Invenergy Trips Over Its Grain Belt Lies

Investigative journalism is not dead!  It can still be found digging away at the Mexico Ledger in Mexico, Missouri.  Managing Editor Alan Dale smells a story and he's determined to tell it.  This week, he asked Invenergy nine questions about its project, and then several follow-ups, one of which caught Invenergy in a lie (surprise!  surprise!)

Here's how Dale caught Invenergy in its own lie:

Have you entered any new agreements with any potential partners or “customers” who will use the Grain Belt and the connector?
We have an existing contract with a consortium of 39 Missouri communities to take power from the Grain Belt Express at an annual savings for $12.8 million, and we see very strong market interest in transmission capacity from the line, which is one factor in the recent announcement to expand local delivery capacity.
Will you move forward prior to an agreement or wait until you get enough before beginning construction?
Kuykendall: “We will begin construction after acquiring the necessary easements and approvals from regulators.”

Because that answer was obviously baloney, Dale asked a follow up:

So, to clarify customers that pay into Grain Belt Express through money or service, who, if anyone, have you entered into an agreement with? If you have no one paying into the line - a customer - you are saying you would build anyway? Or do you want to expand on this?
Kuykendall: ““Grain Belt Express will be bringing power to 350,000 electric consumers across Missouri through a signed transmission service agreement with the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC) representing 39 Missouri municipal utilities. Grain Belt Express has seen strong interest in the market and expects to secure additional customer agreements prior to construction beginning.”

Oh, that's right... Grain Belt Express *DOES* need customers to pay for the project before it builds.  Why?  Because Invenergy is claiming that the project will cost $7B.  They're going to need a construction loan for the project, and the lender is going to need a reasonable expectation of being repaid, such as the project having paying customers that would produce a revenue stream to make timely loan payments.  Duh.  How dumb does Invenergy think we are anyhow?

Grain Belt also admits that it will need additional customers, in addition to the MJMEUC customer.  That's because the MJMEUC contract is for "up to 200 MW" of capacity.  GBE is planning to make available 2500 MW of capacity in Missouri.  MJMEUC is less than 10% of the capacity offered.  In addition, MJMEUC got a sweet, sweet deal because they were used by Grain Belt to show the Missouri PSC that there was some "benefit" to Missouri.  Grain Belt witnesses testified at PSC hearings that MJMEUC received a "loss leader" contract price that was actually less than it cost GBE to provide the service.  Invenergy isn't going to be making any construction loan payments with its proceeds from MJMEUC. 

So, where are the other customers?  They do not exist!!  Despite all the overly optimistic blather about the customers GBE "expects", the customers are just not there.

So you might wonder... what's the rush to get Tiger Connector approved?  What's the rush to acquire land?  What's the rush, Invenergy, when you don't have enough customers to make your project economic?

And, let's check out some of the other prevarications in Invenergy's answers.

What measures will the company actually take to minimize negative impacts for affected landowners?
Kuykendall: “Missouri stakeholders have urged Invenergy to develop solutions to deliver more power to Missouri from the Grain Belt Express project. The Tiger Connector is necessary to meet that request, and in doing so provide billions in energy savings to Missourians.

Wait a tick... who are these "stakeholders?"  Do they have names?  Do they even exist?  I'm thinking they do not because who, other than a customer, would urge GBE to make more capacity available in Missouri?  And we know GBE doesn't have any customers other than MJMEUC.  If the "stakeholders" are real, Invenergy should name them.  If not, they don't exist.

And then there's the matter of eminent domain:

What will the company do to avoid condemnation, which is likely the biggest issue?
Kuykendall: “This is always a last resort for us. We’ve already acquired 84 percent of the parcels needed along the Phase I portion of the Grain Belt Express HVDC route, with nearly all of them coming through voluntary easements.

Oh, look... "nearly", my favorite weasel word!  "Voluntary" is an inappropriate description of acquiring easements through threat of condemnation.  I'd even go so far as to say that none of the easements are voluntary since they weren't offered before Grain Belt Express land agents came calling.  Kuykendall also forgets to mention that Invenergy has already filed a number of condemnation lawsuits that are currently working their way through the Missouri court system.  Why must Invenergy condemn land NOW for a project that doesn't have enough customers to get built?  Will Invenergy surrender these easements when it can't find enough customers?  Grain Belt's current permit from the MO PSC requires that Grain Belt give back any easements it has acquired through condemnation if it doesn't use them within 5 years.  Which brings us to the next bit of propaganda...

Can you confirm that Invenergy intends to honor the 7-year Sunset revision on easements as stated in the law?
Kuykendall: “The company is still reviewing that provision of (House Bill 2005) and expects this issue to be addressed in any regulatory filings before the Missouri Public Service Commission. As you know, HB2005 does not apply to Grain Belt Express and any commitment to comply with portions of the law would be voluntary in nature.”

That's right... Grain Belt only gets 5 years, not 7.  But since the Missouri ag organizations generously gave 2 years away to Invenergy in HB 2005, perhaps Invenergy can add another two years?  No wonder they're being cagey.  But, never fear, dear landowner, Invenergy says:

We will engage further with the Missouri Farm Bureau, other ag groups, and the Missouri Public Service Commission to implement these commitments to balance energy affordability and reliability and landowner interests in Missouri.”

What landowner rights do you suppose they will give away on your behalf next?  Only YOU can look out for YOU, not some special interest group that has other issues to pursue.

And let's end with Invenergy's complete and utter nonsense about burying transmission:

Will Invenergy move lines from the middle of fields? Bury lines?
Kuykendall: “We will propose a route that takes the input gathered from these public meetings into account. We understand the desire for some or all parts of the Tiger Connector line to be buried.  Undergrounding the Tiger Connector would require burying two separate transmission systems to meet safety and reliability requirements. This makes undergrounding a non-starter.

“The Tiger Connector line will have one circuit for MISO and one circuit for AECI.
“Overhead line maintenance can be performed by shutting down one circuit while the other continues to deliver power.
“This is not possible underground because workers cannot work with a live circuit present, and federal reliability requirements prohibit a system design that would shut down power delivery to multiple markets at once. This would require two separate buried systems.
“Undergrounding would also have much greater impacts on ag operations, including:
Eight times as much land permanently taken out of production.
Over 80 times the excavation that can reduce yields from compaction and soil mixing.
Permanent “call before you dig” requirements for landowners in easement areas.
Ag impacts result from:
Excavating two buried cable trenches across the entire length of the line – with the trenches separated sixty feet from each other. Recent studies of other buried infrastructure projects have shown reduced yields for corn and beans between 15-25 percent due to compaction and the mixing of topsoil and subsoil caused by trenching.
Installation of permanent access bunkers which are like U-Haul trucks parked in the ground every 2,000 feet in pairs, one along each set of buried cables. Crops cannot be grown over these, and each set would be farmed around.
“In addition to the significant land impacts, this request could set a precedent for other future transmission lines in Missouri, representing billions of dollars in added costs for Missouri electric consumers over time.
“Stakeholders have cited the importance of balancing energy affordability and reliability while also serving landowner interests. Burying any part of Grain Belt Express would fail both of these goals.”
Kuykendall added these statistics to the response:
1.3 acres permanently out of production, vs. 0.16 acres
484,853 total cubic yards of soil excavation for undergrounding, vs. 5,759 cubic yards for monopole foundations

You need to bury two separate systems?  Why?  Are there two separate transmission lines?  Workers can't be near a live circuit underground, but they can be near one above ground?  If you can shut off the current to an aerial circuit, why can't you shut off current to a buried circuit?  Point us to these "safety and reliability requirements" you quote.  Or maybe you're simply making the whole thing up?  I think Invenergy is trying much too hard to repel the idea of undergrounding the lines.  None of this makes actual sense.  It makes my logic bone ache.

Burial would have greater impacts on agriculture?  Only if you buried the line on new rights of way across agricultural land, but that's not necessary at all.  Buried transmission can be sited alongside existing road and rail rights of way, where they can bury the U-Haul truck vaults that allow faults to be repaired without digging up the entire line (something Invenergy recently claimed elsewhere).  The beauty of buried electric cables is that they can go on existing linear easements.  Nobody condemns a new right of way in order to bury a cable for some sort of infrastructure, they use the ones that already exist.

Oh, God forbid Invenergy set a precedent for building a transmission line that does not cause permanent impacts for farmers!  What a horrid thing!  Because it's really not that much more expensive when you consider the millions of dollars Grain Belt has spent over the past decade fighting landowner groups, buying influence, and pumping out the propaganda.  Add to that the cost of 10 years of delay, and it probably costs the same as burying it on existing rights of way from the get-go.

And hey, look, there's those mysterious "stakeholders" again.  Who ARE these people?  And why should they speak for what landowners want?  Only landowners should determine how the project affects them.  It's their land, not mysterious stakeholder's.  Mysterious stakeholder has not been out there alongside the landowner over the decades, pouring his mysterious blood, sweat, and tears into the land.  Mysterious stakeholder needs to shut his pie hole...  if he's anything more than a sock puppet being used by Invenergy.

I really can't wait for Alan Dale's next article!!!  Please let him know how much you appreciate his reporting on Grain Belt Express!