is to build transmission for renewable energy. But the electric transmission grid is "open access" to all kinds of energy, and it is completely impossible to separate "clean" electrons from "dirty" ones. An electron is an electron. Any tax credits for transmission will also support "dirty" energy.

As well, lack of investment isn't the problem. A number of investors wasted over $200M (that's two hundred million dollars!) on Clean Line Energy Partners and never recouped a dime.

Heinrich envisions this working similar to the federal production tax credit for wind energy, where energy produced generates tax credits. Except we're doing away with the PTC. It expires at the end of this year. Why would we need a new tax credit for transmission?

Especially when FERC already administers a generous transmission incentives program that awards all sorts of financial benefits to transmission owners. At least those incentives are paid for by the users of the transmission in question. One of the first principles for cost allocation is determination of benefits. The cost of transmission shall be paid for by those who benefit from it. Under Heinrich's brilliant idea, all the tax payers in the U.S. would pay for transmission that only benefits a handful of users.

Houston, we have a problem. This idea is one of the dumbest!

That infrastructure has hit hurdles, both political and regulatory, that have added years and millions of dollars to development, resulting in the abandonment of more than one high-profile transmission project.
An example is the proposed Plains and Eastern Clean Line project, a $2.5 billion, 705-mile transmission line from Oklahoma to Tennessee to deliver up to 4,000 megawatts of wind electricity. It stalled last year after running into individual state permitting problems.

And what do federal tax credits do to solve state siting and permitting problems? Actually, nothing. Less than nothing, because a state is likely to reject a project that is made more costly through added incentives.

Dumb, dumb, and dumber!

What is the solution? Building renewables closer to load as distributed generation. No transmission needed. Ratepayers will save a bundle while the energy supply gets cleaner. But then again, it wasn't called the Frothy International Distributed Generation Summit. And none of those people donated to Heinrich's political campaigns.

No matter how badly these people want to overbuild transmission, they will never be successful. We simply don't need it. There are much better ideas!

1 Comment

When You Don't Get What You Want Fast Enough...

10/1/2019

0 Comments

Remember FERC's Transmission Incentives inquiry? The ink is hardly dry on the hundreds of initial and reply comments filed at the agency this summer, but the greedy utility industry just can't wait to create an easy way to increase their profits. Or maybe they're not confident that they can twist enough arms at FERC to get their own way and have given up on that in order to pursue another way to get what they want?

In FERC's inquiry released this spring, the agency sought opinions about the security of our transmission system, and ideas about actions it could take to boost security in the form of incentives.

Security
27. Enhancing the physical and cyber-security of existing jurisdictional transmission facilities, including new facilities, can improve the facilities’ ability to contribute to the reliability of the bulk power system. Addressing the security of the transmission system is a priority of the Commission.

Q 32) Should the Commission incentivize physical and cyber- security enhancements at transmission facilities? If so, what types of security investments should qualify for transmission incentives? What type of incentive(s) would be appropriate?
Q 33) How should the Commission define “security” in the context of determining eligibility for incentive treatment? For example, should the Commission define security based on specific investments or based on performance of delivering increased security of the transmission system?

FERC intends to deal with this issue, although it is questionable whether "security" is a basis for awarding financial incentives under Sec. 219 of the FPA, which is the only existing statute authorizing FERC to award transmission incentives.

So, what the heck is this?

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Joe Manchin (D-WV), James Risch (R-ID), Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Angus King (I-ME) introduced last week a bill designed to help strengthen the nation’s electric grid.

The Protecting Resources On The Electric grid with Cybersecurity Technology (PROTECT) Act directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to incentivize cybersecurity investments by electric utilities.
The measure also establishes a grant and technical assistance program for advanced cybersecurity technology at the Department of Energy (DOE).

Key provisions of the bill include directing FERC to issue a rulemaking on rate incentives for advanced cybersecurity technology and establish a grant program at DOE for utilities that are not regulated by FERC to deploy advanced cybersecurity technology.

Our Congress critters have introduced legislation to create a new statute just to deal with security issues. Does this indicate that the critters believe security isn't covered by Sec. 219 and needs a separate mandate? If that's the case, there are a whole bunch of other issues FERC is considering in the context of Sec. 219 that also fall short. Or are they just marching in tune to their campaign donors to speed things up? We all know FERC is going to take its own sweet time on the incentives inquiry. Like a really, really long time. Increased utility profits just can't wait! Does this mean that all the other issues covered in FERC's inquiry will find their own home in separate new legislation? Is FERC going to be left holding a deflated balloon, where all the transmission incentives have migrated away from Sec. 219? Why not amend Sec. 219 instead of creating new legislation? This whole thing makes little sense.

Anyhow... what would this proposed legislation do?

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, shall conduct a study to identify incentive-based, including performance-based, rate treatments for the transmission of electric energy subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission that could be used to encourage—
‘‘(1) investment by public utilities in advanced cybersecurity technology; and
‘‘(2) participation by public utilities in cyberse- curity threat information sharing programs.

So, let me get this straight... in addition to FERC considering this very same issue in its transmission incentives inquiry, it's also going to conduct a taxpayer-funded "study" in consultation with a bunch of other quasi-governmental agencies, some of which actually have the authority to simply order utilities to undertake increased security measures? The Commission itself, as well as NERC, have existing authority to order utilities to undertake security measures to protect their systems. If this was such a big problem, you'd think they'd do so quickly, before China turns the lights off. Instead, we're going to waste money "studying" ways to reward public utilities for protecting their own systems, a duty they already have.

INCENTIVE-BASED RATE TREATMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the completion of the study under subsection (b), the Commission shall establish, by rule, incentive-based, including performance-based, rate treat- ments for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce by public utilities for the purpose of benefitting consumers by encouraging—

‘‘(1) investments by public utilities in advanced cybersecurity technology; and
‘‘(2) participation by public utilities in cyberse- curity threat information sharing programs.

We've got to provide financial "encouragement" for utilities to protect their own systems? Instead of ordering utilities to protect their systems, we're going to pay them extra in order to do so voluntarily? This is nothing more than allowing utilities to set the price at which they agree to be regulated. Ridiculous!

Furthermore, guess who pays the extra incentives? You do, I do, everyone does, in their electric bill. Congress is giving away our money because they believe it "benefits" us. They've even built in a protection for us...

RATEPAYER PROTECTION.—Any rate approved under the rule issued pursuant to this section, including any revisions to that rule, shall be subject to the requirements of sections 205 and 206 that all rates, charges, terms, and conditions—

‘‘(1) shall be just and reasonable; and
‘‘(2) shall not be unduly discriminatory or pref- erential.

Requiring consumers to pay extra to "encourage" utilities to protect their systems, when the same protection could be had by simply ordering utilities to fulfill their obligation to keep their system safe, is not just and reasonable. It's unjust and absurd.

But, we're not done yet!

ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, shall establish a program, to be known as the ‘‘Rural and Municipal Utility Advanced Cybersecurity Grant and Technical Assistance Program’’, to provide grants and technical assistance to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, eligible entities to protect against, detect, respond to, and recover from cybersecurity threats.

While big, corporate, public utilities will benefit from increased rates paid by their consumers who use their systems, small publicly-owned, cooperative and municipal utilities won't be left behind. These small utilities are operated in the interest of their customers and don't turn a profit. Whatever it costs to serve is the price their ratepayers pay. Except with this legislation, these utilities will just be handed some cash to use to provide benefits to their customers. That cash comes out of the U.S. Treasury, that we all pay into. So while public utility customers pay to "secure" their own systems, we all pay to "secure" the small not-for-profit utilities so their customers don't have to shoulder the cost. Does this even make sense? Nope. The cost-causer should pay the costs for service.

Why are all taxpayers paying to secure the systems of small town municipal utilities? Is cyber security that much of an issue that we have to act now and spend a bunch of taxpayer money? If so, just order these utilities to secure their own systems and collect the costs from their ratepayers. No financial incentives to "encourage" them. No taxpayer dollars to get the job done (or be wasted, like a lot of federal grants).

This is utterly ridiculous. Let your Congress critter know you don't support this and want your utility service to be made safe now through regular ratemaking.

0 Comments

GBE Opponents Rise From the Ashes

5/18/2019

1 Comment

Although important legislation to prevent the use of eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission projects was defeated at the Missouri legislature, landowners are not defeated.

This one small battle in the larger war re-framed the issue in a big way that will have repercussions nationwide.

Democrats, such as Reps. Tracy McCreery and Peter Merideth, both of St. Louis, have argued that projects like the Grain Belt would bring in tax revenue and encourage the use of green energy.

Tax revenue? We should use eminent domain to take private property in order to increase tax revenue? Wasn't that the problem in Kelo v. City of New London? Should out-of-state private companies wield eminent domain for their own profits based on inflated promises of increased tax revenue? If that's the case, no one's property is safe. This is bigger than one merchant transmission project.

And then there's that "green energy" thing. Should private property be confiscated in order to pretend the electricity we waste is "greener?" The right of eminent domain was granted to public utilities in the last century as a way to electrify the country. In more recent times, this purpose has been lost as we slipped down the slope of using eminent domain for less compelling reasons, such as generation choices and electric rate issues. The first tenet of eminent domain use for electric projects should always be absolute necessity. Will the lights go off if the transmission project isn't built? If the answer is no, then eminent domain should be prohibited. End of story.

These are the issues that will be discussed in the wake of HB 1062, and advocates will enter the next battle in this war better prepared.

This legislative battle saw the rise of a crew of property rights heroes who deserve our recognition and thanks.

Representative James Hansen showed true leadership and dedication to his constituents by sponsoring this legislation and working tirelessly to shepherd it through the legislature. Be sure to thank him for taking a stand for property rights.

Ralls County Commissioner Wiley Hibbard worked enthusiastically throughout to support this legislation on behalf of his constituents. There were times he was in Jefferson City throughout the night. There can be no better public servant than Wiley Hibbard, and he deserves a wealth of thanks for his efforts.

Marilyn O'Bannon, Eastern Missouri Landowners' representative never stopped her efforts to get this legislation passed, even when an accident left her with only one good arm in the middle of the battle. Marilyn's work ethic and grace under pressure should be lauded by all GBE opponents.

Paul Agathan, the best lawyer landowners have ever had contributed greatly to the effort, even though he was bogged down with PSC briefs for the GBE sales case AND appeal for the CCN case at the same time. He's amazing and landowners can't thank him enough for his work on their behalf.

Landowners Phil and Doris Brown put huge effort into this battle, providing advice and material and taking the initiative on many things to keep the issues clear and truthful.

Russ Pisciotta, Block GBE representative, continued to dedicate his time on this issue and was a fierce advocate for the legislation.

Please take the time to thank these individuals for the countless hours spent on this initiative.

And now let's recognize all the landowners and supporters who not only made the trek to Jefferson City for the rally in April during a very busy time of year, but blanketed legislators with calls and emails of support for this legislation. Thank you, each one of you!

So, what's next? Continuing this war as it was before the legislative session. GBE's CCN has been appealed. A decision has not yet been made on the GBE/Invenergy sales case by the PSC. Briefs have been filed.

GBE/Invenergy need numerous county assents in Missouri before they can construct anything. That battle is looming on the horizon and it's not going to be quick or easy for GBE/Invenergy.

If we believe Invenergy, a permit would be needed from the Illinois Commerce Commission that is years away. It hasn't even been applied for, and even if it is granted several years down the road, appeals look promising thanks to the precedent set by Illinois Landowners Alliance several years ago.

If we don't believe Invenergy, major changes are coming to GBE before the end of the year that will require new state regulatory approvals.

Delay, delay, delay. And as we all know, delay is our friend. And I'll share something here... I truly believe GBE will never be built. Have faith! You are going to win this battle!

No sense crying over spilled milk when there are so many battles left to fight. Every effort to defeat GBE builds strength for the opposition. Keep fighting!

1 Comment

When Deceit Bites Back

5/13/2019

0 Comments

Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive. -- Sir Walter Scott in Marmion

And that about sums up the legislative situation in Missouri right now, where Invenergy and its minority sympathizers think they may have crippled HB 1062 for the time being. HB 1062 amends Missouri's eminent domain statute to prevent the use of eminent domain for above ground merchant transmission lines that do not erect substations at least every 50 miles. HB 1062 does not prevent the construction of Grain Belt Express, it simply removes eminent domain authority for the currently proposed project. It encourages Invenergy to build a better project, one that provides more benefit to Missouri, without an onerous sacrifice on behalf of Missouri citizens who will receive no benefit from the involuntary construction of the project across their productive agricultural businesses. Can GBE be built without eminent domain? Yes! The project can use existing public rights of way, it can be constructed completely underground, or it can provide connections for Missouri utilities at least every 50 miles.

But Invenergy doesn't want to build its project this way because it costs more, or perhaps it will delay the project enough to cause a missed opportunity for Invenergy to sell electricity from its Wind Catcher turbines to a company that serves other states, who requires the full production tax credit for wind generation.

But the web Invenergy and friends are spinning in Missouri looks like it is intended to deceive.

This says that HB 1062 would "ban the GBE transmission line." That's not even close to the truth. In fact, it's a straight up lie. Nothing new from Renew Missouri, who previously insisted that landowner groups were funded by "dark money" and then could not produce one shred of evidence to back up its concocted accusation. It's like Renew Missouri believes it needs to lie and exaggerate in order to garner support for Grain Belt Express.

And let's think about this... supposedly the Energy Committee members were getting "political pressure" to support HB 1062. Is that some Renew Missouri code phrase for constituent support? According to Renew, some Senators "held strong and voted no." But not because of "political pressure." Therefore, it must be lobbying pressure from a Chicago-based corporation that has no current business in Missouri. And for some reason this is somehow morally superior to what Missouri citizens want? Sounds more like Invenergy's lobbying dollars at work. Isn't it interesting that Invenergy was a recent "sponsor" of one of Renew Missouri's events? I wonder what color the sponsorship dollars were? Were they a dark color, or pure lily white?

Renew Missouri seems pretty tickled that some Senators "filibustered this language and held off the foes of renewable energy..." Phrased another way, these Senators support the use of eminent domain by for-profit corporations. It's a slippery slope indeed. If Missouri is "open for business" for out-of-state corporations to condemn land for their own profit, what flood of corporate eminent domain is on the horizon? Renew Missouri's message to Senators seems to imply that a "savings" for a handful of municipal utility customers, a few jobs and the "forcing" of utility resource supply mixes tips the scales to allow eminent domain. Eminent domain shall only be used to take property for a public use. Eminent domain should not be used solely to provide economic benefit. I think public sentiment toward the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes has been made clear in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London. Nobody's right to own and enjoy property should be compromised by another's "right" to cheaper, or cleaner, electric service. This is not public use. I shudder to think what "showing the world that Missouri is open for business" through the use of eminent domain could do.

And what of Renew Missouri's message? Any Senator receiving the copied message should be aware that it doesn't come from the minds of constituents, but from the pen of Renew Missouri and its "sponsor" Invenergy.

And then there's the inexplicable behavior of Senator Bill White, who this article tells us "believes private companies have the right to take your land away for the use of a public utility." It also says Senator White sided with Democrats in "slowing debate on the bill."

The question is why? Why is Senator White such a sudden and fierce advocate for Grain Belt Express? He says, "the company is regulated by the PSC which makes it a utility." And

"You have to run a power line somewhere," he told Newstalk KZRG a few weeks ago. "It's kind of like our reservoir down down here, you have to build it somewhere."

“If you [are] transmitting power from point A to point B, you’ve got to go from point A to B,” he continued. “Ideally, you find a place where you can make an equitable agreement with everybody along the way so you don’t have the eminent domain process but if that’s not the case, you have eminent domain proceedings.”

First of all, "you" don't have to run the Grain Belt Express anywhere. It's not necessary to public electric service. It's purpose is for elective alternate supply to select customers. Second of all, what's it to you, Senator White? The previously proposed route of GBE comes nowhere near Joplin, and as near as I can figure none of the contracted municipal electric suppliers who have elected to take service from GBE are in Senator White's district. Why would Senator White become such a strong advocate for a project that doesn't affect his constituents? As well, why has Invenergy taken such interest in Senator White? Why would Invenergy need an ally who is not affected by the project? Maybe Invenergy is getting more bang for its buck than meets the eye? What if Grain Belt Express was rerouted through Joplin? How difficult would it be for Senator White to change his position and oppose the project once it affected his district? Seems to me that Invenergy would have Senator White just where it wanted him. I find Invenergy's courting of Senator White incredibly revealing.

Let's look at the transcript from the recent PSC hearing on the sale of GBE to Invenergy:

Q. Can you very briefly describe what Invenergy's wind catcher site is and what its status is at this point?
A. So wind catcher was a 2,000 megawatt wind project that was being sold to American Electric Power.
Q. Has Invenergy discussed the possibility of developing this site for wind farms?
A. We're-- we're constantly in the process of selling that project.
Q. And this project, in particular?
A. So again, the Wind Catcher project is in the Panhandle of Oklahoma and it was contracted by American Electric Power who failed to receive commission approval to purchase the project.
Q. And my question is, have you looked into
developing that project?
A. Well, we are developing that project.
Q. Okay .
A. I don't understand.
Q. What's the status of it at this point?
A. It's still in development, active development.
Q. Development meaning what?
A. Meaning that we have active land easements for the installation of generators, wind turbines specifically, and we're looking for off- takers for the facility.
Q. And is that site about one hundred miles
from the proposed Grain Belt converter station in Kansas, approximately?
A. Approximately.
Q. Have you discussed internally the
possibility of connecting wind generation at the Wind Catcher site with the Kansas converter station of the Grain Belt line?
A. Not really.
Q. Not really, meaning no?
A. So I mean there is a possibility that an
affiliate may want to purchase capacity on Grain Belt.
Q. An affiliate of whom?
A. An affiliate of Invenergy.

So, Invenergy was going to sell the project to American Electric Power. Except the Texas Public Utility Commission denied AEP's request to recover the cost of the project from ratepayers. And AEP cancelled that plan. However, AEP turned right around and issued a Request for Proposals to purchase a nearly identical amount of wind capacity delivered to Tulsa. AEP requires the proposal to qualify for 100% of the federal wind production tax credit, which Wind Catcher does. In the fine print, AEP also says the company would ultimately want to purchase the wind generator and transmission line. If Invenergy could deliver the Wind Catcher project to AEP in conjunction with a new transmission project that made the connection from the Oklahoma panhandle (100 miles from GBE) to Tulsa, Invenergy would be foolish not to make a proposal for this RFP.

If Invenergy did make a proposal to use Grain Belt Express to deliver from its Wind Catcher site in the Oklahoma panhandle, how might the company re-route the project to accomplish the goals of AEP? Getting Wind Catcher connected to GBE would be no great feat. As long as Oklahoma ratepayers aren't paying for it, there is no law requiring a permit from Oklahoma. If Kansas has approved GBE, it's a simple re-route across the southern part of the state to get to Tulsa. But AEP wants to also deliver this power to its customers in Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana, and GBE promised to make 500 MW of capacity available to Missouri, so might a re-routed GBE continue east into Missouri, and construct a converter station somewhere around Joplin, from which it could make strong, new connections to the other states? It sure sounds plausible to me, and Invenergy would be quite foolish not to attempt it.

What if GBE only impacts Senator White's district? What would his constituents think if they knew Senator White supported the use of eminent domain to build a transmission line across their land that would serve other states? Would he change his mind about supporting it? Why is Invenergy so interested in Senator White, and why is Senator White so interested in GBE?

0 Comments

It's All About the Eminent Domain, Missouri!

5/2/2019

2 Comments

High drama in Missouri on Wednesday as reported HERE, HERE and HERE.

HB1062 is about eminent domain. What the Missouri legislature does here will have far reaching effects on its future. Is Missouri another New London, tossing its own citizens under the bus in exchange for the empty promises of an out-of-state corporation? Is Missouri so eager to have the crumbs and fake "friendship" of corporate America that it supports the taking of private property to get it? Of course, the private property being taken belongs to someone else, not the suddenly fierce eminent domain advocates who have sprung up in Missouri to oppose HB 1062.

It doesn't matter what some city thinks it will save on utility transmission capacity costs. It doesn't matter whether eminent domain is "a last resort." What matters is the eminent domain.

Representative Hansen's bill wisely separates above ground HVDC merchant transmission from utilities granted eminent domain for a reason. It's because merchant projects like this are not public utilities who provide service to all customers at consistent "cost of service rates". Grain Belt Express may be the first above ground HVDC merchant transmission project proposing to "fly over" Missouri, but it won't be the last. There's a huge push by big wind and big transmission to build trillions of dollars of new energy infrastructure in the Midwest that becomes America's newest power plant. They're doing this because it's profitable and your federal tax dollars subsidize it. And they don't care who gets in their way.

Merchant transmission like this isn't a public utility because it negotiates rates with only select customers who pay the most for its supplemental, optional service. Unlike public utilities, who provide service to all customers that request it, GBE provides service only to the highest bidders who can afford to buy service. Each customer's rate is different as negotiated, and may favor some customers with lower rates than others. The service provided by merchant transmission isn't necessary to keep the lights on. Nobody will be denied electricity if they can't get merchant service because what a merchant offers is a supplemental "it would be nice if..." kind of electric service. This kind of utility serves private use and does not rise to the level of public need necessary to confiscate the property of others.

It would be nice if I had a red car, I've always wanted a red car. The dealership in the next state over promised me I can have a $500 discount on a shiny new red car if I bring them my neighbor's antique pick up truck for trade. The dealer has always wanted an antique pick up truck almost as much as I want a red car, but my neighbor has refused to sell it to him willingly. But, hey, that's what eminent domain in Missouri is for... so I can take something that belongs to my neighbor and use it to barter a deal that benefits only me and the dealer.

Sound silly? Yes, but this is exactly what the opposition to HB 1062 is asking the Missouri Legislature to do.

It's time for Missouri's legislators to take a stand against eminent domain abuse by making HB 1062 into law. And Grain Belt Express needs to step up to create a project that provides real benefit to Missouri and stop asking for a handout. Invenergy CAN build GBE without eminent domain authority, it just doesn't want to because it's less profitable to bury the project or negotiate with landowners in a truly free market where eminent domain isn't an option.

Tell your senators to do the right thing, Missouri!

2 Comments

Anger Makes You Dumb

4/19/2019

0 Comments

The opposition to Missouri HB 1062 is one of desperate, ever-shifting arguments of questionable veracity, and an increasing amount of anger. The angrier these opponents get, the dumber they sound.

I think we reached a pinnacle with today's Wind Energy: Attempt on by state politicians to thwart Kirkwood wind power (sic). In this article, the director of Kirkwood's Electric utility claims support for the legislation is coming from only 15 people, and that he's going to "appeal" the legislature's action to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and it will be decided there.

This guy has some really crazy, misguided thoughts. FERC isn't some federal appeals court for state transmission decisions you don't like. FERC is a regulator, not a legislative body. FERC's regulatory jurisdiction applies only to electric transmission RATES. It has no siting, permitting, or eminent domain authority for electric transmission, federal or state. Since HB 1062 deals only with state eminent domain law (not rates, not permitting, not siting) there simply is no role for FERC here. Aside from that, how does one "appeal" an act of one body to a completely different body?

“I would contend that an interstate transmission line is an issue regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,” added Petty. “And this issue may ultimately be appealed and decided in that arena.”

Good luck with that, Ace! It's not happening. Ever.

And then there's this:

“State Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, has filed legislation which says no private entity has the power of eminent domain for the purposes of building above-ground merchant lines,” explained Petty. “ But he’s clearly not the only legislator feeling the pressure from about 15, or fewer, out of 500 landowners that share this ‘not-in-my-backyard attitude’ about transmission projects for any type of transmission project.”

Just 15, you say?

Perhaps you incurred an error while manipulating your abacus?

Sure looks like a lot more than 15 to me. Perhaps your magnifying glass was really a mirror? Because I can maybe count 15 people who are opposed to this legislation... a handful of you city guys and a few party line legislators who have been resoundingly outvoted. You claim to speak for the majority, but I don't see any grassroots opposition to this bill. Nobody is simply going to get excited enough to rally at the Capitol over a $3.00 savings on their electric bill. It wouldn't even pay for their gas to Jefferson City.

Nevertheless, Petty is concerned that Hansen’s bill could pass the Missouri House and go to the Missouri Senate as early as next week. If it becomes law, it will be back to the courts for the much-delayed project.

Terrified sounds more like it.

Back to the courts? So you're going to challenge the constitutionality of an act of the legislature? That sounds kind of expensive. Are you strictly speaking for Kirkwood, or are you speaking for some other entity with deep enough pockets to engage in years of fruitless litigation? Or are you simply making idle threats?

And then there's the guy from The Sierra Club, who apparently has no idea what the legislation is about, so he makes stuff up based on Sierra Club's all-purpose "dark money" narrative that continues to erode any credibility it once had.

So, what makes Grain Belt line different?
“The difference is it carries clean wind energy, so it threatens the fossil fuel industry, as well as the monopoly utilities that depend on coal,” Hickey said. “So, the issue of ‘eminent domain’ is only an issue for these legislators when it involves wind energy. If it is coal energy, or a tar sands pipeline, eminent domain is all okay.”

According to Hickey, Rep. Hansen is being joined in his fight against the transmission line by House Speaker Elijah Haahr, R-Springfield. He said the legislators are clearly carrying water for the fossil fuel industry.

And The Sierra Club is clearly carrying water for the wind industry... or maybe it's just handfuls of cash.

Maybe someone should ask The Sierra Club how much air pollution will be emitted in Missouri to create the extra coal-fired power that the city utilities plan to ship east on Grain Belt Express in equal amounts to the "clean" energy they think they'll receive? If the wind power substituted by the cities is created in Kansas, emissions gain will be had there. If the power produced by the cities in Missouri creates emissions, the emissions will stay in Missouri, even after the power is exported to eastern states. Kind of like putting a poor idiot in a round room and telling him there's a penny in the corner.

And at that, let's move onto the repetitive, garbled and patently untrue comments made by MPUA lobbyist Ewell Lawson. It's pretty hard to hear what this guy is saying, but it seems to go like this: The developer has had no opportunity to even talk with landowners about easement acquisition because they couldn't do it without PSC approval, and that just happened. He also thinks the PSC built special authorities and protections for landowners into its order.

First of all, how did GBE acquire 39 easements in Missouri over the past 6 years or so if it wasn't allowed to talk to landowners until PSC approval? Landowners have had about all the "talking" with GBE that they can stand. Their answer is "no." Perhaps Ewell missed the PSC testimony where GBE's representative talked about having to condemn property quickly just to do surveys? Landowners didn't miss that. And about those "special authorities and protections," they were written by GBE! It's a fox's plan to secure the hen house. It doesn't protect landowners. This guy needs to quit trying to speak for those poor, poor landowners who just want an opportunity to talk with GBE about easements. That's nothing but a fantasy.

What will these guys think up to say next? The exaggerations are wildly entertaining, but ultimately futile. Watching this is more entertaining than prime time TV.

Nexxxxxxt.......

0 Comments

Missouri House Passes Eminent Domain Bill

4/19/2019

0 Comments

By an overwhelming majority, the Missouri House of Representatives passed HB 1062 yesterday. The bill will prohibit the use of eminent domain for overhead merchant HVDC transmission lines. The legislation now moves to the Senate, for committee discussion and vote.

Governor Parson has indicated that he supports the bill.

"I am a firm believer in protecting individual freedom and rights of private property owners, especially our farmers and ranchers," Parson said in a written statement to The Associated Press. "We will continue to stay engaged with the legislature to ensure that we are equipped to protect all Missourians from potential threats of government overreach for private gain."

This is tremendously good news for Missourians threatened by GBE. The leadership and support they have received from the legislature will be remembered for a very long time. That their elected representatives have stood by them means a great deal to these voters.

The issue has been well-played in the media, and yesterday a major newspaper weighed in with support for the bill.

The vote was bipartisan, and approving the measure was the right thing to do. The Missouri Senate should pass the bill, and the governor should sign it.

...we agree with Missouri Republican leadership that allowing a company to condemn property for this purpose is wrong. Clean Line Energy should negotiate fair agreements with property owners for any towers it needs, and pay for the land accordingly.

It should not use the threat of condemnation to browbeat property owners into accepting low-cost deals.

Their efforts should be applauded. Eminent domain must always be the last resort for projects of major public benefit, not the first step in making rich companies richer.

Perhaps Invenergy really doesn't want to buy Grain Belt Express after all? Invenergy attempted to pluck this project out of the whirlpool of failure that was sucking it in for a reason. Maybe now they'll cut their losses and move on?

0 Comments

Landowner Express Steams Into Missouri Capitol

4/17/2019

3 Comments

Hundreds of landowners rallied at the Missouri State Capitol yesterday to support HB 1062, according to this article. Grain Belt Express, meet Landowner Express! Following the rally, the bill was perfected by the House, with an amendment, and passed in a preliminary vote. It will go for a final vote on Thursday before passing to the state Senate.

HB 1062 would prohibit the use of eminent domain by a private entity to construct above-ground HVDC merchant electric transmission lines without substations at least every 50-miles. As amended, a private entity is defined as "a utility company that does not provide service to end-use customers or provide retail service in Missouri, regardless of whether it has received a certificate of convenience and necessity from the public service commission under section 393.170." HB 1062 has been enthusiastically endorsed by landowners and property rights supporters, and yesterday was further demonstration of the popularity of this bill.

The legislation is attracting a lot of attention in the media, with many stories framing it as the death knell for Grain Belt Express. Does this mean that Grain Belt Express does not really want to fairly negotiate easements with landowners in a genuinely free market? The company has been saying that it would negotiate fair prices for new easements, but when the coercion of eminent domain to reach agreements comes off the table, GBE doesn't want to play anymore. It wants to grab its ball and go home. I'm sure no one will miss them.

The proposed legislation helps GBE build a better project, one that does not unjustly enrich itself through the loss of others who receive no benefit from the project. GBE could put its project underground. It is possible. It could also route its project on existing public easements. The only thing the legislation prevents GBE from doing is sacrificing private property for its own financial benefit.

GBE is not a public utility deserving of the state's eminent domain authority to take private property for a public use. It's a privately held company that plans to make a huge profit exporting pretend "clean" energy through Missouri to the highest bidders other states. The less the company spends acquiring land in Missouri, the greater its profits. Pretending to deliver energy to its supporters in Missouri (while simultaneously exporting an equal amount of energy from Missouri) doesn't make it a public utility. There's no need for the project except for the profit motives of its owner. Saying there is a need is purely a political move.

The Missouri PSC's decision to find a "need" for the project was purely political, an attempt to favor certain kinds of energy. The PSC's order was full of political ideals, such as...

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 towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”

That's politics. And if the MO PSC, ostensibly an impartial regulator, wants to play politics, the Missouri Legislature can play that game better. In fact, politics is their job. So, for all those whiners who think the legislature is out of line weighing in on this matter, it's a simple matter of just desserts. Tit for tat.

The dominant argument in favor of blocking eminent domain is that the right to private property shouldn’t be infringed upon by a private company.

“This is just another attempt by private companies under a government commission to limit our personal liberties,” bill sponsor Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, said as he introduced his bill.

There were also concerns about how the power line could negatively affect property value and how it could damage farming land. The lawmakers also questioned why an out-of-state company should have this power.

Why, indeed. Is it because it offered below cost service to some Missouri municipalities? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, fellas! Your free lunch causes sacrifice for your neighbors, who receive nothing in return. And they're not going to stand for it.

“We’ve been told that these people will be well-compensated and it’s going to do so much for the economy and so these poor counties — I come from a poor part of the state — and those things matter, but there ends up being more important overarching values,” Rep. Jeff Shawan, R-Poplar Bluff, said.

Because it is a very slippery slope.

It's been quite amusing watching the arguments of the opponents of HB 1062 shift day-to-day. Obviously they're not good arguments if they fall on deaf ears and are subsequently replaced with others. The latest is that the legislation is "an attack on green energy." When are the "dark money" claims going to start? Comparing an electric transmission line to an oil pipeline is a losing game. How many strawmen can they pile on the blaze?

And then there's this comment:

“For an awful long time, we’ve subsidized oil, and we don’t seem to have a problem with that,” Rep. Deb Lavender, D-Kirkwood, said. “So why do we suddenly have a problem with subsidizing wind?”

So, allowing GBE to use eminent domain is "subsidizing wind", is it? And who would be doing the subsidizing? The landowners who lose property, that's who! Thanks for that reason for passing HB 1062!

The siren call of mad calliope music draws attention to the antics of angry, dark money finger pointer James Owen, who popped up to make some ridiculous comments in this article.

James Owen, executive director of Renew Missouri, dismissed the eminent domain legislation as a tactic that will only “add to the litigation that’s been attempting to halt this job-creating project for five years.”

“Ultimately, it won’t stop it for many reasons, but leaders think this frivolous legislation will score points with some noisy constituents,” Owen told The Missouri Times. “So it’s another hurdle to creating jobs and bringing low-cost energy to Missouri. Disappointing, but misguided.”

Frivolous? Ineffective? Dear, dear, James.... similar legislation was passed in Iowa several years ago to protect landowners there from eminent domain takings by a different "Clean" Line project. The law is still on the books, Clean Line is gone, and a better project that doesn't require the use of eminent domain has been proposed. It intends to create jobs and bring low-cost energy without the use of eminent domain! And all the "noisy constituents" in Iowa are pleased and thankful to be released from the threat of Clean Line. And, really, James, who do you think the legislature serves if not for "noisy constituents?" The profit goals of out-of-state corporations? The legislature is elected by and serves its constituents, noisy or otherwise. If, as you say, the legislation does nothing, why are you so angry? Your furious insults are quite unseemly. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar!

Like this:

“We have tremendous outpouring of leadership in the House and the Senate,” Gary Marshall, CEO of the Missouri Corn Growers Association, said. “We just felt it was important to be here to show them how much this legislation means to us.”

Onward, constituents and legislators! You're awesome!

3 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

The Swamp's Energy Circus

Missouri Court Avoids The Obvious

Transmission Tax Credits Are Dumb

When You Don't Get What You Want Fast Enough...

GBE Opponents Rise From the Ashes

When Deceit Bites Back

It's All About the Eminent Domain, Missouri!

Anger Makes You Dumb

Missouri House Passes Eminent Domain Bill

Landowner Express Steams Into Missouri Capitol

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog