So far I've managed to watch the first two days of the MO PSC evidentiary hearing regarding Grain Belt Express. I'm now starting on Day 3, with another day following that. It's something on the order of 30-40 hours of video, so progress has been slow. However, I realized this morning that I should perhaps break my observations down into two (or more) blogs because I already have a page and a half of notes!
Here's Part 1:
Associated Industries, which apparently consists of a group of large businesses in Missouri, claims that its members want and NEED the Grain Belt Express to purchase power from wind and solar generators in SW Kansas. It forgets (or just doesn't know) that its members cannot purchase either transmission capacity or energy directly from GBE or generators. Its members are retail customers of public utilities, they are not public utilities. Retail customers (whether residential, commercial or industrial) must buy their power from the incumbent public utility that serves their area (think Ameren, Evergy, or a co-op or municipal system). Only a public utility can purchase from a wholesaler like GBE or Kansas generators. Then they supply their customers with what they purchase. The decision on what supply and transmission to buy rests with the incumbent utility, not the retail customer. The most a corporation can do is purchase "renewable energy credits" (or RECs) directly from generators. RECs are the "social and environmental attributes" of power generation and can be completely uncoupled from the actual power itself and sold on the secondary market to corporations who want to virtue signal about how they "use" renewable power. They really just use what their incumbent utility serves them but like to pretend they helped a renewable generator make bank by purchasing completely made up products like RECs. My conclusion is that Associated Industries is asking for something that can never happen (direct purchase by a corporation from GBE). If these corporations want cleaner power, they best get busy installing renewable generators at their point of use. GBE witness Sane insisted that corporations could purchase capacity directly from GBE, but he's flat out wrong according to MO law. Guess he didn't research that one.
Commissioner Holsman made a comment indicating that he thinks compensation is a benefit to landowners. Being paid for something that is stolen from you is NOT a benefit. It's compensation. There is a huge difference.
Commissioner Kolkmeyer kept going on about connecting GBE to various substations along the way between Ford County, KS and Monroe County, MO. I'm thinking he doesn't understand the difference between AC and DC electricity. It was painful watching GBE counsel try to explain it to him as gently as possible. But it didn't stop the impossible questions!
GBE went on and on and on about its bi-directional capabilities. However, it tried to avoid the elephant in the room. The act of actually changing the power flow's direction can only be done if certain agreements are in place (permission to withdraw power and permission to inject power, and permission from customers who own GBE's capacity to use it for something else). Having the physical hardware to do something is not useful unless the act can actually be done. Something like this has never been done before and is going to take a lot of study at some point in the future. Therefore, GBE's touting of bi-directional capabilities means absolutely nothing until all this future work is done. It's like me saying I could become President, if only a whole bunch of stuff happens to enable it later. Just being a U.S. Citizen eligible to run for President isn't enough to be taken seriously.
GBE says the agreements to actually enable bi-directional capabilities would have to be made by future customers and is not GBE's responsibility. Staff confirmed that there are no customers that have requested this capability.
The GBE witnesses with all their "studies" of the benefits of GBE got shredded on the stand, particularly Mark Repsher, who tried really hard to defend his insertion of a fictional "carbon tax" in order to increase supposed GBE benefits. Repsher doesn't understand the nature of merchant transmission and his "study" demonstrates that. He kept claiming that "the future is unknown" as a way to deflect criticism, but his study also purports to predict an unknown future. Way to impeach yourself, dude!
GBE witness denied Invenergy is contemplating building the nation's largest wind farm in SW Kansas, despite this being in the press:
Here's Part 1:
Associated Industries, which apparently consists of a group of large businesses in Missouri, claims that its members want and NEED the Grain Belt Express to purchase power from wind and solar generators in SW Kansas. It forgets (or just doesn't know) that its members cannot purchase either transmission capacity or energy directly from GBE or generators. Its members are retail customers of public utilities, they are not public utilities. Retail customers (whether residential, commercial or industrial) must buy their power from the incumbent public utility that serves their area (think Ameren, Evergy, or a co-op or municipal system). Only a public utility can purchase from a wholesaler like GBE or Kansas generators. Then they supply their customers with what they purchase. The decision on what supply and transmission to buy rests with the incumbent utility, not the retail customer. The most a corporation can do is purchase "renewable energy credits" (or RECs) directly from generators. RECs are the "social and environmental attributes" of power generation and can be completely uncoupled from the actual power itself and sold on the secondary market to corporations who want to virtue signal about how they "use" renewable power. They really just use what their incumbent utility serves them but like to pretend they helped a renewable generator make bank by purchasing completely made up products like RECs. My conclusion is that Associated Industries is asking for something that can never happen (direct purchase by a corporation from GBE). If these corporations want cleaner power, they best get busy installing renewable generators at their point of use. GBE witness Sane insisted that corporations could purchase capacity directly from GBE, but he's flat out wrong according to MO law. Guess he didn't research that one.
Commissioner Holsman made a comment indicating that he thinks compensation is a benefit to landowners. Being paid for something that is stolen from you is NOT a benefit. It's compensation. There is a huge difference.
Commissioner Kolkmeyer kept going on about connecting GBE to various substations along the way between Ford County, KS and Monroe County, MO. I'm thinking he doesn't understand the difference between AC and DC electricity. It was painful watching GBE counsel try to explain it to him as gently as possible. But it didn't stop the impossible questions!
GBE went on and on and on about its bi-directional capabilities. However, it tried to avoid the elephant in the room. The act of actually changing the power flow's direction can only be done if certain agreements are in place (permission to withdraw power and permission to inject power, and permission from customers who own GBE's capacity to use it for something else). Having the physical hardware to do something is not useful unless the act can actually be done. Something like this has never been done before and is going to take a lot of study at some point in the future. Therefore, GBE's touting of bi-directional capabilities means absolutely nothing until all this future work is done. It's like me saying I could become President, if only a whole bunch of stuff happens to enable it later. Just being a U.S. Citizen eligible to run for President isn't enough to be taken seriously.
GBE says the agreements to actually enable bi-directional capabilities would have to be made by future customers and is not GBE's responsibility. Staff confirmed that there are no customers that have requested this capability.
The GBE witnesses with all their "studies" of the benefits of GBE got shredded on the stand, particularly Mark Repsher, who tried really hard to defend his insertion of a fictional "carbon tax" in order to increase supposed GBE benefits. Repsher doesn't understand the nature of merchant transmission and his "study" demonstrates that. He kept claiming that "the future is unknown" as a way to deflect criticism, but his study also purports to predict an unknown future. Way to impeach yourself, dude!
GBE witness denied Invenergy is contemplating building the nation's largest wind farm in SW Kansas, despite this being in the press:
[Polsky] intends to erect more than 1,000 of these enormous machines on 100,000 acres in Kansas, on what could become the nation’s biggest wind farm.
And then they got to GBE witness Rolanda Shine, who said that revenue certainty = an ability to sign contracts. Being certain there will be revenue will only happen after a contract is signed. Saying I own the world because I have an ability to own the world does not mean I own the world. I would only own the world when I actually purchase the world. How ridiculous!
She admitted that the contract with Realgy for 25MW of service on GBE is not contained in GBE's revenue models. A later witness confirmed that Realgy was always only an "option" to purchase and not a firm contract. Except the MO PSC used it as the basis to approve GBE last time. Guess they got tricked and had better amend their Order. This is why a whole new application was needed -- a lot of things presumed last time are no longer true. The PSC has a duty to re-examine everything, not just the parts GBE wants it to change.
Then Rolanda Shine tried to explain GBE's new sale of "undivided interests" in GBE by comparing them to the sale of capacity that was in the last application. Shine said an undivided interest is a "sale for exclusive use." In other words, whoever buys an interest in GBE has the exclusive use of that portion of the line. A transmission line for exclusive use of one or more parties is NOT a public use. It is a private use. Public use is required in order to be a public utility with the ability to take property using eminent domain. If GBE is changing to an exclusive, or private, use for some or all of its capacity, then it should not be permitted to use eminent domain. See section about about Invenergy's huge Kansas wind farm. GBE could sell exclusive use of GBE to Invenergy to make it a private highway from Kansas to Missouri that no other utility could use. That is not a public utility, nor a public use. Until GBE has customers, it cannot be decided that it is a public utility. The PSC must go back and re-examine this in light of new evidence. How much public use must there be on a transmission line that is also for private use? Let's think of a highway, where 4 lanes are for the exclusive use of special people. The public only gets to use 1 lane, or maybe just a bike path along the shoulder. Is that highway still a public use capable of using eminent domain to take property in order to build? This is a dangerous and slippery slope that is probably best decided by a court.
She also admitted that GBE has applied for a federal loan guarantee from the federal government. She said that a government bank would hold the loan. If GBE has a guaranteed loan, then the government ends up paying if GBE defaults. (Really the taxpayers, governments don't have any money of their own). But an earlier witness had explained that merchant transmission means that the project's investors accept all financial risk if the project fails. Therefore, GBE can no longer be a merchant transmission project if it takes a government guaranteed loan because the financial risk would have shifted from the company to the taxpayers.
Finally, Shine said that an "advanced stage merchant project" is one that has all its approvals and contracts in place. Maybe someone should notify FERC and MISO because that could be really useful in the current complaint docket, where GBE claims to be an "advanced stage" project.
Shine really shined, didn't she?
Aaron White had to be my least favorite witness. His appearance was off putting, but appearances aren't everything. He changed GBE's claim that only 9 acres of farmland would be taken out of production and replaced it with about 19 acres. Total. 11.5 acres for Phase 1 in Missouri, .02 acres for Tiger Connector, and 7 acres for Phase 2 in Missouri. His calculations were based on the diameter of the tower bases. As if a farmer could farm right up to the base of any transmission tower. Obviously the smug Mr. White knows zilch about farming, and it showed. Perhaps his best moment is after he left the stand and returned to a cluster of his fellow witnesses in the audience, where a big deal was made out of fist bumps and congratulations. That was completely uncalled for and inappropriate. Nice show of empathy, Aaron. You disgust me.
If White was most disgusting, Jonathon Monken was perhaps the most irrelevant witness. He said the U.S. military needed GBE. He admitted that the military could (and has in the past) intervened in transmission cases itself, but chose not to do so in this instance. But never fear, Monken is here to claim he sort of (but not really) represents military interests. Nothing he said should be in the record.
Commissioner Holsman had a bunch of questions about battery storage, storms, military and other topics near and dear to his heart but not really relevant to GBE. Something was totally wrong with the camera directed at him that turned him a Simpsonian shade of yellow. By the time he was done, the only thing I could think about was Groundskeeper Willie going on a rant.
She admitted that the contract with Realgy for 25MW of service on GBE is not contained in GBE's revenue models. A later witness confirmed that Realgy was always only an "option" to purchase and not a firm contract. Except the MO PSC used it as the basis to approve GBE last time. Guess they got tricked and had better amend their Order. This is why a whole new application was needed -- a lot of things presumed last time are no longer true. The PSC has a duty to re-examine everything, not just the parts GBE wants it to change.
Then Rolanda Shine tried to explain GBE's new sale of "undivided interests" in GBE by comparing them to the sale of capacity that was in the last application. Shine said an undivided interest is a "sale for exclusive use." In other words, whoever buys an interest in GBE has the exclusive use of that portion of the line. A transmission line for exclusive use of one or more parties is NOT a public use. It is a private use. Public use is required in order to be a public utility with the ability to take property using eminent domain. If GBE is changing to an exclusive, or private, use for some or all of its capacity, then it should not be permitted to use eminent domain. See section about about Invenergy's huge Kansas wind farm. GBE could sell exclusive use of GBE to Invenergy to make it a private highway from Kansas to Missouri that no other utility could use. That is not a public utility, nor a public use. Until GBE has customers, it cannot be decided that it is a public utility. The PSC must go back and re-examine this in light of new evidence. How much public use must there be on a transmission line that is also for private use? Let's think of a highway, where 4 lanes are for the exclusive use of special people. The public only gets to use 1 lane, or maybe just a bike path along the shoulder. Is that highway still a public use capable of using eminent domain to take property in order to build? This is a dangerous and slippery slope that is probably best decided by a court.
She also admitted that GBE has applied for a federal loan guarantee from the federal government. She said that a government bank would hold the loan. If GBE has a guaranteed loan, then the government ends up paying if GBE defaults. (Really the taxpayers, governments don't have any money of their own). But an earlier witness had explained that merchant transmission means that the project's investors accept all financial risk if the project fails. Therefore, GBE can no longer be a merchant transmission project if it takes a government guaranteed loan because the financial risk would have shifted from the company to the taxpayers.
Finally, Shine said that an "advanced stage merchant project" is one that has all its approvals and contracts in place. Maybe someone should notify FERC and MISO because that could be really useful in the current complaint docket, where GBE claims to be an "advanced stage" project.
Shine really shined, didn't she?
Aaron White had to be my least favorite witness. His appearance was off putting, but appearances aren't everything. He changed GBE's claim that only 9 acres of farmland would be taken out of production and replaced it with about 19 acres. Total. 11.5 acres for Phase 1 in Missouri, .02 acres for Tiger Connector, and 7 acres for Phase 2 in Missouri. His calculations were based on the diameter of the tower bases. As if a farmer could farm right up to the base of any transmission tower. Obviously the smug Mr. White knows zilch about farming, and it showed. Perhaps his best moment is after he left the stand and returned to a cluster of his fellow witnesses in the audience, where a big deal was made out of fist bumps and congratulations. That was completely uncalled for and inappropriate. Nice show of empathy, Aaron. You disgust me.
If White was most disgusting, Jonathon Monken was perhaps the most irrelevant witness. He said the U.S. military needed GBE. He admitted that the military could (and has in the past) intervened in transmission cases itself, but chose not to do so in this instance. But never fear, Monken is here to claim he sort of (but not really) represents military interests. Nothing he said should be in the record.
Commissioner Holsman had a bunch of questions about battery storage, storms, military and other topics near and dear to his heart but not really relevant to GBE. Something was totally wrong with the camera directed at him that turned him a Simpsonian shade of yellow. By the time he was done, the only thing I could think about was Groundskeeper Willie going on a rant.
GBE witness Jennifer Stelzleni said landowner concerns from the public hearings were discussed at a meeting afterwards and GBE took some action to alleviate them but she couldn't say exactly what that action was. She said GBE did not follow up with the landowners after they came up with this magical solution. Then she punted to a future witness. She also said the environmental and cultural studies are not complete and probably won't be complete until next year. So, why would the PSC approve a speculative project that has not been studied? That's always been GBE's problem. It is a speculative venture and approval has always been based on pure speculation and conditioned upon future things happening. The PSC ought to tell them to go away and come back when it has customers and the rest of its ducks in a row. I'm not sure there's any law in Missouri that requires the PSC to approve speculative projects.
And now I'm diving back in to the video... more to come.
And now I'm diving back in to the video... more to come.
RSS Feed