The author of The Boom, “the best all-around book yet on fracking” (San Francisco Chronicle), turns his attention to renewable energy pioneer Michael Skelly, whose innovations, struggle, and persistence represent the groundbreaking changes underway in American energy.

Enter Michael Skelly, an infrastructure builder who began working on wind energy in 2000, when many considered the industry a joke. Eight years later, Skelly helped build the second largest wind power company in the United States—which was sold for $2 billion. Wind energy was no longer funny; it was well on its way to powering more than six percent of the electricity in the United States.

In Superpower, award-winning journalist Russell Gold tells Skelly’s story, which parallels our nation’s evolving relationship with renewable energy.

Along the way, we meet Skelly’s financial backers, a family that pivoted from oil exploration to renewable energy; the farmers ready to embrace the new “cash crop”; the landowners prepared to go to court to avoid looking at spinning turbines; and utility executives who concoct fiendish ways to block renewable energy.

First, the Grain Belt line will not be selling its services to retail customers in Missouri. Second, Grain Belt has been authorized by the FERC to sell 100% of its capacity at wholesale to buyers (such as wind farms or load-serving utilities) at rates which are to be negotiated between the buyer and seller. Third, as an expected outcome of establishing rates through bilateral negotiation, Grain Belt’s customers will be paying different rates for capacity on the line – even for service from the same beginning and end points. Based on these facts, case law in Missouri tells us that the Grain Belt project is not an “electrical utility” in the sense that term is used in the CCN statute, Section 393.170.

In perhaps the key finding by the Court [in Danciger], it ruled that although the statutory definition of an “electrical corporation” includes no specific reference to public use, or to the necessity that the sale of the electricity be to the public, “it is apparent that the words ‘for public use’ are to be understood and to be read therein.”The question, then, was what constitutes the supply of electricity for “public use”, thereby qualifying the entity as an “electrical corporation.” In answering that question, the Court began with an obvious but critical point: a company either is or is not a public utility. If it is, then it is subject to the entire purview and regulation of the Commission, including the authority of the Commission to compel the company to provide service to all residences and businesses in the area where it provided service.

...

...if Grain Belt is indeed an “electrical corporation”, its negotiation of different rates for similarly situated customers would certainly be in violation of this statute, and no doubt others as well.

Perhaps the closest judicial decision on point is from Illinois, in a case which involved the question of whether the Rock Island Clean Line (a sister line of Grain Belt) was or was not a “public utility” under Illinois law. (Illinois Landowners Alliance v. Illinois Comm. Comm’n, 60 N.E.3d 150 2016). In finding that the proposed line was not a “public utility”, the Court held that “A private company that provides public utility services according to its own terms and conditions does not meet the statutory definition of a public utility.”Furthermore, the court found that in order to qualify as a public utility, the entity must offer its assets for public use without discrimination. The Rock Island line “is not for public use without discrimination.”

Finally, in reaching its decision, the Court relied in part on an earlier case which had found that the Mississippi River Fuel company did not qualify as a public utility. That company sold natural gas through individual contracts with 23 private industrial retail customers, as well as to 2 public utilities which resold the gas to its retail customers. In relying on the Mississippi River Fuel case, the Court noted the following: the company’s contracts were not based on fixed rates, and instead varied as to terms and conditions; and that the company’s act of selling gas to a limited group of customers could not be characterized as “public use.”

However, it is another matter altogether to decide this issue on the basis of the qualifications of Invenergy. That company is not the Applicant here. Nor does it have any ownership interest in the Grain Belt project at this point. And as discussed later under criterion (4), it would be speculative to assume that Invenergy will ever own the Grain Belt project – at least in the form it has been described to the Commission over the past 5 years or so.

Only two conditions must be met before Invenergy is obligated to purchase the Grain Belt project: approvals of the Kansas Commission and this Commission. Closing is not dependent upon approval by the Commission in Illinois. So Invenergy could well end up owning the Grain Belt project, yet never receive permission to build the section of the line providing access to the PJM market. What happens then? According to Mr. Zadlo, Invenergy would need to come back to this Commission with a new plan, which most likely would mean the line would terminate somewhere in Missouri. And of course without the ability to reach the PJM market, Grain Belt has provided no evidence to prove that the line is economically feasible.

In order to go north of Illinois, the line would presumably be rerouted north in Missouri, then pass through Iowa, Wisconsin and even Lake Michigan, necessitating numerous additional consents and routing studies along the way.

Going south of Illinois presumably would mean rerouting the line south within the state of Missouri to a point somewhere near Cairo, Illinois, then going north through Kentucky and Indiana, until finally reaching a point near the converter station in Clark County, Illinois – a total distance of roughly 450 miles. And without a certificate from Illinois, presumably the converter station would need to be redesigned, and moved out of that state. And that in turn would seemingly require starting anew with the process of gaining permission for the interconnection with PJM.

Given that fact, it seems fair to assume that Invenergy must have a more realistic “Plan B” in mind in the event it cannot obtain consent to build the line in Illinois. For example, it must have crossed their minds that if Invenergy cancels its contract with MJMEUC, it could try to sell that 200 MW at a rate which might exceed any damages it could owe to MJMEUC. Another possibility would be for Invenergy to develop its own wind farms in Kansas, and use the Grain Belt line to move its energy into the MISO market. There are certainly inviting possibilities for combining the generation and transmission functions on the Grain Belt line for Invenergy’s own benefit.
While the MLA does not claim that either scenario is being considered by Invenergy, it has unveiled no logical plan of its own if it is denied entry into Illinois. And Invenergy appears much too sophisticated an organization not to have already developed a realistic plan to deal with that possibility. If it has, we have been given no clue as to what to expect.

Expedited approval of the Transaction is warranted here because the Transaction does not involve the merger of two public utilities that are rate-regulated by the Commission; rather, it involves a transaction at the holding company level of GBE, a public utility that is not rate-regulated by the Commission, that will improve the capability of GBE to complete the Project. Therefore, many of the traditional state and local concerns with regard to public utility mergers are not implicated by the Transaction.

For purposes of the authority to appropriate property through eminent domain, the term "public utility" shall not include any activity for the siting or placement of wind powered electrical generators or turbines, including the towers.

The proposed Transaction will benefit consumers by improving the ability of GBE to complete the Project. In granting GBE a certificate to operate as a public utility, the Commission found that completion of the Project would be in the public interest.

As global manager of renewable power for General Motors, Rob Threlkeld speaks often with both RTO and utility managers about transmission. When he depended primarily on power-purchase agreements with wind producers, “That would require a significant amount of transmission to be built.”
While he expects transmission to continue to be a challenge in meeting his company’s renewable energy goals, he is more focused now on green tariffs and sees a new resource on the horizon: the transmission capacity left in the wake of closing coal plants.
“As we shift the generation fleet,” he said, the question is, “How do you repurpose existing transmission?” Wind farms used to rely on all new transmission lines to bring the power to where it was needed, he said. But he sees that changing as coal plants close and reduce the load on parts of the transmission system.
“Don’t build new all the way; build new half the way,” he said. “Those are the types of discussions we have.”

Activists have pointed out that Samsung lags behind rivals when it comes to going green. Apple and Google have both purchased enough renewable energy, such as wind or solar energy, to offset their global energy consumption since April. (It’s likely that Samsung will also purchase renewable energy to offset its consumption, rather than be directly powered by renewables.)

Analysts report that consumers served by utilities on the nation's East and West coasts pay higher costs for their electricity than we do here.

For the aforementioned reasons, I sincerely support and endorse Wind Catcher Energy Connection and the benefits that it will bring to Oklahoma. Oklahoma cannot afford to miss out on this opportunity to invest in our state and the citizens of Oklahoma. I would like to thank the Oklahoma Corporation Commission for their thoughtful consideration on this matter.