...Go oft awry.  No matter how carefully you plan, unforeseen events can lead to failure.  And that's just the problem with the current scheme to reach "Net Zero" by 2050.  No matter which version of this scheme you may peruse, there is a common failure that will occur because the scheme is not reasonable or realistic.

I came across one such scheme the other day while researching a little known plan to create a nationwide network of CO2 pipelines and storage caverns.  Sounds kinda nutty, doesn't it?  Let's invent one more kind of linear infrastructure connected to a centralized hub.  This time they want to capture all the CO2 emitted by the necessary fossil fuel power plants and other industries of the future, and even capture escaped CO2 from the air, and pump it underground in vast storage caverns.  What could go wrong?  I'm reminded of the ending scene from Stephen King's 11/22/63, where a devastated landscape rumbles continuously from constant earthquakes.  Pumping things underground is not a sustainable future for our planet.

But there's another, more immediate, problem with this idea... centralized energy installations and linear infrastructure are two of the most hotly opposed forms of "progress."  Always have been, always will be.  While the abstract idea of "clean energy" sounds good and we have been greenwashed to love it for decades, nobody wants to have it in their own back yard.  Nobody.  In addition, the brainwashed public stops loving "clean energy" when it affects their wallet.  A "clean energy" future where we cover an area the size of Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and West Virginia, combined, with new industrial wind and solar installations would be hugely expensive and simply has no relationship with reality.  This huge and forsaken land mass full of centralized energy infrastructure would require new electric transmission lines that will expand the existing system 5.3 times.

This will NEVER happen.

It is cost prohibitive.  It could increase your monthly electric bill 4 fold, to rival your monthly mortgage payment.  How many families could easily pay a second mortgage in today's economic climate?  Add to that the scheme to switch as much fossil fuel use as possible to electricity.  If you no longer used gas for your car and natural gas to heat your home, how much would your monthly electric usage increase?  As the government forces us into incrementally more electric usage, its grand scheme is to increase the cost of electricity.  This will not be sustainable over the long term.  We simply can't afford it!

Opposition to new infrastructure will be massive and intense.  If there's one thing I've learned over the past 12 years working with grassroots opposition groups, it's that nobody wants new infrastructure in their own backyard.  Politics doesn't matter when a person's home is threatened.  In fact, rich, liberal communities may fight hardest of all.  When you've lost your base, collapse is inevitable.  Grassroots opposition groups bring together everyone in a community to fight for a common goal.  Tired old tactics such as propaganda, front groups, and pitting neighbor against neighbor no longer work.  Opposition has become much too sophisticated to fall for those tricks.

Not going to happen.  That's not a realistic expectation.  In addition to the growing, connected body of "woke" infrastructure opponents, every project proposal will add new mass to the group.  And what's up with that word "much?"  Much of the nation?  So, you're not saying ALL of the nation, just "much" of it?  Who is "much"?  If you look at some of these schemes you may notice a common theme... urban areas are spared the burden of new infrastructure.  Reason?  Well, they don't have enough land to spare for new energy infrastructure... but the real reason is that it would create too many "woke" infrastructure opponents.  "Much" includes wealthy urban areas that create the greatest energy sucks.  It is too much to ask the rural areas to sacrifice their own communities so that those parasites can waste tons of "clean energy" keeping their cities lit up all night.  Turn that crap off before asking anyone else to sacrifice.  Whatever happened to being responsible for your own needs?  Unless we're gifted with a alien visit bearing new ideas to generate energy without sacrifice on anyone's part, this plan is doomed to failure.  Why are we using last century's technology to solve today's problems?  Centralized generators in throw-away sacrifice zones and overhead electric transmission lines to rich cities is thoroughly outdated.  We need new ideas!  Get busy!  Maybe if the schemers spent as much time developing new energy sources as they do scheming about how to force new infrastructure on vast slices of the country, we could actually make sustainable progress.  Wind, solar and transmission are not reliable, sustainable, or smart.

Can we take a minute here to think about the transmission industry's resistance to undergrounding new transmission?  It's a common request from every community threatened with new overhead transmission that is met with lies and excuses from the transmission developer.  The developer over inflates the cost and impracticality of underground transmission.  Yes, it can be done, often at the same cost of a new overhead line, when time, equipment and land acquisition costs are figured into the equation.  Transmission developers spend buckets of money (often times YOUR money reimbursed to them via your electric bill) on antiquated structures that would be easily recognized by Thomas Edison, huge costs to acquire easements, and lavish expenditures on propaganda to ineffectively convince the affected community to accept the project.  In many instances, the project ultimately fails, or is delayed so long it's no longer cost effective.  Why not put that money into an underground project on existing rights of way?  It requires less time and equipment and little in the way of lobbying and propaganda.  But the schemers still scheme about overhead electric transmission and think they can come up with smarter ways to force it on affected communities.

Oh sure, sure... create more front groups and propaganda.  That works so well... for last century's bad ideas, like tobacco.  Edward Bernays is long gone and his ideas gone stale.  Ditto Sigmund Freud.  "Woke" people are no longer buying what you're selling.  In fact, grassroots opposition groups have developed methods to expose industry propaganda and turn it into a weapon.  The people are revolting.

If the schemers think this is going to work, they've got another think coming.

What do "we" need?  I mean, really.  Do we all "need" to spend trillions on a collection of new high-voltage transmission lines overlaying our existing grid?  Bill Gates thinks we do.  The media thinks we do.  But what makes them think they're experts on the subject of dictating what energy consumers "need"?

A plethora of cockamamie energy ideas has been let loose in the re-watered D.C. swamp lately, and the public is being fed a pack of propaganda about the "need" for all of them.

The Bloomberg OpEd (coincidentally in cahoots with Bill Gates and maybe other filthy rich guys) tells us what "we" need...  We need an omnipotent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) run amok:

What's "a firmer line on transmission investments?"  A firmer line?  What line?  This is nonsense language.  Perhaps they meant to say FERC should offer bigger incentive packages to transmission operators who are ordered to build new transmission by regional transmission operators (RTOs)?  If that's what you mean, why not say so?  And then you can tell everyone where the financial incentives that FERC awards come from... they come from the pockets of electric consumers.  That's right... FERC is handing out YOUR money to transmission developers, promising them a bigger pay day if they use the cover of RTOs to push through transmission projects of questionable need.

Bloomberg also failed to elaborate on the DOE and FERC "power" to approve new transmission projects "on the books."  What's currently "on the books", as interpreted by a federal court, allows states to deny applications for new transmission and end the issue.  FERC currently has no authority to approve projects that are rightfully denied by a state utility commission.  However, if transparently presented, perhaps they meant to say that new legislation is needed to usurp state authority to site and permit electric transmission, because that's what's included in proposed legislation.  HR 1512 changes "what's on the books" to allow FERC to issue a permit for new transmission in the event a state denies one.  So imagine a new transmission project threatens your community, and you marshal your resources to oppose it at your state utility commission.  If you are successful and the state denies the permit, you still can't win because FERC will step in and issue a permit for the project against the better judgment of your state utility commission.

And in the realm of cockamamie... Congress recently heard testimony about creating new CO2 pipelines.  What is that?

We're going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and pump it underground?  Wanna bet the underground storage cavern to contain that isn't under Beethoven's house?***

Now here's a really awful idea...

Oh, just what "we" need... a new bloated government bureaucracy to run over all the entities that now plan, permit and cost allocate transmission.  If this is going to be anything like the current state "Transmission Authorities" operating in western states, it's not going to end well.  In New Mexico, the "Transmission Authority" is unfunded by the state.  Instead, it is funded by the transmission operators who want to build new transmission in New Mexico.  What could go wrong with a government "authority" fully funded by private interests?

You'll find a mine field of dumb ideas of what "we" need if you peruse the testimony currently being given before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Went looking for something particular the other day and felt quite like Alice after tumbling down the rabbit hole.  It's not about "we", it's about what the elite want to impose on us to check a few items off their personal political wish list.

What a mess!  A costly conglomeration of cockamamie Congressional conceptions.

***It has been confirmed.  The CO2 storage caverns will be nowhere near Beethoven's house.  How close will they be to yours?

The best ever euphemism for aerial merchant transmission is back. 

We first saw the term bandied about in public in 2018, when one fake news source gushed about a renewable energy conference that was being held.  But the writer got so excited about it all that he captured the private love language of renewable developers and shared it with the public.  Who couldn't love that?

Now the "overhead cash register" euphemism rears its ugly head again in this article from Recharge.

Let's see... a merchant wire asset delivering an initial several gigawatts?  Sounds an awful lot like the Grain Belt Express project, doesn't it?

So the industry thinks GBE is an "overhead cash register" for Invenergy?  Maybe the real reason Invenergy bought the project and continues to try to build it is simply for profit?  When you strip away all the green propaganda, that's exactly why Invenergy is building it.  It's all about the Benjamins, my friends.

And Invenergy thinks it should be allowed to use eminent domain to take private property for its "overhead cash register" money-making scheme?

That's not what eminent domain is for. 

Missouri's Public Service Commission made a mistake by not recognizing the differences between GBE and an open-access transmission line for public use, and then granting eminent domain authority to Invenergy.

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

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

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

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

Isn't that a better idea?  Without landowner opposition, transmission projects usually sail through permits and siting.  However, companies like Invenergy have been complaining for years about how expensive and infeasible it is to bury HVDC transmission on existing rights of way.  Well, guess what?

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the entire quote in a new article from a publication named The Center Square.

So Beth thinks opposition to GBE is just an effort to derail delivery of clean electricity?  Any landowner concern about eminent domain is merely "fake" window dressing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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