Good advice for Missouri landowners from Block Grain Belt Express this week:

Denlow and Henry Law Firm Packet
By now, landowners on the path of Grain Belt Express have likely received a packet in the mail from the condemnation law firm, Denlow and Henry of St.Louis, Missouri.  While most of the information in the packet is accurate and helpful, the third sentence of the first paragraph states that the Grain Belt Express project has been fully approved. As discussed below, this statement is somewhat misleading. The project has not been fully approved.
 
Grain Belt/Invenergy Has Not Been Fully Approved
Grain Belt Express has not been approved in Illinois.  In fact, the company has not even applied for the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the Illinois Commerce Commission, the state’s equivalent to our Public Service Commission. That application process could take 18 to 24 months. There is no guarantee it would be approved when it does apply.
 
Grain Belt also must obtain consent from each of the eight Missouri counties it is slated to cross before it can begin construction.  And, to the best of our knowledge, after it was granted permission to build the line in Missouri the company has not approached any of the eight impacted Missouri county commissions for their consent.
 
Finally, the company has not yet obtained the financing to construct the line and doing so would require the project to be fully approved.
 
Reminder of Landowners’ Rights
At this time, neither Grain Belt Express employees nor any of its contracted agents including surveyors may enter a landowner’s property without the landowner’s permission.
 
Furthermore, landowners are under no obligation to allow access to their property for any reason.  They also are under no obligation to talk or negotiate with the company’s representatives or agents.
 
Grain Belt is currently Attempting to Acquire Easements from Landowners Voluntarily. The offers to purchase easements by land agents do not constitute the required 60 day notice of intent to condemn property.
 
We do not expect Grain Belt to begin condemnation proceedings until all the regulatory approvals and financing have been obtained. Easements obtained through condemnation would be very much more expensive for the company than those acquired by negotiation.
 
Owners Need Not Contact Attorneys until Receiving the Required 60 day Notice
As we have said many times before, we believe landowners faced with condemnation will fare better if they retain an experienced condemnation attorney. At this point, however, condemnation attorneys are not likely to get involved.  Only after the 60 day notice of intent to condemn has been sent to landowners will condemnation attorneys normally get involved.
 
We suggest that landowners do not sign anything. However, if you are inclined to do so, we do suggest you either call us or an attorney before signing anything the company or any of its agents ask you to sign.
 
Important Factor about Easements Obtained Through Condemnation
Another reason why we believe landowners will fare better if they retain a condemnation attorney rather than sell an easement to GBE outright is the Public Service Commission approval order of GBE. The order stated that all easements acquired through condemnation must be dissolved with full ownership reverted back to landowners without reimbursement to the company if financing for the construction of the line has not been obtained after five years by the company.
 
However, the Public Service Commission did not order GBE to dissolve the easements purchased from landowners voluntarily nor has the company made any commitments not to seek reimbursement for payments they made for negotiated easements.
 
Landowners should remember that although it was approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission, GBE still lacks key approvals and financing. We should also remember that the Grain Belt/ Invenergy project is a highly controversial, privately owned speculative project that does not meet the typical public use requirements required by most states. That is, the project would not service all users in a territory and that all users of similar types are charged the same rates. Instead the company would deliver power only to utility companies at rates it would negotiate with each one separately. And the project certainly is not necessary to bring electricity to any area in Missouri or to update the grid in any way. GBE seeks to acquire, through condemnation, if necessary, approximately 800 miles of easement through thousands of farms and other private properties across three states.          

So, what's the rush?  GBE is in a big hurry to coerce landowners to sell easements voluntarily right now.  This should be a GIANT red flag for targeted landowners.  No matter how much GBE threatens to use eminent domain to hurry landowners along, it's an empty threat designed to acquire easements as quickly and cheaply as possible.  Under the law, landowners will receive a 60-day notice before condemnation is filed.  Landowners can safely ignore GBE until that happens.  In the event it does, landowners are safer going the condemnation route than signing voluntarily.

I'm going to tell you a story about my own experience with eminent domain and how I got the best price possible for my land by holding out until the bitter end.  It's not the first landowner to sign that gets the biggest payday, and it's not the landowner who signs somewhere in the middle of the process.  It's the landowner who holds out until the condemnation hearing.  I used to own undeveloped land that had been in the family for years.  We'd been faithfully paying our taxes and holding on to it for future use.  But then the county got into cahoots with a developer who wanted a large parcel of land for a private development.  The county attempted to acquire this big parcel by piecing together a bunch of small, undeveloped parcels held mostly by out-of-state landowners.  The county's first offer was insulting... it wasn't even as much as we paid for the property 30 years ago, never mind the taxes we had paid to the county over that time period.  I refused to negotiate.  Then a second offer showed up, more than the first, but still low-ball.  Then the threat of condemnation showed up.  I got a lawyer.  With my lawyer, we continued to reject the county's increasing offers while the case headed to condemnation hearing.  Literally on the court house steps on the day of the condemnation hearing, the county finally made an offer I could accept, and the deal was done.  I was one of only a handful of landowners who had resisted all the county's efforts, and it was worth a bundle to the county not to have to face the judge.  How much did my resistance yield?  The offer I accepted was six -- 6 -- times the county's original offer.  Lesson:  It pays to be stubborn in a condemnation situation, and it is the landowner who holds out the longest that gets the biggest pay day.  The county/company cannot afford to pay everyone top dollar, but it can afford to pay it to a handful of stubborn landowners at the end of the process just to get their project done.  Be that landowner!

Grain Belt Express doesn't have all its permits, and has not even applied for some of them.  The question you may want to ask yourself is why they're willing to spend money acquiring part of the land they need for a project with no substantial customers and no financing?  This is not normal.  It's risky behavior that most corporations shy away from.  Remember Clean Line?  It lost around $200M of investors' money engaging in risky behavior by spending so much on projects that didn't have permits or customers.  Are we supposed to believe Invenergy has no sensitivity to risk?  That Invenergy has pockets so deep that spending millions acquiring easements for a project that is not fully permitted means nothing?

I didn't fall off the transmission turnip truck yesterday.  Invenergy is up to something.  Does it think it doesn't need a permit in Illinois?  Does it think it doesn't need county assent?  Does it think it doesn't need customers?  Hmmm... who creates a giant money suck without a revenue stream to balance it out?  Maybe Invenergy doesn't actually want to sell transmission service to others?  Maybe Invenergy wants to be its own transmission customer?  That situation could be very profitable, but it's unlikely eminent domain could be used to condemn easements for a private use transmission line.  Is Invenergy nothing more than a paper tiger, trying to acquire easements voluntarily before changing its business plan?  Until the first 60-day notice gets issued, it's all voluntary acquisition.

Grain Belt's plan has a bunch of holes in it right now.  Some things don't make sense.  Block GBE has some good advice, folks!  Solidarity is safety!

Once upon a time, Keryn and Ali met at a PATH Opposition Strategy session in West Virginia.  It's been ten long years since then, and we're still challenging and supporting each other to reach our joint goal.

Ever met someone who just makes you better?  Someone so fearless that you just can't help being fearless right along with her?  It's been like Transmission Thelma and Louise, only without the cliff.  Until recently...

Guess where we're going?

No, not there.  Been there, done that.  Time for a change of scenery.

Don't tell us we can't do something.  Don't tell us we don't matter.  Don't tell us we're powerless.  When the door shuts in our faces, we open a window.

Fearless.

What happens when the generation source for a dedicated DC transmission line stops generating?  That's the question now being argued in North Dakota in anticipation of the closure of the Coal Creek Station in Underwood.

Some want to re-purpose the recently updated line to become a pipeline to send remote wind power east to the Twin Cities.  Others think that the line should be retired along with the coal-fired power plant.

Any readers recognizing this transmission line yet?  It's infamous CU transmission line memorialized by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's book, "Powerline: The First Battle of America's Energy War."  If you haven't read this book, you should.  It chronicles the struggle of affected landowners who opposed the construction of a transmission line that didn't provide any benefit to them across their farms, using eminent domain.  It's the original transmission opposition wildfire.   Sadly, despite years of public outrage, and a nasty infestation of bolt weevils, the project was ultimately built.

It was a one-way highway from the coal plant to the Twin Cities.  Its sole purpose was to move electricity from Point A to Point B.  It didn't connect with any other transmission lines along the way.  It wasn't part of the connected electric grid.  And now that the generator fueling it has fallen from favor, the transmission line itself has no job to do.  It's useless.

This is a glimpse into our future if the plan to build a "national grid" of DC transmission lines to ship wind and solar around the country comes to fruition.  A transmission line for the sole purpose of serving one kind of generator becomes completely useless when that source of generation is abandoned.  Remote wind and solar, although supported by many today, is not a "forever" generation resource.  Turbines wear out after only 10 years and must be "repowered" using our tax dollars.  Solar projects as well.  The only thing "renewable" about them is that they must be updated and replaced with alarming frequency.  A transmission line, on the other hand, has a life of 40 years, at minimum.  Some have been in service much longer. 

If we build a huge network of transmission lines for "renewables" that soon become obsolete, will our investment be lost?

And speaking of lost investments...

What happens when new generation sources are developed that don't have to be sited in rural areas?  Yes, they are coming, probably sooner than you think!  If a truly renewable source of electricity that can be built right at load is developed before the "super grid" is fully depreciated, we're going to have one heck of a white elephant on our hands, and in our wallets.

More innovation, less reliance on the status quo.  But then again, that doesn't make the companies that build transmission and remote renewbles any richer...

Investor-owned utilities are all about the Benjamins.  They're only interested in providing a public service because it's profitable.  There is no honor among thieves.

In the past couple weeks, federal investigators have dropped the hammer on two of the biggest... two of the biggest criminal enterprises in the utility business.  Are more coming?  I'd say it's likely at this point.  Be afraid, utility rainmakers, be very afraid!

Last week, Exelon subsidiary ComEd agreed to pay a $200M fine for its part in a years-long bribery scheme involving the Speaker of the Illinois House, and possibly the Illinois Commerce Commission.  According to court documents, ComEd arranged no-work "jobs", contracts, and appointments to both the ICC and its own corporate Board of Directors in exchange for political favors from House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Here's a summary from the document:

I was particularly touched by this scheme.

So, because ComEd wanted to make gravy payments to certain individuals it hid them as "subcontractors" within a legitimate contractor's contract.  Why, it's almost like that time when PATH hired former Joe Manchin Chief of Staff Larry Puccio and decided that he would be paid through the company's contract with Charles Ryan Associates, although Larry wouldn't give speaking events like the other subcontractors.  Even PATH's accountants got suspicious, however, when Larry's bills showed up in Charles Ryan's monthly detail without any statement of work performed.  All of this made the FERC Administrative Law Judge question whether Larry had actually done any work at all...

I wonder if ComEd and PATH were comparing notes on hiding the gravy $$$?

And yesterday, the federal boogeyman showed up in Ohio to clean house in an alleged $60M bribery scheme involving a FirstEnergy subsidiary and Ohio's Speaker of the House Larry Householder.  You can read those court documents here.

In this instance, the schemers were arrested and charged with conspiracy to participate in an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.  RICO.  UT-OHHH FirstEnergy!  Quick, NEO's to the basement bunker to use their bodies as human shields to to protect Chatty Chuck!

Bribery, extortion and efforts to defraud the government, FirstEnergy?  Who woulda thunk it...

Oh, wait... I've read a whole bunch of their internal documents over the years.  I guess I woulda thunk it.  Schadenfreude!

Whew!  That was fun, wasn't it?

I'm going to bet that all investor-owned utilities buy elected officials and regulators, either with cash, contracts, fake "jobs", maybe even hookers and blow, who knows?  Looks like the utility will supply whatever it takes to make sure your elected official or regulator is working for the them, and not you.  But our government has been watching... and now heads are rolling.  It's about damned time.

UT-OH utility rainmakers.... who's going to be next?

I once posed the question:  If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?  Likewise if a transmission developer wants to build a new transmission line buried along an existing right of way, does it inspire landowner opposition? 

It seems like that question has finally been answered by folks in Iowa.  SOO Green Renewable Rail recently completed required county meetings across the state, where the Utility Board and company personnel provided information about the project to adjacent landowners and other concerned individuals.  Along its proposed 220 miles of underground transmission in Iowa, the project garnered only 3 landowner objections.  For comparison, the Rock Island Clean Line overhead HVDC transmission project spurred dozens of landowner objections in every county it crossed.

The conclusion here is pretty simple... overhead transmission on new rights-of-way across private property are highly objectionable.  On the other hand, underground transmission on existing corporate- or publicly-owned rights-of-way is only objectionable to a handful of people.

What reasons did the landowners cite for objecting to the project?

One simply objects to eminent domain for all power companies under any circumstances.  Although it appears from the information on this docket that SOO Green would have eminent domain authority, I'm not so sure that they're using it.  The company's information says it would construct the project within existing Canadian Pacific Rail right-of-way.  Eminent domain would not be required.  It's likely this objection is based on misinformation and that this objector did not attend the information meetings.  This objector's address is miles away from the project. Of course, supportive transmission lackey Center for Rural Affairs doesn't live anywhere near the project either, but that never stops them from dropping misinformation into a regulatory process when the grant dollars are good.  These two commenters ought to cancel each other out.

Another withdraws a previous objection from a couple of landowners on the route.  The withdrawal states that the company has satisfactorily addressed this couple's concerns.  Over and done.  Imagine that... a company that took the time to listen to landowners and find ways to alleviate their worries.  This is a novel approach in a stale and entitled industry.

The other two objections here and here are from landowners along the route and are much more involved.  One worries about environmental impact to his riverfront property, how the transmission line would be impacted by flooding, and whether Canadian Pacific can grant use of its easement for electric transmission purposes.  He also feels SOO Green isn't offering enough compensation.  Seems like some of this may be alleviated by more information, and more money.  It remains to be seen if SOO Green's innovative approach to landowner relations can overcome this objection. 

The other objection is an long list very similar to his neighbor, plus worries about EMF, property values, need for the project, and demands corporate financials be made public.  Both of these objectors promise legal action, one even threatening class action.  I wonder if they attended the information sessions and asked questions about these topics?  Both of these objections seem to be genuine and heartfelt but take a combative stance to insist the IUB reject the project.  These landowners might be more successful talking with the company about their concerns than insisting that IUB reject the project outright.  It's unlikely that would happen, so maybe it's better to work out the issues so that everyone is reasonably happy in the end?

On every transmission project I've ever written about, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of landowners and citizens who got involved in the regulatory process to object to the project.  For most of these people, eminent domain taking part of their property and converting it to an industrial use is the biggest objection.  Many of these landowners seek to have the project buried, or sited on existing linear rights-of-way, such as roadways.  For these people, SOO Green's approach is exactly what they want.  A similar issue is the visual blight of new overhead transmission lines on lattice towers.   SOO Green is buried.  On some projects, new right-of-way is proposed adjacent to existing transmission corridor easements, doubling (or tripling) the visual blight and environmental danger from AC transmission.  SOO Green proposes burying the transmission line on an existing easement so that the property will look the same after construction is completed.  Some project opponents have faced increasing levels of EMF from new overhead alternating current transmission lines.  SOO Green's transmission project is direct current and doesn't have the same dangers.  Compared to the issues landowners have with overhead transmission of all kinds, SOO Green's project seems highly preferable.  Maybe these two objectors would feel differently if they had been threatened with eminent domain takings across their properties to allow for the construction of lattice towers more than a hundred feel tall?

Perhaps objections are more about perspective?  If you haven't seen Satan, his mischievous imps might look like the epitome of evil.  However, gauging from my experience working with transmission opposition groups, I can say that SOO Green's underground on existing right-of-way approach seems to be working much better than the eminent domain, overhead, transmission company status quo. 

Sometimes a transmission company is exactly what it appears to be.  Companies that lie to landowners and regulators and talk incessantly about their own "power" can't be trusted.  But what about a company that listens to landowners, negotiates with them fairly, and keeps its promises?  I know... we've never seen one of those companies before so it's hard to even consider the possibilities.  Can SOO Green keep its promises?  So far, so good!

Of course, doing it SOO Green's way is likely more expensive.  But will the company come out ahead when it avoids the cost and time sucks of entrenched opposition?  How much money do other transmission companies waste battling with landowners and how much time does this add to their permitting process?  Couldn't that money be better spent fairly negotiating with landowners and finding the least intrusive route possible?  We'll find out soon when SOO Green begins selling its service to potential customers.

One thing's for sure... if this model succeeds, it's going to change everything about building new transmission in the future.

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...

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.

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.

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?"

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!

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.

Renewable energy companies, transmission builders, and Bill Gates have come together to brainwash the American public into thinking that they need a "macrogrid."  And, of course, the mainstream media is only too eager to assist by publishing thoughtless propaganda designed to guide your thinking towards their goal.  Here's one of the first examples, from the Los Angeles Times.

Renewable energy has been using your tax dollars for years to build infrastructure that provides small amounts of intermittent energy.  Because they are financially rewarded with your money for building, they've built more than the people can use in certain areas, like the Midwest.  They have gobbled up a lot of the available transmission capacity to export their product to cities, where people expect all the benefits of energy without any of the sacrifice that goes along with creating it.  In order to keep building renewable energy generators in places where there is no need for the electricity, these piggish profiteers want to build a whole bunch of new transmission.  They presume if they can get their energy to populated areas, consumers will be forced to buy it.  Absolutely not true.  The populated areas are also busy building their own renewable infrastructure so they can create both renewable energy and economic development in their own cities, states, and regions.  We don't need new transmission to switch to renewable energy.  Even if we overbuild transmission, it doesn't mean distribution utilities in New Jersey will choose to buy wind energy generated in Iowa.

Let's take a look at the one-sided propaganda these racketeers are spreading.

1.  A macrogrid can save consumers billions of dollars per year.

THE TRUTH:   The "studies" that supposedly proved all these savings are skewed.  The biggest problem?  All renewables studied were terrestrial sources.  Offshore wind wasn't part of the study, although offshore wind provides the best source of wind power and is conveniently located near the largest population centers -- both coasts and the Great Lakes.  When offshore wind is removed from the equation, the best sources of wind become the Midwest, and the best sources of solar are the south and southwest.  But is it cost effective to build a gigantic new grid to move this generation to the population centers?  No, they already have a better source closer at hand.  I also don't trust the magic math taking place here that prices this new grid.  It's going to take a lot longer, and cost a lot more, than a bunch of scientists think it will.  None of these guys know the first thing about utility ratemaking.  And what are these scientists comparing their new utopia to in order to produce a "savings"?   The most expensive sources of energy they can find shipped the longest distance they can imagine on the most congested transmission lines they can find?  That's how magic math happens... change the variables until you arrive at the desired answer.  If we don't build a macrogrid and force people to use energy produced thousands of miles away, how much will energy prices actually rise?  But it's not really about the price of energy, it's about "climate change" and changing how we produce energy.  Telling the people that it's going to save them money on their power bill is a dirty lie.

2.  We can power our country with 100% renewable energy.

THE TRUTH:  Not feasible with today's technology.  Just the other day, the Midwest ISO ran into an issue with not having enough supply on a hot day.  This is a region that has built a lot of wind turbines.  But those turbines weren't producing when the region needed it most on a hot day.  Here's a graph showing the generation sources for MISO's power on a hot, summer afternoon.

Without coal, gas and nukes, the power would have gone out. 

MISO was also importing more than 5,700MW of power from neighboring PJM Interconnection, the grid authority for a number of eastern states.  MISO was importing an astonishing 39% more power than scheduled from PJM in order to serve its load.  Here's a graph of the generation sources operating in PJM at that time.

Again, coal, gas and nukes.  Without them, a good two thirds of the country would have blacked out yesterday afternoon.

These graphs show the cheapest resources available being dispatched in real time.  If renewables were cheap and available, MISO and PJM would have been using them.  The resources necessary to run everything on clean "renewable" energy do not exist.

However, some "studies" and "reports" have suggested a massive build out of new industrial wind and solar under the pretense that we can have enough renewables to meet load.  How much wind and solar does it look like we're going to need to meet peak load on a hot day?  This report calls for 62,626 square miles of new wind and solar installations.  For comparison, that's an area just a little bigger than the state of Georgia, and just a bit smaller than the state of Wisconsin.  Imagine the entire state of Georgia covered end to end, side to side, with industrial wind turbines and solar panels.  How much do you think that would cost?  And if the government keeps giving them tax credit handouts with our tax dollars, how much additional cost would that add?

The capacity factors for renewable energy are surprisingly low because they cannot store fuel on site to run when called.  When they produce energy, it's a happy accident, not on purpose.  Because renewable generators can only be counted on to produce energy a very small percentage of the time, you'd need to overbuild them by perhaps factor of 10.  Example:  If you need a generator with a dependable capacity of 100MW, you'd need 10 wind farms with a nameplate capacity of 100 MW each.  Even then, you're taking your chances that those resources would produce the power you need when you need it. 

Wind and solar are poor choices for a 100% carbon-free power source.

3.  Renewable energy provides jobs and we need jobs to restore our economy after Coronavirus.

THE TRUTH:  Are we supposed to spend money building stuff we don't need in order to create jobs?  That's absurd.  We build stuff we need, and jobs happen.  Why would we spend a bunch of money creating make work jobs building stuff we don't need?  The renewable energy industry isn't at any greater risk than any other industry in the wake of Coronavirus.  In fact, they seem to be getting additional help other industries aren't.  Because Coronavirus put a short pause on the renewable energy industry, the federal government has extended the amount of time they have to claim the fading production tax credit.  What other industries are getting taxpayer handouts for making things?  Are restaurants getting tax credits for each meal they sell?  Of course not.  Renewable energy, however, is getting a tax handout for each unit of power they generate for 10 years after being put in service.  Remember, that money they're earning comes directly from your pocket because the government does not have its own source of income.  All its income comes from you!

We've been subsidizing industrial wind and solar for decades.  At first, perhaps it needed a leg up to compete with conventional generation, but over time it developed an appetite for government handouts and now doesn't want to exist without them.  In fact, the renewable energy industry has asked the federal government to convert the tax credits it currently earns into straight up cash payments.  A tax credit is just that... a credit for the recipient's tax burden.  Because many renewable energy companies pay little taxes, they have been converting the credits they earn into cash by selling them to other corporations that can use them to reduce their tax liability.  But just like those companies that will convert your long-term legal settlement payments into instant cash, they only give you a portion of the value of the settlement (or tax credit) in exchange for some cash now.  Renewable energy companies don't want to lose the full value of tax credits they earn but can't use, so they want the government instead to just give them cash they can use.  Pretty bold, isn't it?

And then the industry speaks out of the other side of its mouth about how mature its industry is, how cheap the power they generate is, and how mainstream it's become.  They claim they are competitive with conventional generation.  If that is true, why do they still need a handout to stay in business?

Renewable energy companies have opportunely seized upon the Coronavirus crisis to pretend they can solve the economic crisis.  Never let a good crisis go to waste!

Renewable energy is back in business, and they're building things.  We don't need to give them more money to create new jobs... we need to concentrate on other industries that haven't fully re-opened in order to restore jobs.  We don't need to spend our money building out an existing industry.

4.  We need to "modernize" our grid.

THE TRUTH:  Our grid is adequate for its purpose.  Old lines and equipment are constantly re-built and upgraded.  Transmission operators and reliability organizations make sure the grid stays reliable.  They order fixes, re-builds, and new lines as needed.  Interestingly enough, this call to build a new "macrogrid" doesn't even contemplate fixing the existing lines, it just wants to build a new system to work in conjunction with the existing one.  If the existing one fails, it's going to take the new "macrogrid" down with it.  The macrogrid is about building new transmission to ship energy further from its point of generation.  It's got nothing to do with the existing grid.

And a couple more things about that crazy LA Times article...

It starts out talking about a newly built power line in operation.  It mentions that there was opposition to the project because it would "saddle energy consumers with unnecessary costs, degrade sensitive wildlife habitat and interrupt a series of gorgeous landscapes."  And then the Times points out that it was built anyhow.  Logic leap!  Just because the project was built doesn't mean it obviated all those concerns.  It merely means that those concerns were run over in the process of approving it.  Unnecessary costs and degradation of habitat and landscapes happened anyway.  Building it didn't make them disappear.

The article tells you that building billions of dollars of new transmission will make you less likely to catch Corona.  So will wearing a mask, and that's only going to cost you a buck.

Landowner concerns about eminent domain and sacrifice for the benefit of people far, far away are glossed over and minimized with the idea that if they don't accept it, we're all doomed.  The idea that we have to sacrifice something and may only choose which sacrifice to make is overblown.  We can have it all if we choose to build renewables near load.  It's as simple as that!

On the subject of Clean Line Energy Partners... that company failed because it had no customers.  It wasn't the fault of landowners or regulation.  Those things merely slowed the projects, they didn't kill them.  CLEP failed because there were no places "where the energy is needed."  If nobody needs imported "clean" power, why would we spend billions building new transmission?

The article points out that California, a huge importer of power, has plans for 100% clean electricity by 2045.  But what happened when California recently debated the issue of installing wind offshore?  The fishing industry, the U.S. Navy, and coastal residents got their shorts in a wad, claiming that offshore wind would hurt them.  Where does California plan to get its renewable energy if it doesn't make it in state?  Why, it plans to put those hurtful burdens on other states to produce it and export it to California.  The politically disconnected are ground zero.  This is the epitome of environmental injustice!  If you want renewable energy, you must sacrifice.  You!  Not someone else!  Only when these states are forced to make their own sacrifices will all the impossible clean energy goals begin to wane.

One more thing... this "macrogrid" has been proposed in one form or another ever since I've been doing the transmission thing... a dozen years now.   Except it's only recently been about "clean energy."  It used to be about moving coal-fired resources around the country "cheaply."  It's just been re-packaged to fit today's narrative.  It's not about "clean energy."  It's about building a whole bunch of transmission in order to make billions of dollars of profit at consumer expense.

And about the House Democrat's newly released climate plan?  Ahh... that's another blog post soon to come!  Keep checking back!

Once upon a time, Don Quixote Skelly had an idea.  He envisioned a company that would build transmission lines to move wind generation across the country.  Skelly had left the wind industry to become an electric transmission magnate.  Skelly would no longer sell the wind generation upon which he'd built his career, he would now be an independent transmission owner selling transmission capacity to wind developers.  Skelly planned to use the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Negotiated Rate Authority to sell transmission capacity to generation owners.  Negotiated rate authority allows the transmission owner to sell service to unaffiliated companies essentially at auction.  All companies desiring service would submit a bid for service.  FERC requires the selection of customers to be fair, setting the criteria for the transmission owner's selection of customers.  A transmission owner wishing to sell service to itself or its affiliate has a very high bar to jump to prove to FERC that it did not give its affiliate undue preference.  All bids, including those from a transmission owner's affiliate, must be evaluated using the same criteria.  The transmission owner must provide open access to its merchant line, allowing all bidders to receive equal treatment.  If an unaffiliated generation owner offers more for service, the transmission owner cannot turn it down in order to provide service for its own affiliate at a cheaper price.  But, because Skelly did not own any generation, there was no way he could give his own affiliates any preference.  FERC's Negotiated Rate Authority worked perfectly for Clean Line's business plan.

But Skelly's business plan didn't work in reality.  He couldn't find any companies willing to pay for service on his transmission line.  Eventually, Skelly's company went broke and sold its failed projects to other companies.  Funny that... all the new owners of Skelly's projects were renewable energy generators.  How was the project's negotiated rate authority going to work for these new generation-owning companies?  Were these new owners really going to build transmission lines and sell service on the line to their competitors?  Remember, under negotiated rate authority, the line must be open access for all bidders.  The new owner could not restrict its competitors from bidding on service on the new line, and the new owner cannot give preference to its own generation.  Why in the world would a renewable energy company want to build transmission that allowed its competitor's generation to be sold in higher priced markets?  You never actually believed that the new owner was planning to enable its competitors, did you?  Of course not!

The new owners needed to jettison Skelly's negotiated rate authority so they could keep the transmission they built for their own use.  The new owners want to use Skelly's transmission project to connect the stranded generation they own.  The new owners needed a new rate scheme!

Pattern Energy, the new owner of Clean Line's Western Spirit transmission project, wanted to use the project to connect its future wind farm sites to a strong point in New Mexico's existing transmission grid so that it could sell that generation, perhaps for export to other states.  New Mexico's RETA had already been "partnered" with Western Spirit to realize Skelly's negotiated rate business plan.  Clean Line had been "making contributions" to RETA for years in order to use RETA's eminent domain authority to take private property for its "public use" negotiated rate project.  RETA used its eminent domain authority to force landowners to sell, believing that the project would be open access for all renewable generators who wanted to connect and purchase service.

But, Pattern didn't want to share.  It wanted to use all of Western Spirit's transmission capacity for its own new wind farms.  That's a private use, not a public use.  An apt comparison could be made using roads... a public road or highway allows anyone to use it, therefore taking private property to build it is a "public use."  However, a private driveway is only for its owner's use, it's a private use.  It's not a "public use" to enable eminent domain.  Clean Line wanted to build a public road.  Pattern wants to build a driveway. 

The use of eminent domain in this country is limited to situations where the land taken is put into public use.  We don't use eminent domain to take private property from one person for the private use of another.   There was considerable outcry when the Supreme Court ruled that private property could be taken from one person and given to a private company if "economic development" happened as a result.  SCOTUS decided that economic development was a "public use."  In the wake of that awful decision, many states made changes to their eminent domain laws to prevent its use for purely economic development reasons.

But not New Mexico.  New Mexico invented a quasi-governmental authority to build and own electric transmission for the purposes of promoting economic development in the state, and it gave its creation eminent domain authority.  It also took authority away from its Public Regulation Commission and allowed RETA to call the shots on the building of new transmission in the state.

Maybe RETA thought it was providing a public service by taking private property for Clean Line's "public use" project?  That seemed to be settled.  But what happened when Pattern bought the project and the "public use" became a private driveway?  Did RETA ever consider how this change upended its justification for using its eminent domain authority?

Pattern Energy came up with a new business plan for Skelly's old project.  Pattern Energy will build the transmission project using RETA's eminent domain authority and then sell the project to New Mexico's incumbent public utility, Public Service Company of New Mexico.  That way they could pretend the project was still a "public use" worthy of eminent domain.  But what about Western Spirit's legacy negotiated rate authority?  Could Public Service Company auction off service on the line to other companies?  No, Public Service Corporation applied for a new rate scheme from FERC -- Incremental rates, whereby a generator would pay a transmission service provider its costs to build new transmission to serve the new generator.  No sharing required.  Under federal laws, a transmission owner must allow a new generator to connect to its system, as long as the generator pays the cost of the new connection.  This scheme allows Pattern to sign a transmission service agreement with Public Service Company to use the new line.  It allows a generator to make exclusive use of a new private driveway to connect its own generation because the generator is paying all the costs.  This kind of transmission line is a generation tie line.  It does not allow public access because other companies are not paying for it.

A company proposing a generation tie line is treated much differently from an open-access transmission line.  While an open-access "public use" transmission line is like a public roadway, a generation tie line is a private driveway.  A generation tie line would not meet the definition of "public use" under the laws of many states and therefore is not an appropriate use of eminent domain.  For example, if another Clean Line project, say Grain Belt Express, had applied to the Missouri Public Service Commission for a generation tie line across the state, it would have virtually no chance of approval and being awarded eminent domain authority.  But Grain Belt Express was approved as an open-access "public use" project that would sell service to voluntary customers, like MJMEUC.  GBE is still pretending to use the negotiated rate authority rate scheme, but it doesn't have enough customers to make the project economically feasible.  Invenergy, GBE's owner, is planning to sell service on the line to its competitors who want to move their generation from western Kansas to Indiana.  You believe that, right, even though Invenergy has done nothing to apply for a permit in Illinois while it is going hammer and tongs to acquire property in Missouri under the threat of eminent domain?

There's this bridge in Brooklyn...

Anyhow, Pattern Energy has completely changed Don Quixote Skelly's business plan for the Western Spirit transmission project in New Mexico.  The formerly independent open-access transmission roadway has now become Pattern's private driveway.  Isn't it time for New Mexico to pause and give adequate consideration to Western Spirit's changed business and rate plan before it takes property from its citizens and gives it to a for-profit corporation for its private use?

Leave it to the Missouri Times to publish a bogus editorial claiming that GBE could be solely responsible for Missouri "avoiding a catastrophic recession."

Hold your nose (and maybe a barf bag) while reading this pack of prevarications.  It's GBE spokespuppet Lee Barker, back again to try to convince Missouri how great GBE is going to be.  C'mon, Lee, who are you trying to convince?  GBE has been bumping around Missouri for at least a decade now.  There are no minds left to change.  Glossing over the repugnance of the project only serves to set more opposition to the project.  Is the purpose of this diatribe an attempt to make the guilty feel better about themselves?  I really don't think the guilty care.  They know they did wrong, but they did it anyhow because they wanted to please an out-of-state corporation who wants to make a whole bunch of money off the backs of Missouri citizens.

Where to start?

Yeah, we know... and landowners simply don't care.  The "letters" are going right into the trash.  Nobody is going to receive anything because they're not signing easement agreements.  Tell me, Lee, how do you know how much GBE is going to pay landowners?  Did Invenergy share that information with you?  That would be untoward, don't you think?  Invenergy hasn't negotiated anything with anyone yet, but yet Lee knows how much this is going to cost the company.  $20M divided between 700 landowners -- but Invenergy stands to make billions BILLIONS on this project over its lifetime.  Does this seem fair to you?  I also noticed that Invenergy is trying to get landowners to select to receive their "compensation" over decades, instead of when their land is taken using eminent domain.  Why would anyone do that?  There's a whole lot to digest in an Invenergy "letter" and it's best to discuss it with your attorney and tax advisor before taking any action (other than using it for animal bedding).

Lee seems confused about the difference between compensation and benefit.  He uses both words.  They mean entirely different things.  Compensation is something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.  Compensation is an attempt to make a victim whole.  Benefit, on the other hand means an advantage or profit gained from something.  The landowners are gaining nothing in this deal.  Eminent domain merely requires "just compensation", it doesn't require "benefit."  There is no benefit for "contributing landowners."  Contributing?  Yes, these landowners are contributing a portion of their wealth, peace of mind, and sense of place to a for-profit corporation in Chicago, and they're being forced to do it against their will.  I wonder how much of Lee's 401(K) he "contributed" to Invenergy's profits?  I'm going out on a limb here to guess none.  Lee doesn't contribute anything, but he thinks others should.

Oh, please.  The savings aren't guaranteed and there is no requirement that any municipal utility "pass the savings" onto customers.  Your city utility could use the entire savings to host a ritzy shindig celebrating Michael Polsky and you'd get nothing.  Or maybe the woke mob can commission a statute to their new leader?  Tell me about the savings after they happen.  What guarantee is there that Invenergy won't pull out of the MJMEUC contract entirely?  Better check that contract again...

1,500 jobs are going to pull Missouri out of a sure recession?  Doubtful, even if 1,500 Missourians were offered jobs building the transmission line, which they won't.  So far, landowners have seen a handful of land agents from out of state.  The highly specialized labor required to build a project like GBE is also going to be imported.  Jobs for Missouri aren't a part of GBE.

Of course GBE has asked for a state incentive!  It's asked for the solemn power to take private property for its own use in order to make a profit.  Much bigger than a minor tax break... and speaking of taxes... really.... $7M?  That's chump change!  How much will Missouri communities have to spend fixing roadways destroyed during construction?

Well, maybe the local communities can use their $7M windfall (spread among 8 counties, mind you) to actually make GBE's broadband accessible?  Putting a wire on a pole doesn't create broadband by magic.  You make Missouri sound like a straight-up slum, Lee!  These poor communities don't have health care, education, businesses, communication or entertainment and only Invenergy can come to their rescue?  Pure hogwash!

Hey, maybe you could use your "letter" to wash your hogs, or other fattened pigs wandering around your communities spreading manure?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's two-step march toward expanding the financial incentives it awards to transmission owners seems to have lost its rhythm today as a deluge of thoughtful comments criticizing FERC's approach floods in.

A group of grassroots consumer organizations have filed joint comments on the Rulemaking proceeding.  You can read their comments here.  As consumers who pay the incentives granted by the Commission, these groups have a unique interest in the outcome of this regulatory extravaganza.  FERC says it is making these changes to "benefit" consumers.  However, the changes all seem to increase the costs consumers pay, without actual benefits.

Well, ya know what C.S. Lewis said about that... “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”

FERC still hasn't realized the mistake it made when initially creating incentives.  It's something we've been on them about since the first "review" of the incentives back in 2011.  The language in the statute FERC is trying to carry out requires:

FERC changed that "and" to "or" and has been wrongly awarding incentives to projects that didn't do both ever since. 

Finally, hooray, this mistake seems to be gaining wider notice and has been mentioned by numerous other commenters who take issue with FERC's either/or purpose for incentives.

Interest in this Rulemaking is off the charts.  The vast majority of the comments I've read so far embody this quote from California Wildnerness v. DOE:  “An agency is not required to adopt a rule that conforms in any way to the comments presented to it. So long as it explains its reasons, it may adopt a rule that all commentators think is stupid or unnecessary.”

I'm still trying to find a comment that doesn't think this new rule is stupid or unnecessary.

AND
AND
AND

And this is probably going to end up in court, unless Congress steps in to repeal this stupid and unnecessary law.