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...
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.
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.
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?"
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!
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.
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.
RSS Feed