In a recent letter to landowners, Invenergy admits that it is PLANNING to change its Grain Belt Express project:
Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.
This is a PLAN to change the project that was permitted by the Missouri PSC. Invenergy admits that it will have to get this CHANGED PLAN approved by the PSC.
Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan...
But not yet. Right now Invenergy has been telling the PSC that it hasn't decided to change the project yet and therefore can continue to operate under the existing permit. Is that like asking your Mom if you can have a cookie after you've cleaned out the cookie jar? The PSC isn't in the business of permitting projects after the fact... a utility project must be permitted before it begins activities. Perhaps this is why the PSC has decided to hold a hearing on whether the changed Grain Belt Express project is no longer in compliance with the permit it was issued?
What other silly things does this letter say?
What other silly things does this letter say?
Increased Local Delivery to Kansas and Missouri
As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers. For many years before lnvenergy Transmission acquired the project, local stakeholders called for more of Grain Belt's power to be delivered locally. This plan makes sense as demand for clean energy has grown in Kansas and Missouri. For the first time, this would open the option for Kansans to benefit from energy produced in-state, and in Missouri, it would expand access beyond the 39 communities across the state that are already contracted to receive service from the line.
Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt's 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers, who would see up to $7 billion in energy cost savings over 20 years. This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri, which would double the overall economic investment in Missouri to approximately $1 billion.
Local stakeholders called for increased local delivery of power from GBE? Where? When? I don't recall that ever happening. In fact, as far as the public is aware, GBE has failed to find "local" customers for all of its originally offered 500MW of delivery to Missouri. That doesn't sound like a call for more local delivery. It actually sounds like a call for LESS local delivery.
And the logic here is even worse... "local" delivery to Kansas would be effected by shipping power from Kansas to Missouri, and then back to Kansas? Does Invenergy know how stupid that sounds? Local delivery of power to Kansas would be most efficiently done on existing transmission. You don't need GBE for that.
Another problem with this "plan" is that GBE is a merchant transmission project (at least according to its current permits) that would negotiate service with voluntary customers. If the "local" customers don't sign up for service, they receive none of it. The customers of GBE would be distribution utilities that in turn sell electric service to retail customers. There is no new "option" for Kansans to sign up for service individually. They are captive consumers of whatever their electric provider decides to to, and GBE has not revealed any voluntary wholesale customers, aside from a few municipalities who purchased "up to" 250MW of service (which is half of what was originally offered by GBE). Where's the customers, Invenergy?
Expanding the converter station? Has that been approved by the regional grid operator? The grid operator must engage in numerous studies to determine how much power may be injected into the existing transmission grid by GBE. Changing 500 MW to 2500 MW is going to be a significant increase in power. It's going to require certain changes and upgrades to the existing grid, and Invenergy is going to have to pay for them all. Perhaps Invenergy is planning to inject its power elsewhere on the grid? The feasibility of expanding the converter station has not been made public.
And the logic here is even worse... "local" delivery to Kansas would be effected by shipping power from Kansas to Missouri, and then back to Kansas? Does Invenergy know how stupid that sounds? Local delivery of power to Kansas would be most efficiently done on existing transmission. You don't need GBE for that.
Another problem with this "plan" is that GBE is a merchant transmission project (at least according to its current permits) that would negotiate service with voluntary customers. If the "local" customers don't sign up for service, they receive none of it. The customers of GBE would be distribution utilities that in turn sell electric service to retail customers. There is no new "option" for Kansans to sign up for service individually. They are captive consumers of whatever their electric provider decides to to, and GBE has not revealed any voluntary wholesale customers, aside from a few municipalities who purchased "up to" 250MW of service (which is half of what was originally offered by GBE). Where's the customers, Invenergy?
Expanding the converter station? Has that been approved by the regional grid operator? The grid operator must engage in numerous studies to determine how much power may be injected into the existing transmission grid by GBE. Changing 500 MW to 2500 MW is going to be a significant increase in power. It's going to require certain changes and upgrades to the existing grid, and Invenergy is going to have to pay for them all. Perhaps Invenergy is planning to inject its power elsewhere on the grid? The feasibility of expanding the converter station has not been made public.
Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan, which would also allow for project construction to proceed prior to approval in Illinois. In the meantime, as the proposed changes do not affect the approved route, project development activities are proceeding based on existing regulatory approvals.
Invenergy is going to ask for permission to build only a portion of the transmission line? But GBE told the PSC that the economic feasibility of the line was premised on selling service to utilities in the eastern PJM grid at a much higher price, and in order to do that, GBE must be connected in Indiana. Without the leg through Illinois, the project is not economically feasible. Is Invenergy going to build a road to nowhere and hope that things come together later? Doesn't sound very plausible, does it? Invenergy would have a lot of explaining to do at the PSC before it got approved to do that. In addition, GBE's Kansas permit requires approval in Illinois before it can build the project in Kansas. Looks like two states would have to approve the road to nowhere.
In Kansas and Missouri, Grain Belt has moved from monopole to steel lattice structures, resulting in more compensation for landowners per structure.
Oh, please! It's not about more compensation for landowners, it's because lattice structures are CHEAPER for Invenergy to build! And why was it that lattice structures were compensated at three times the price of monopoles? Because they're more invasive and take up more ground and are harder to work around. Save the drama for your mama, Invenergy!
Grain Belt Express, along with its land partner, Contract Land Staff ("CLS"), is in active dialogue with landowners along the route as our team continues to sign voluntary easements in Kansas and Missouri. Thank you to those who have signed agreements to date. We value open conversations with landowners and landowners' attorneys to provide timely, accurate, and useful information that will allow you to make the best decisions regarding your land.
Voluntary. All easements are voluntary. So is "dialogue" with CLS land agents. Thank you for signing an easement? Did this letter really go out to landowners who have already signed voluntary easements? Or was that some glaring attempt to make landowners believe they have missed the bandwagon if they have not signed up? If so, that's pretty insulting to the intelligence of landowners.
Our goal is to secure all easements voluntarily and to make informed facility design decisions
related to your property. That is possible only with open communication. If we have attempted to contact you and we have not yet reached you or your legal representative, please contact your CLS representative at your earliest convenience.
Is Invenergy saying they have not yet made "facility design decisions" for the project? I find that rather hard to believe. It looks more like an attempt to get landowners to believe they can change the design of the project if they only call now. Operators are standing by...
And then there's this. I laughed so hard I gagged... and almost threw up. Positive Energy? Didn't the wheels fall off that when Invenergy rolled it out? Who hasn't read all about it?
And then there's this. I laughed so hard I gagged... and almost threw up. Positive Energy? Didn't the wheels fall off that when Invenergy rolled it out? Who hasn't read all about it?
Positive Energy: Pass it Along
Finally, 2020 has brought some significant challenges to the world. We believe that Positive Energy is needed now more than ever. Grain Belt will bring affordable power for families and businesses, jobs for workers, and local investment in school districts, and public services - that's positive energy. With everything going on in 2020, we want to pass along positive energy to you, and hope you do the same. These days we all need it.
I don't know about Positive Energy... but I am positively revolted at GBE. Is Invenergy positively lying to the PSC? Is Invenergy positively negotiating with landowners under false pretenses when it negotiates for a different project than the one it has permitted? Let's hope the PSC positively gets to the bottom of this!
RSS Feed