When Nerves Overtake Truth and Logic

This article says city utilities are "nervous" about new legislation that would prevent the use of eminent domain for above ground HVDC merchant transmission facilities.  Apparently their attack of nerves is so severe it has short-circuited their brains.  Or maybe they are merely attempting to defeat the legislation with fearmongering.  Pretty much none of what it has been reported that these "cities" said on a conference call  organized by the Missouri Public Utility Alliance is even remotely likely, and some of it is just plain old not true.

Such as this bit of fearmongering:

“My fear of that is the precedent it would set within the state of Missouri for any future developments,” Klusmeyer said.
Any utility system in the state, whether it’s water, sewer, electric or telecommunications, has the power of eminent domain, Klusmeyer said. The bill could be construed to limit the use of eminent domain for “pretty much any utility in the state,” he said, even though it’s limited to “above-ground merchant lines.”
“That can trickle down into just about any type of utility expansion that’s done, whether it’s through Missouri American, or maybe even Ameren or Associated (Electric Cooperative),” he said. “That’s my fear of what it’s going to do to any type of infrastructure improvement or expansion in the state.”

Your fear is baseless, Dennis.  In fact, it's completely manufactured.  The legislation is specific to private entities constructing above ground, high voltage direct current, merchant transmission lines.  It does not apply to buried merchant transmission lines (and, hey, this is a thing now!), water, sewer, telecommunications, or even any other electric transmission lines proposed by public utilities, such as Ameren.  The kind of project affected is specifically named in the legislation, and no in-state public entity will be affected in the least, now or in the future.  No utilities in the state are building above ground high voltage direct current (HVDC) merchant transmission lines.  The inclusion of HVDC pretty much limits its application to a certain kind of electric transmission line used mainly to transmit electricity long distances without intermediate connections to communities through which it passes.  HVDC has to be converted to AC power before it can be connected to the existing grid, and each DC/AC converter station costs hundreds of millions of dollars, making interconnection with this type of project cost prohibitive.  This legislation cannot apply to AC electric projects, buried DC electric projects, DC electric projects owned by public entities, DC electric projects owned by anyone that erect substations at least every 50 miles along the route, and any water, sewer or telecommunications project.  It says so right in the legislation:

Private entities shall not have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purposes of constructing above-ground merchant lines. For the purposes of this subsection, "merchant line" means a high-voltage direct current electric  transmission line which does not provide for the erection of electric substations at intervals of less than fifty miles, which substations are necessary to accommodate both the purchase and sale to persons located in this state of electricity generated or transmitted by the private entity.

Statutes don't "trickle down" to apply to something not mentioned in the statute.  The final arbitrator of how a statute is applied is a court, and courts limit their opinion to what a statute actually says.  Courts do not add or substitute language or meaning to a statute.  There's simply no way this statute could ever apply to water, sewer, telecommunications, or other kinds of electric transmission projects.  It appears that Dennis's fearmongering is intended to incite opposition from entities to whom the statute would never apply.  Nice try, but I think people are smarter than that, especially utilities like Ameren and Associated.

There was also a lot of bogus information in that article that it's not clear was attributed to Dennis Klusmeyer, but was interspersed with quotes attributed to him, such as:

The bill, introduced by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, would prohibit taking easements by eminent domain to make way for the Grain Belt Express, a planned $2.3 billion transmission line, which Chicago-based Invenergy bought last year. The line would carry electricity from the Iron Star wind farm in southwestern Kansas, across Missouri and Indiana, and into Illinois. The line would cross eight north Missouri counties, including Monroe and Ralls, which are represented by Hansen.

Targeted at the Grain Belt Express, the bill would also apply to similar projects. It bans all private entities from using eminent domain to acquire easements to build “above-ground merchant lines” if less than 12 percent of the power will be consumed by Missouri customers.

The bill wouldn't prohibit eminent domain or prevent a buried HVDC transmission project.  If GBE was buried along existing rights of way, it would not be affected.

Chicago-based Invenergy did not buy the project last year.  It signed a contingent contract to purchase if certain conditions are met.  Invenergy does not yet own the project. 

The line is proposed to carry electricity from a proposed converter station in southwestern Kansas, although no specific wind farms have signed on to be customers.  Any wind that wants to connect would have to sign a contract to purchase capacity.  That hasn't happened yet.  In addition, the project has no clear path through Illinois to Indiana, so it is not guaranteed to connect to anything.  GBE does not have a permit to construct the project in Illinois.  In fact, it has not even applied for one.

There are no other "similar" projects.

And that 12% figure is not in the legislation, but came from legislative public hearings where proponents of the bill mentioned that less than 12% of the electricity planned for this project could possibly be for sale to Missouri utilities.  The legislation contains no such threshold.

So, what was the point of spewing misinformation such as this to news reporters on a conference call? 

Fearmongering.

And then there's this logic bender:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to regulate transmission, not the state legislature, said Mark Petty director of Kirkwood Electric. Every transmission project can be difficult for landowners to grapple with, which is why they are considered by a commission rather than elected officials who haven’t been reviewing all the facts, he said.

“It’s easy for an entity that objects to want to do an end run, even after all the other facts have been presented and laws been interpreted and reviewed,” he said.

So, let me get this straight, Mark.  You believe that FERC considered Grain Belt Express, interpreted and reviewed the laws, and "regulated" it?  I'm frightened to think you're the director of anything electric.  FERC jurisdiction extends only to the rates of interstate transmission.  FERC only regulates transmission RATES, which has nothing to do with Missouri law or HB 1062.  States have jurisdiction to site and permit electric transmission projects, in this case the Missouri Public Service Commission.  Where does the MO PSC get its authority?  From state laws.  Who makes state laws?  The legislature does.  The MO PSC is a creature of statute and must operate within the laws created by the legislature.  The MO PSC exists at the will of the legislature.  It defies logic to believe that an act of the legislature is an "end run" around a commission that only exists by legislative grace.  The commission does what the legislature says, not the other way around.  If the legislature is prevented from acting on GBE because it is FERC jurisdictional, then the MO PSC would also be prevented from acting.  I'm not sure what FERC has to do with this anyhow, because it has no jurisdiction over state eminent domain laws.  Federalism, it's a thing.  Look it up, Mark.

Mark also said this:

Since the electricity is still coming to customers through public utilities, customers will have the same low rates and price stability, Petty said. The wind electricity from the Grain Belt Express is also cheaper than the alternatives, and Kirkwood could save up to a third of what it currently pays for electricity, Petty said.

A non-public utility selling service (and we are talking about transmission capacity here, since GBE does not sell power) to a public utility does not make the non-public utility a public utility for eminent domain purposes.  A public utility buying service (and electricity from a non-public utility generator) can use any savings realized for any purpose, such as making system improvements, or giving themselves a raise.  All "savings" are not guaranteed to show up on consumer electric bills.  And if they did, Mark wants you to believe it will cut bills by 1/3.  That's a pretty high number, Mark.  So, if someone's bill is ordinarily $100, it will only be $67 if GBE uses eminent domain to build its project?  Who has been purchasing power for your city, Mark?  That person hasn't been doing a very good job.  Perhaps Mark was a bit confused about the actual dollar amount of the savings, and this guy tried to pull him out of the fire...

Cities served by the public energy pool will also see savings, but not as large as Kirkwood. Each city would save about 3-4 percent, said John Grotzinger, vice president of engineering operations and power supply at the Missouri Public Utility Alliance. Those savings would be passed on to ratepayers, he said.

Three to four percent.  But in Kirkwood it's 33.3%?  That's so ridiculous it can't be true.  Let's see... 3% of a $100 electric bill is a savings of... $3.  That $3 isn't going to change anyone's life.  However, using eminent domain to take land for GBE will take farmland out of production and impact yields, which directly translates into increased food costs for everyone.  Any "savings" from GBE are minuscule compared to the consequences of using eminent domain to increase the profits of non-public entities such as GBE.

HB 1062 has incredible support.  Use of fearmongering and misinformation to prevent its passage is a losing game.  Or maybe these city utilities and public energy pool folks really believe their own nonsense and have been taken for a ride by out-of-state investors seeking to increase their own profits on the backs of Missourians?  When someone offers you something at below their cost to supply it, there's always a catch.  Perhaps this is the real reason cities are nervous?  Their golden goose is on the chopping block!

May truth, logic and good sense prevail!