Someone shared this with me.  It's PJM's recent Market Efficiency Update with the 2018/19 Market Efficiency Window list of submitted projects.  For the four identified "congestion drivers" (congestion points to be solved), PJM received 34 proposals (including two with no congestion driver at all - everyone into the pool!).  Of those 34 proposals to relieve congestion, 25 of them are greenfield projects.  A "greenfield" project is one that is built in a place where no transmission currently exists (let's turn that green field into an ugly transmission mess!) and needs new siting on new right of way.

Only nine of the projects make use of existing infrastructure that can be upgraded.  Just 9!  Prices for relieving "congestion" range from $0.1M to $291M, with the higher price tags being attached to the greenfield projects.  Of course it costs more to build new than upgrade existing.

Here's the first problem:  MARKET EFFICIENCY PROJECTS SHOULD NEVER BE GREENFIELD PROJECTS!

Greenfield projects need new rights of way, "negotiated" under threat of condemnation through eminent domain.  Nobody's property, and I do mean NOBODY, should be taken through the use of eminent domain just so someone else far, far away can save a few pennies on their electric bill.  The lights won't go out if market efficiency projects aren't built.  Instead, the market will provide its own solution to congestion if PJM allows it.  But PJM never does.

Therefore, with this slate of bad news on its table, here's a little advice for PJM.

Constructability studies:  Make sure you do them properly this time.  Factors that must be included are land use and ownership, to include recognition of historical properties, century farms, conservation land, and residential areas.  These are the kinds of property takings that inspire entrenched opposition.  This kind of opposition is what kills transmission proposals.  Another is "transmission fatigue" -- repeated attempts to site new transmission in a community.  Once a community comes together to oppose transmission, it is better armed for the next battle.  Even waiting a generation to try again doesn't make for success.  It is imperative that any constructability study recognize the possibility of opposition.  But, pretty much ANY greenfield project is going to meet with opposition, and you never know what you're going to get until the community finds out about the project.

How could PJM overcome this?  How about a public community meeting to discuss the finalists that make PJM's finalist list?  Go see what the community thinks about your proposal BEFORE you approve it, PJM.  BEFORE your transmission owner goes crying to FERC about needing the abandonment incentive.  How about BEFORE any consumer money gets spent on another hare-brained greenfield market efficiency project, PJM?  How about that?

PJM still hasn't learned its lesson.  Market efficiency projects aren't compelling enough to build new lines.  Ever.  Better give those upgrades another look.

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.

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!

PJM filed rebuttal testimony in Maryland last week, and in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, admitting that existing infrastructure is a viable alternative to the IEC-East.  In his new testimony, PJM Vice President for Planning Steve Herling stated that two existing lines owned jointly by BGE and PPL present a feasible alternative to the Transource IEC-East.
 
Both of the existing lines were completely rebuilt within the last five years, and stand empty on one side of the towers.  Both lines originate within two miles of the new Transource-proposed substation, and can be reached from the substation via an abandoned transmission right-of-way.  Both lines operate at the same voltage as the IEC, and one of the lines, the Conastone-Otter Creek, terminates in the same substation as the proposed IEC-East. 
 
Addressing the new statements from PJM, Stop Transource spokesman Barron Shaw stated, “Finally PJM has admitted what was clear to the rest of us long ago: those brand new lines owned by other utilities could be used instead of the IEC-East.   It has taken them nearly two years to admit this, and they only did it under immense pressure from the state of Maryland.  Not only is their process flawed, but their defense of this unnecessary project has been dishonest.  PJM has lost all credibility.”

Wow, what has happened to investigative journalism?  Nobody has time to do it properly anymore, instead relying on the statements of corporate spinners as "fact."

And that's exactly what happened to the Columbia Missourian's article that wrongly says Block GBE and Wiley Hibbard lied about tower heights.  Reporter Sidney Steele's analysis pivoted on an email interview with Jack Cardetti, hired Clean Line spinner, where he claimed tower heights would be no higher than 150 ft.  This is a straight up fabrication and doesn't match record evidence submitted to the PSC.

The Grain Belt Express application to the PSC states at page 24:

It is plainly stated that structures may be taller than 150 ft.

In addition, the Construction Plan for GBE, dated June 2016 and submitted for the record at the PSC includes this table, which gives upper height measurements for all structures exceeding 150 ft.

Lattice structures would be 120 - 200 ft. tall.
Monopole structures would be 120 - 160 ft. tall.
Guyed structures would be 120 - 200 ft. tall.
Lattice crossing structures would be 200 - 350 ft. tall.

The Statue of Liberty, without the base (because the graphic clearly shows the Statue without the base) is around 150 ft. tall.  It is indisputable that GBE would include structures taller than the Statue of Liberty.

The Columbia Missourian's "ruling" and rating of Block GBE's claim as "false" are clearly FALSE.

The Columbia Missourian owes Block GBE and Wiley Hibbard a printed apology and retraction.

UPDATE:  Even when her error was pointed out to her, this student reporter continues to insist she was right.  What's it going to take to stop her from spreading fake news?  A lawsuit?  The Columbia Missourian should know better than to let student journalists put their company at risk by printing false information and libeling Block GBE.  It's time to take it up the chain and let the Missourian know what you think.  Email news@columbiamissourian.com and ask that they print a retraction and apology at once.

Here's where Sidney made her error... according to the article's sidebar, Sidney used the testimony of Wayne Galli to make her "finding" that transmission tower heights would be no greater than 150 ft.  Of course, Galli's testimony said no such thing.  What Sidney is relying on is this, an exhibit to Galli's testimony showing a depiction of "typical" tower structures.  The "typical" structures show a maximum height of 150 ft.  Typical, Sidney, TYPICAL.  It does not show the dimensions of every tower.

Moreover, Galli's exhibit is only one small part of the evidentiary record at the PSC.  Clean Line also put into evidence its application stating that taller structures will likely be required, especially for crossings.  And the weightiest piece of evidence Clean Line entered was its "Construction Plan" designed by an engineer, which clearly shows the heights of these taller structures at 350 ft., along with a range of heights for "typical" towers up to 200 ft. 

Sidney chooses to dismiss this part of the evidentiary record, insisting that she must use the one piece that is most recent, while ignoring equal evidence filed earlier in the proceeding.  Sorry, Sidney, that's not how evidence works.  The GBE evidentiary record is one body.  Unless evidence is withdrawn or amended, it all has equal weight.  A newer piece does not supersede all older pieces.  Dates have no place in an evidentiary record.

What Sidney should be reporting is that Clean Line submitted conflicting evidence about tower heights into the record.  That's what her investigation reveals.  It does not support a "finding" that Block GBE's statement about towers being taller than the Statue of Liberty is false.  In fact, the evidence supports Block GBE's statement as true.

Sidney's article says

The official plan on record is the Construction Plan!  Galli's testimony is not a "plan" for GBE.  Galli's exhibit is but one small part of a larger evidentiary record, it's not the ONLY record.

And who is Jack Cardetti?  How come his name has never been associated with Clean Line before, and he is not a Clean Line employee?  He's part of this "team."  He's a lobbyist working for GBE to defeat important legislation.  What he knows about the technical aspects of GBE could fit in a thimble.  His assertion that no tower will be higher than 150 ft. isn't based on engineering knowledge.  It's based on what he wants Sidney to hear (and write).

Perhaps if he had any knowledge about transmission, Jack would realize how ridiculous his statement about tower height limits truly is.  Physics, Jack, physics!  If you stretch a heavy cable between two towers, the greater the distance between the two towers, the greater the amount of sag on the cable.  It's easy to pull it tight if the towers are close together, but as the distance between the two towers increases, the weight of the cable causes it to sag and it cannot be pulled tight.  In order to accommodate sag for crossings of greater distances, such as across a wide river, the tower heights have to be increased in order to allow for the physical sag of the cable while still meeting ground clearance standards.  Another physics lesson:  Uninsulated transmission cables get hot.  As they heat up, they expand and increase the amount of sag.  This also is taken into account when designing proper tower heights.  Jack's assertion that no towers will be higher than 150 ft. is ridiculous.  He can't promise that.  He's not an engineer.  He has no idea what he's talking about.

But he sure fooled silly little Sidney.

Sideshow Jack has created a sideshow argument meant to distract your attention at this crucial time.  HB 1062 isn't about tower heights.  Keep your eyes on the prize folks, and continue to contact your senators to urge them to support this legislation.  Emailing the Missourian and demanding a retraction and apology is an amusing dalliance for those with extra time.

This whole thing belongs in the circus.

UPDATE NUMBER 2:  (And, yes, double entendre).  Sidney has suddenly changed her mind and updated her article to "half true."  Finally, she recognizes that the Construction Plan is valid evidence.  But she rushes to make light of its tower heights, insisting that "most" of the towers could now be less than 160 ft., or maybe 140 ft.  The Statue is 151 ft. 11 in., according to Sidney.  160 is still more than 151.  And she acknowledges that the Construction Plan says "up to 200 ft."  She even acknowledges that the Block GBE meme that she found so offensive she needed to write this article in the first place says "up to 200 ft."   And she even mentions that the towers at the river crossings could be up to 350 ft. tall, taller even than the Statue, plus her base.

Why then, is Sidney still trying to insist that Block GBE is "misleading"?  It's not.  It exactly matches the Construction Plan on file at the PSC.

Sidney is behaving very unprofessionally by continuing to insist she's right, even half right.  Now her article is a hot mess of contradictory baloney and she's probably sorry she ever wrote it in the first place.

Poor, misguided Sidney.  Pants on fire, dear.

Advice from a spinner: 

There is nothing less contrived about delivering the canned talking points written by public relations spinners.

Contrived - adjective - deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
Created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic: the ending of the novel is too pat and contrived.

What is "your own, natural voice," and how does one master using it when delivering a contrived statement?

This is pure garbage, brought to you by Central Maine Power's paid public relations spinners as they advise officials from the Town of Jay on what to say at various meetings and hearings on CMP's New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project.

C'mon, either the Town of Jay naturally supports the project and can come up with their own talking points, or its simply acting as a shill for CMP and needs talking points handed to it.  Obviously the latter.

What kind of collusion is this?

CMP's spinners can "craft specific statements for anyone in Jay" that can be delivered by human puppets operating remotely without strings.  Isn't technology wonderful?  No strings!

Except that kind of stuff always appears to be the contrived nonsense it is.  But now we learn it can simply be overcome by using your own "natural" voice.  Easier said than done, Spinmeister Lady, easier said than done.

So, now Mainers find out that the Town of Jay has been nothing but a mouthpiece for CMP.  I don't think many of them are surprised, however they are angry, as they have every right to be.  Just two nights ago, the Town of Jay illegally rejected a citizen petition to allow a Town vote on the NECEC.  You have to wonder if that action was also orchestrated by CMP.  In fact, does the Town of Jay do anything of its own "natural" initiative?

While shocking, this kind of utility puppeteering of elected officials, regulators, and sycophantic business and community groups is nothing new.  It has happened so much in the past that it's been a regular part of the utility transmission approval playbook.  I'm sure Connie and Elizabeth know it well.  Front groups, advertising, closed-door-lobbying, and advocacy buys are how the utility tilts the playing field in its favor, and these same tactics have been used over and over again on different transmission projects.

It all costs money.  Lots of money.  Who pays for it?  The utility may wrongly believe that it is the consumers who ultimately pay the cost of the transmission project.  In a traditional cost-of-service project, that would be the captive ratepayers who benefit from the project.  In NECEC's case, as a merchant project, it will be the electric ratepayers in Massachusetts, who have voluntarily contracted to purchase transmission capacity on NECEC for a set price.

Do Massachusetts ratepayers want to pay for this kind of nonsense?  Is it legal to require them to do so?  Many states have strict rules regarding the kinds of costs that may be folded into cost-of-service rates.  Lobbying and advocacy buys are generally prohibited from recovery and must be absorbed in utility profits (shareholders pay these costs because they only benefit the company, not the ratepayers).  In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an Opinion in 2017 prohibiting recovery of these kinds of costs in interstate transmission rates.  It's pretty cut and dried that the cost of advocacy programs shall not be recovered from ratepayers.

Except NECEC is a merchant project.  Its rates are voluntarily negotiated and a price is set in the contract.  The transmission owner cannot increase that rate later to cover the cost of advocacy buys.  CMP probably built in a fixed budget for advocacy in its contract with Massachusetts, and it has been spending freely.  Massachusetts ratepayers will pay that cost regardless, with any difference between the budget and actual costs either becoming additional profit for NECEC, or decreasing CMP's profit.

All the costs of CMP's advocacy buys end up in the electric bills of Massachusetts ratepayers.  Every last one of them needs to think about that every time they flip the light switch to use some of that great "clean" Canadian hydropower their government has mandated.  And it's going to get pretty expensive, because the citizens of Maine aren't backing down.  At some point, CMP is going to meet or exceed its advocacy budget, and then the cost of continuing this farce comes out of company pockets.  How might CMP decrease services elsewhere to make up for this loss?

The Staff of the Kansas Corporation Commission has once again sold Kansas landowners down river.  This is hardly surprising in the wake of earlier secret meetings between Staff and Grain Belt Express personnel, despite the recent glimmer of hope provided by Staff acting all tough by requesting GBE acquire a percentage of easements within one year of approval of the sale of GBE to Invenergy.  It was pure posturing that meant absolutely nothing. 

Staff and GBE have entered into a settlement agreement that allows the KCC to approve the sale in exchange for meaningless conditions.  The conditions do nothing to provide "certainty" to landowners, in fact, the conditions actually add another 10 years of uncertainty to their plight.  Funny that, since Clean Line initially asked for only a 5 year extension of the Sunset date provision (until 2023).  Staff has now agreed to a 10 year extension.  Well, that's playing hardball, fellas.

It's now just a matter of the Commissioners approving the settlement, and we all know how that's going to go, right?  No sense even bothering to confirm it later.

The settlement agrees that Staff and GBE shall use all reasonable efforts to replace the Sunset provision with some stepped up version of action by GBE.  Of course, this is being done in a completely separate docket that the intervenors in the original Sunset docket did not participate in.  Essentially, the settlement in the sales docket changes the Order of the Commission in the siting permit docket.  Oh sure, they pretend that it still has to be approved in that docket, but it's about as much a nail-biter as waiting to see if the Commission approves the settlement.

So, what does this wondrous "protection" for landowners entail?  It's pretty much redacted... confidential, you know.  Landowners aren't to know how exactly they are being protected by the KCC, they're just supposed to believe they are.

The financing requirement is essentially that GBE will not install transmission facilities on easement property in Kansas until it has obtained commitments for funds in an amount equal to or greater than the total cost to build the entirety of this multi-state transmission project.  Landowners can't know exactly how many easements GBE would need by 2024, and it really doesn't matter.  Because the easement condition is so loose that "commencing negotiations" counts as meeting the easement requirement.  GBE could say it was negotiating with any number of landowners, and who could disprove it?  That's because landowners don't get to see this "confidential" information.  And then there's that line that GBE shall "commit to" a redacted thing.  An unknown thing.  We can keep guessing here for about forever.  What is it GBE may commit to instead of actually acquiring easements?

This easement acquisition nonsense is strung out until 2028, a full ten year extension, when Clean Line originally only asked for five.  KCC Staff thinks this provides some "certainty" to landowners.  Certainty that this nonsense of not knowing whether or not they can use their own land will continue for at least another ten years before GBE has to buy more vanilla pannacotta, perhaps.

This farce is furthered by the agreement that GBE will include information about its easement acquisition activities with the confidential yearly reports it submits to the Commission.  How does this help landowners?  It doesn't.  But GBE agrees to file a "public version" in the future.  About as public as its "commitment" above?  That's truly helpful.  Not.

GBE needs to keep all these "landowner protections" secret, you see, because if landowners knew about them it could compromise GBE's "negotiations" to acquire easements on their land.

So, let me get this straight, even though GBE would have eminent domain authority to take whatever private land it wishes, it must be further protected from landowners taking advantage during negotiations by keeping landowners in the dark regarding conditions placed by the KCC to protect the landowners?  And we're still going to pretend that negotiations with landowners are "fair?"  Seems like protecting GBE's interests in negotiations are held to a higher standard than protecting landowner interests.  I mean, why not just say it... Kansas landowners don't matter.

And the really funny part here is that the KCC still thinks that the project will transmit wind from western Kansas.  How dumb are these guys going to look when GBE ends up transporting wind from other states through Kansas for use by other states?  There's absolutely no protection here, and it sure looks like GBE has managed to "wordsmith" its way into an ability to change the project significantly.  None of the KCC Staff's "conditions" have any teeth.  They do nothing but provide more advantage to GBE.

Landowners get bupkis in this settlement.

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

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:

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?

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!