<![CDATA[ StopPATH WV - StopPATH WV Blog]]>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 02:04:04 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[As the Dollar turns:  Episode 2]]>Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:32:18 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/as-the-dollar-turns-episode-2In our last episode of the FERC cost allocation soap opera, we saw a record number of intervenors for this kind of case, and were left breathlessly waiting for FERC to act.

FERC acted on April 8.  ​
pjm_transmission_cost_order.pdf
File Size: 277 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
As expected FERC approved PJM's cost allocation filing because projects necessary for reliability are allocated across the region, as PJM proposed.  An attack on the existing cost allocation formula for reliability projects is outside the scope of the proceeding because the formula was approved by FERC long ago.  The only thing FERC was considering here was whether PJM's cost allocations were in line with its approved formula.

Maryland's Office of People's Council tried to make the argument that PJM selected the wrong formula and that the projects were actually public policy projects that should be allocated 100% to the state whose public policy is causing the need for the projects.  FERC rebuffed that argument.

It's all over, save for the requests for rehearing or appeals.  This may happen, but that's a drama for another episode.

But all is not lost, avid followers.  Commissioner Mark Christie filed a delightful concurrence and opined 
...that the time has come for this Commission to take the lead in its convening role to initiate a proceeding, such as a Notice of Inquiry, a series of technical conferences, or by initiating an FPA section 206 proceeding outside this docket, posing such important questions, among others, as: What is the proper definition of a public policy transmission project? Does the definition of public policy transmission project need to be changed for purposes of regional cost allocation? How should public policy transmission projects be cost-allocated in a multi-state RTO? In my view the states themselves need to be at the forefront of deciding these questions, as it is their own state policies that are largely making these questions unavoidable, as these two recent PJM RTEP cases graphically illustrate. 
However, the other two commissioners apparently weren't feeling it, with Commissioner Clements filing her own concurrence stating that she believes FERC should assign costs based on the allocation of reliability and economic (and perhaps other demonstrable) benefits.  In her world, it doesn't matter who causes the reliability issue or why... just that if one is created, everyone pays for it.

Commissioner Christie's concurrence is logical and thoughtful. 
As a factual matter, there is no question that the Commonwealth of Virginia has – as a matter of public policy – for years given generous tax subsidies directly to one very specific type of industry: data centers.  Virginia’s entire I-95 corridor between Northern Virginia and Richmond may accurately be called “Data Center Alley.” Did these tax subsidies cause Data Center Alley? Under the economic principle of “if you want more of something, subsidize it,” it is logical to assume that Virginia’s tax subsidies did incent the construction of more data centers than would otherwise have located in this corridor, although the exact marginal impact remains unknowable. But the Maryland People’s Counsel and Intervenor Newman make a logical argument to consider the necessary construction of reliability lines in PJM due to load growth from the explosion of data center development in Virginia, as driven – at least at the margin – by Virginia’s own public policy of subsidizing data centers. 
But it's not just Virginia causing transmission projects that get allocated to other states, Maryland also gets called out for its "clean energy" policies and the costs for new transmission to take the place of closing coal-fired generators.
These comments logically raise the question whether a law such as Maryland’s mandate to close fossil-fueled generation units located in Maryland has a more direct, intentional and causal impact on the need for new reliability transmission lines than state tax subsidies to high-load customers such as data centers. At a minimum, both Maryland and Virginia state commenters make arguments that are worthy of serious consideration. 
I agree with what Commissioner Christie didn't say... both Virginia and Maryland are hypocrites when it comes to cost allocation.  Neither one wants to accept the costs of transmission made necessary only by their state policies.  Instead, when it benefits them, they want to share the costs with other states whose residents had no part in creating the policies that cause new transmission, like approving more data centers than you can power, or shutting down all your baseload generation and relying on transmission imports from other states to keep your lights on.

Here's the cliffhanger for this episode... Will Commissioner Christie be successful in opening some sort of inquiry or investigation into cost allocation policies when reliability issues are caused by certain state policies?  He seems pretty determined to solve this issue.  Commissioner Christie's concern for ratepayers above all else is much appreciated, especially considering the political swamp he wades through every day to regulate in the public interest.  Regulation is an art, a skill, that comes with a huge learning curve.  We need more experienced state regulators like Commissioner Christie at FERC, and less political appointments.  FERC's work is too impactful to rest in the hands of political animals.
]]><![CDATA[What's an NIETC and what can I do?]]>Sun, 07 Apr 2024 14:33:06 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/whats-an-nietc-and-what-can-i-do
Picture
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is due to release its preliminary list of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC) that it is considering any day now.  In order to understand what an NIETC is and how you can participate in the process of designation, let's take a look back at the history of NIETCs.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress passed legislation to give the DOE authority to study electric transmission congestion and designate NIETCs that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction to site and permit an electric transmission line in the event that a state either did not have the authority to approve a transmission line or failed to act on an application for a transmission line for one year.  This became known as "Backstop Permitting."  States traditionally have authority and jurisdiction to regulate the siting and permitting of new transmission lines within their borders.  This hasn't changed, but now there was a backstop measure to prevent a state from holding up a needed transmission project.

The legislation tasked FERC with developing rules for its backstop permitting process and FERC did so.  FERC interpreted the statute to mean if a state denied an application for a transmission project then it bumped permitting to FERC.  But that's not what the statute said!  Piedmont Environmental Council and several states appealed FERC's rulemaking in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court found that state denial did not activate backstop permitting in PEC v. FERC.  This allowed states to deny a permit to build transmission and end the matter.

Meanwhile, DOE had performed its congestion study and designated two huge corridors, one in the southwest, and one along the east coast stretching from New York to Virginia.  The designation of those corridors was also appealed in the Ninth Circuit and the Court vacated the corridors due to DOE's failure to consult with states and its failure to perform an environmental assessment on the huge corridors it had designated.  That decision is California Wilderness Coalition v. DOE.

These two court decisions made DOE's NIETC program effectively worthless and the entire thing was put on a shelf and forgotten about.  But, in 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that contained a section that is meant to cure the problems with NIETCs, reviving the program. In addition to broadening the reasons for designating a corridor, the new statute allows FERC to site and permit a transmission project in an NIETC that is denied by a state.  The law tells states -- either approve it or FERC will do it for you.  It does not take the place of state permitting, the states still have authority to site and permit, as long as they don't say "no."  Transmission projects cannot go directly to FERC without first applying at the state and going through the state permitting process.

DOE has been busy trying to revive its NIETC program ever since.  In May of 2023, DOE issued a Notice of Intent and Request for Information proposing a new procedure for designating transmission corridors.  DOE proposed that it accept applications from transmission builders to designate a NIETC that corresponded with transmission they wanted to build.  That's not what the statute says... it says
Not less frequently than once every 3 years, the Secretary, after considering alternatives and recommendations from interested parties (including an opportunity for comment from affected States and Indian Tribes), shall issue a report, based on the study under paragraph (1) or other information relating to electric transmission capacity constraints and congestion, which may designate as a national interest electric transmission corridor any geographic area ...​
It says DOE must study and designate corridors, not farm it out for suggestions from for-profit transmission builders to come up projects that provide profits.  The DOE is supposed to be studying and designating corridors that accomplish the criteria in the study and benefit consumers.  There can be a huge difference between a project proposed simply for profit and one that is actually needed by consumers.  Designating corridors is supposed to be a government tool to incentivize the building of the right kind of beneficial projects.  If DOE thinks (all by itself) that a project is needed, then it designates a corridor that will attract transmission builders to propose a new project in the corridor.  Instead, DOE is, as I mentioned in my comments to the DOE, allowing the inmates to run the asylum.  And I wasn't the only one, DOE received more than 100 comments on its proposal for designating NIETCs.  Many commenters also thought allowing transmission builders to apply for NIETCs was a bad idea. Some thought DOE should perform a legal rulemaking to set parameters for its new program.

Meanwhile, DOE had been working on a National Transmission Needs Study required by the statute as the first step to designating NIETCs.  That study was published in October 2023.  The study found transmission congestion everywhere, meaning that NIETCs were needed everywhere.  Many comments were also submitted panning that study.  Mine are posted here.

In December 2023, DOE released a "Guidance" document on NIETCs, in lieu of the requested Rulemaking.  The Guidance says that it changed DOE's approach to allowing transmission builders to apply for NIETC corridors.  Instead, DOE opened a 60-day window for any person to submit a request for a corridor.  Supposedly this cured the DOE's problem with allowing transmission builders to control the process.  But it really doesn't.  Who else would submit a request for a corridor but a transmission builder?  It's a legal sleight of hand that is due a day of reckoning.  

Many blog readers got involved in NIETC at this point and attended DOE's webinar explaining its process in early January.  DOE was not really forthcoming about all the process that came before that webinar, but hopefully this blog will help you to understand that this didn't just drop out of the sky, but had been in process for more than a year.

DOE's 60-day window for submission of "information and recommendations" for corridors ended on February 2.  Many thought this was the one and only comment period for NIETCs, but it was actually designed for transmission builders to submit requests for DOE to study corridors to correspond with the projects they want to build.  After DOE's window closed, it began to take a preliminary look at the corridor recommendations it has received and promised to release a list of corridors it was considering within 60 days (which would be April 2).  DOE hasn't released anything yet, we are still waiting.

However, NextEra notified Piedmont Environmental Council that it had applied for a corridor in Western Loudoun for its MARL project.  I'm pretty sure that is not the extent of NextEra's corridor proposal... the corridor will cover the entire MARL transmission line, from 502 Junction substation in Pennsylvania to Data Center Alley.  It makes no sense to request a corridor for only part of a transmission project.  However, we will have to wait and see what DOE's list looks like before we proceed with our own response.

Our own response?  Oh yes, anyone can make comment on DOE's list for 45-days after it is released due to the way DOE expanded who may submit "recommendations."  I urge you to read DOE's Guidance, that separates the designation process into four phases.  Phase 1 began in December, when anyone (like NextEra) could submit recommendations for corridors.  Phase 2 begins when DOE releases its list of preliminary corridors to be studied.  In the 45-day Phase 2 window, any person may submit information and recommendations.  DOE is asking for specific information about each preliminary corridor.  It seems to be intended for transmission builders who submitted recommendations for corridors in Phase 1 to supplement their applications, err... "recommendations."  It does not seem to be intended for people concerned about the designation of an NIETC to submit their own information and recommendations, but we're going to crash this party and give DOE an earful about corridors that concern us.  More information about how to participate will be forthcoming after I see DOE's list.  After the 45-day Phase 2 process, DOE will decide which corridors will proceed to Phase 3.  Phase 3 opens the federal environmental study process required by NEPA.  DOE will also evaluate historical resources and endangered species.  During Phase 3, DOE will create a draft designation report and open it to public comment.  Phase 3 requires "robust" public engagement and notification.  This is where DOE wants you to join its NIETC party and make comment, and comes very late in the process, after DOE has already made up its mind in the draft designation report.  When all the studies and comment periods are complete, DOE will move onto Phase 4.  Phase 4 publishes a completed environmental study and DOE's Record of Decision and final Designation Report.  That's the end of the process.

However, a designation may be appealed, first through a Request for Rehearing at DOE, and afterwards through a formal appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (or other circuit where the transmission builder is headquartered).

Is it worth engaging in the NIETC process?  Absolutely!  Unfortunately it is just one more thing to deal with and will play out during the state permitting process for MARL.  If you do nothing on NIETC, you risk all your hard work opposing MARL at your state utility commission being for naught.  If your work in the state process causes the state to deny a permit, NIETC can bump it to FERC and start the permitting process all over again.

And speaking of FERC, it also needs to update its process for permitting transmission projects in a designated NIETC.  Back in 2005, FERC engaged in a rulemaking for a permitting process.  That rulemaking has to be updated for the new process.  FERC opened a rulemaking proceeding for siting and permitting transmission in a NIETC back in 2022.  The comment window closed way back in May of 2023.  However, FERC has not yet issued an order or taken any further action.  FERC cannot accept any applications for NIETC projects until it completes its rulemaking.  A group of nationwide transmission opponents submitted timely comments on FERC's rulemaking.  You can read their initial comments here, and their reply comments here.  This group was the only one to speak up for impacted landowners at FERC.  You can read other comments on the docket and monitor its progress by going to FERC's eLibrary and searching for Docket No. RM22-7.

As you can tell from the length of this blog post, NIETCs have been quietly in the works for a long time and there are a lot of moving parts.  I know it's a lot to understand all at once, that's why I will be publishing some guidelines for landowners who want to kick NIETCs to the curb just as soon as DOE releases its Phase 2 list.  

​Stay tuned!
]]><![CDATA[Illinois Groups Ask for Rehearing on GBE FERC Case]]>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 15:16:53 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/illinois-groups-ask-for-rehearing-on-gbe-ferc-case
Picture
As you may recall, FERC issued a very confused and contradictory order granting Grain Belt Express continued negotiated rate authority de novo.  This would be like selling a used car as a new car that has been continuously driven for the past 10 years.  As Illinois attorney Paul Neilan explains in his inimitable fashion:

1. The Meaning of “De Novo.”
De novo is Latin for "anew." De novo, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). In this Docket the Commission is evaluating GBX’s entire project anew, on both facts and law. “A trial de novo is a trial on the entire case – that is, on both questions of fact and law – conducted as if there had been no trial in the first instance.” Trial de novo, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). When a court decides a case de novo, that court owes no deference to any finding of fact or conclusions of law in the prior decision. See Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc., 252 F.3d 163, 168 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[O]ur review is independent and plenary; as the Latin term [de novo] suggests, we look at the matter anew, as though it had come to the courts for the first time."); see also SEC v. Callahan, 103 F. Supp. 3d 296, 301-302, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57996, 13-14 (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2015).
2. The Meaning of “Continuing.”
The term “continuing” means "uninterrupted; persisting" or "not requiring renewal; enduring." Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The term "continuing" means a state or condition that persists from some prior time into the future. See In re Neosho Concrete Prods. Co., 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 1198, 11-12, 70 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 61, 2021 WL 1821444 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. May 6, 2021).
So when the Commission said in its order that it was granting Grain Belt’s request for continued authority to sell transmission rights at negotiated rates, on a matter that it reviewed de novo, FERC contradicted itself.

Read the whole Request for Rehearing of the Illinois groups here.  I guarantee you won't be as confused as FERC.  It's pretty simple and straightforward and beautifully written.
req_for_rehearing_final_public_compl_red.pdf
File Size: 781 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
FERC staff who wrote that order (Jignasa Gadani; Valerie Teeter; Maria Farinella; Natalie Tingle-Stewart; Michael McLaughlin?) absolutely tied themselves in knots trying to give GBE the best of both worlds.  We knew something was amiss when GBE filed this letter on the outstanding docket earlier this year:
20240129-5066_grain_belt_express_-_renewed_request_for_expedited_consideration.pdf
File Size: 120 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
GBE said... hey FERC, we need you to hurry up and give us what we want... and BTW, here's a CC of this letter to all the staff people we have been schmoozing.  Right.  The staff got it done on GBE's timetable, but they did a really crappy job that cannot withstand any legal scrutiny.  Shame on the Commissioners for allowing their names to be placed on that less than stellar piece of work.  Now it's time for FERC to actually give this docket the scrutiny it should have received in the first place or else the are going to be standing up before the D.C. Circuit looking like idiots trying to defend the indefensible.

It's been more than 30 days since FERC gave GBE what it wanted because GBE was in such a big hurry to advertise its project for sale to customers.  GBE hasn't advertised anything yet.  Guess there wasn't much of a hurry after all.

And why does GBE need to "amend" its prior grant of negotiated rate authority that expired when Clean Line sold the project to Invenergy without FERC approval?  Because the contract with the Missouri municipalities for less than 5% of the project's capacity was negotiated under Clean Line but never submitted to FERC for approval.  FERC cannot "continue" that unapproved contract to be approved at some later date if it actually did review GBE's negotiated rate authority de novo and issue new authority.  FERC needs to boot that contract to the curb because it was not filed by the deadline in FERC's original grant of negotiated rate authority that Clean Line agreed to.  Sorry, the instructions were clear and they were intentionally not followed.  That contract is toast.

FERC also has a huge problem with the contradiction it created saying that GBE didn't need approval to transfer the project from Clean Line to Invenergy, but that Invenergy's sale of undivided interests in the project would somehow require approval.  Either a sale of project assets requires approval under Sec. 203 of the Federal Power Act, or it doesn't.  Can't have it both ways.  FERC needs to think carefully before it does something that can impact its authority under Sec. 203 going forward.

FERC didn't think this thing through, and it needs to correct its errors.  Thank goodness the Illinois groups are there to clean up the mess.  If it doesn't make sense, it can't withstand the legal scrutiny of the DC Circuit.  Been there, done that.
]]><![CDATA[DOE Pretends to Plan New Transmission]]>Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:35:57 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/doe-pretends-to-plan-new-transmissionOur Big Green government is wasting our tax dollars on an effort to "plan" new transmission, although is has absolutely no authority to do so.  The latest waste of money is entitled "Interregional Renewable Energy Zones" and is a partisan effort to create these "zones" in rural America and "suggest" new HVDC transmission to connect the "zones" to "load centers."  Boiled down, it's an ineffective "plan" to turn rural areas into industrial scale power plants covered with wind turbines and solar panels and then ship all that green juice to the elite bastions of urban arrogance.  Why?  It's simple... they don't want any ugly, invasive power infrastructure sited in their own backyard, but they still want to pretend they are "clean and green" by turning us all into their personal energy serfs.

Nice try, but rural areas aren't that stupid.  DOE has absolutely no authority whatsoever to plan renewable energy "zones" or new transmission lines.  It seemed they thought they did last year, until they were challenged and came up empty handed.  No authority.  Not happening.  

But they're not giving up.  They continue to waste our money on idiotic "reports" that do absolutely nothing.  This time, they claim that their work is "helpful" to states who may want to use this nonsense to plan for their own energy needs.  Sorry... the states don't need your help anymore that the transmission planning authorities do.  Nobody needs help from a bunch of babies that are too stupid and partisan to accept reality.
This study is a preliminary analysis to help state decision makers determine whether to pursue more detailed analyses of IREZ corridors that are relevant to them. This report could not fully account for all the case-specific details that would affect the configuration of a transmission project. Nevertheless, if a corridor examined in this study has a high benefit-to-cost ratio based only on energy cost savings, a follow-on study focusing on that corridor might expand the economic analysis to include local factors that we were not able to address here. A guiding premise behind the IREZ analysis is that states will ultimately take the lead in deciding whether to pursue IREZ development.
But that has approximately ZERO chance of happening.  Even if one or two states used this dreck to ask their regional planning authorities to plan for zones and transmission, there are too many "fly over" states that are never going to agree to it.

What states are those?  Take a look at the grandiose "plan."  (larger image available at the "report" link)
Picture
The green dots are "zones" to be covered with wind turdbines and solar panels.  The red dots are the places that want to pretend they are only using renewable energy.  The lines are new HVDC transmission projects.
This study develops a model using renewable energy zones to address the new challenges of interregional transmission planning. An interregional renewable energy zone (IREZ) is an area comprising a very high concentration of very low-cost developable renewable energy potential. An IREZ hub is a collection point on the bulk power system to which renewable energy plants built in the IREZ can connect easily. The hub anchors an IREZ corridor that consists of a dedicated high-voltage transmission path from the IREZ hub to a major load center.
What were you smoking when you drew that?
We have identified and quantified several high-value IREZ corridors that affected states might consider for interregional transmission planning. Our analysis suggests that these corridors can be valuable tools for reducing carbon emissions in a manner that uses known technologies, has relatively small net impact on customers’ electricity bills, improves resource adequacy, and provides the grid with an additional measure of resilience against major disruptions related to climate change and other causes.
Affected states won't be "considering" that.  It is quite insane and wasteful.

And let's talk about that "using known technologies" thing.  The only "technology" NREL considered here was wind and solar.  That's it.  News flash!  We absolutely, positively, undeniably cannot reliably power the United States with only wind and solar.  Putting their intermittency and unreliability aside, they are just too expensive at this scale.  There's nothing in this report that adds up the cost of all those renewables in the "zones" and the cost of all the new transmission.  I don't think they can count that high.  Here's an idea!  Why don't you take all the money you were hoping to spend on this wasteful plan and use it to build clean, renewable nuclear generation at all the red dot load centers?  None of this transmission would be necessary, and that's a huge savings.  I'm sure it would be cheaper, but DOE didn't compare any other resource plans to this biased brain fart.

And, before I end, let's examine one of the huge errors DOE made purporting "benefits" for the states:
​Benefits could include assumptions about local tax receipts and indirect economic development effects in the IREZ state, payments to landowners for the acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) along the transmission path, net savings in energy costs for customers at the receiving end of the corridor, and enhanced resilience against extreme weather events.
Sorry, but payments to landowners for land taken from them against their will is NOT a benefit.  It is COMPENSATION for something taken from them.  The idea of compensation is that the landowner remains whole after the taking, although you can't grow crops on piles of dirty money.  It is not a windfall similar to winning the lottery.  The landowner is supposed to use that money to purchase additional land, or to make up for the inability to use that land in the future.  That is not a "benefit" by any stretch of the imagination.

DOE did a pretty poor job of trying to dredge up some reason why flyover states should willingly sacrifice themselves for the urban elite.  It also completely overlooks that the "zones" may not want to be covered in wind turbines and solar panels and may outright refuse to sign leases or permit these projects to be built.

What a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money.
]]><![CDATA[Media Misinformation]]>Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:19:32 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/media-misinformation
Picture
At the top of my STOOPID list this week is this article from Inside Climate News.  In his push to help make transmission siting and permitting a federal responsibility, this "reporter" from NYC interviewed some twit from the partisan Brookings Institution named Samantha Gross.  The Gross quote said this:
Transmission lines are among the most difficult projects to receive speedy approval, Gross said, because they tend to cross multiple states and jurisdictions, each of which have their own set of requirements the developer would need to fulfill. In fact, Gross said, she already knows of one transmission line currently under development in the Midwest that would immediately benefit from state level reforms. 
The project—a lengthy transmission line called the Grain Belt Express, which would deliver electricity produced at wind and solar farms in Kansas 800 miles to Missouri and Illinois—has been delayed for more than a decade by the regulatory process and legal challenges.
“If those contiguous states had some permitting reform, you could probably get that project done,” Gross said. ​
Yup, that sure is gross.  Miss Samantha doesn't know diddly about Grain Belt Express, apparently.  Grain Belt Express is stalled right now because it doesn't have enough customers to make the project economic.  Fact.  Making permitting a federal affair would have absolutely no impact on Grain Belt Express.  Permitting "reform" won't make anyone want to sign up for GBE.

Neither one of these people realize how STOOPID they sound to people who know the truth.  But, we're not really the target audience... STOOPID feeds on STOOPID and that "article" just makes everyone dumber.

Samantha needs to stop spewing misinformation born of her own presumptions and ignorance.  And the NYC reporter needs to quit printing it.
]]><![CDATA[GBE's Epic Meltdown]]>Sat, 09 Mar 2024 18:51:53 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/gbes-epic-meltdownI've seen a lot of temper tantrums in my lifetime, and this one is screaming, red in the face, epic.

Yesterday, Grain Belt Express made another filing on its long-ignored complaint at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, having an absolute conniption fit that MISO is working on another package of transmission projects that ignores GBE.  Time waits for no man... and the transmission world waits for no bloated, limping merchant transmission project either.  GBE has taken so long to get its project together that it has been eclipsed.  So sad, too bad!

In the complaint GBE filed against regional grid planner MISO last year, GBE was ticked off that MISO's Tranche 1 transmission plan ignored its speculative merchant transmission project and approved a series of new projects that would deliver renewable energy into Missouri from Iowa.  MISO's new lines follow a similar path across Missouri and into Illinois and are expected to be online around 2030.  This raises the question... what's cheaper for Missouri utilities?  Purchasing energy from Kansas and service on the $7B GBE project, or purchasing energy from Iowa and taking service on MISO's new projects that cost a lot less?  This could create direct competition for GBE, who may have been banking on the fact that it had cornered the market on delivering renewable energy to Missouri.  Competition works to provide options for cheaper service for Missouri's ratepayers.

And now MISO has opened a solicitation for its Tranche 2 transmission project portfolio.
Picture
Tranche 1 is represented by the gray lines.  The new Tranche 2 is represented by the new red (345kV) lines and the new green (765kV) lines.  That's right... MISO has included a new 765kV project that begins in Iowa and ends in Missouri, not too far from where GBE wants to interconnect, if it ever gets its crap together and finds customers.  It's even MORE competition for GBE in Missouri.  Good luck with that customer thing, GBE.

​Here's part of GBE's ranting tantrum filed with FERC:
MISO recently proposed a new 765 kV transmission line in Missouri close to where the GBX Project will connect. This is absurd given the advanced stage of GBX, disincentivizes the development of interregional merchant transmission, is contrary Commission policy, and is neither just nor reasonable transmission planning. 

MISO continues to march on blindly, act as if GBX does not exist and propose even further transmission in Missouri close to where GBX is fortifying the grid with significant network upgrades and will inject 6.3 TWh of energy annually and be online well before the new proposed 765 kV Tranche 2 Missouri transmission project would come online. This is not only unjust and unreasonable transmission practice but absurd transmission practice. It is irrational for MISO to propose even further transmission in Missouri and ignore that GBX that has obtained all its Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, including in Missouri, spent hundreds of millions of dollars, is committed to spend hundreds of millions more and has a TCA with MISO. 
But GBE doesn't have customers.  No customers, no project!  MISO can't wait another 10 years to see if GBE can actually get its project built.  It is far from a sure thing, therefore MISO planning marches on.  

GBE's second addition to its original complaint contains a bunch more technical mumbo-jumbo concocted by GBE's consultant that says that the MISO projects won't provide any value to MISO customers because GBE will be online.  GBE is oh so concerned about MISO consumers getting the most bang for their buck and it doesn't want those consumers to pay for projects that don't have a significant cost/benefit ratio.  Blah, blah, blah.  GBE insists that its project will be operating soon and will make the MISO lines unnecessary.  

Here's what GBE does not say...  

GBE does not say that its project will be cheaper than the MISO projects and provide cheaper energy to Missouri.  It's just claiming that the MISO projects won't provide benefit to Missouri if GBE is built.  All GBE's fake concern for Missouri ratepayers is nauseating.  GBE is only looking out for its own bottom line here, not yours.  In contrast, MISO doesn't have any skin (or a risky investment) in the transmission planning game.  MISO is only looking out for your bottom line, not its own.  It sure looks to me like GBE is simply trying to eliminate its competition. If MISO's lines are not built, then consumers may not have any other choice than service on GBE.  And that's the bottom line.

If GBE thought that its project could provide cheaper energy to Missouri than the MISO projects, it absolutely would not care if MISO planned other projects that were not such a good deal for consumers.  If GBE was such a great deal, then it would welcome competition.

Instead, GBE just had an epic meltdown at FERC.  Just like any toddler having a tantrum, its motivation is plain for everyone else to see.  Seems like GBE hates the idea of having competition.  Quick, someone call a WAHHHmbulance.
Despite (1) over three years of discussions with MISO and its transmission owners regarding the Project; (2) GBX acquiring final state siting approvals in all 4 states as well as over 96% of the HVDC route’s right of way among other indicia of Project advancement; and (3) GBX having an effective TCA with MISO in hand, on March 4, 2024, MISO released its initial Tranche 2 Draft Portfolio which again does not consider the impact of advanced-stage merchant transmission and worse still proposes a new 765 kV transmission line that is redundant to the far more advanced GBX Project and will interconnect to the same portion of MISO’s system. Thus, MISO has not only ignored GBX in its planning, but it has intentionally leveraged the lack of clarity in its Tariff to discriminate against it. 

The Commission has long recognized that a lack of transparency and standardization of market rules impedes competition and enables the exercise of market power and undue discrimination, and that exact outcome has occurred here. The lack of a clear standard in the MISO Tariff for how advanced-stage merchant transmission will be considered in regional planning has opened up the opportunity to discriminate against merchant transmission projects, which are sorely needed to provide critical geographic diversity and interregional transfer capability during the energy transition. In the end, MISO’s behavior will not only lead to unjust and unreasonable rates, but it will rob the region of competition, access to geographically diverse resources and potentially important ties to adjacent RTOs. This should be unacceptable to the Commission, to State regulators and to ratepayers. The Commission should act now on this Complaint to protect ratepayers, prevent further delay and waste and to rectify this baffling outcome which is a direct barrier to the development of much needed interregional transmission. Therefore, Invenergy renews its request for the following relief 

Invenergy urges the Commission to issue an order as soon as possible and no later than May 15, 2024, to ensure that just and reasonable transmission practices are implemented and ratepayers are protected at the soonest possible date. 
As that great philosopher Pee Wee Herman once stated... "I know you are, but what am I?".

Does GBE actually think FERC is going to come to its rescue, shut down MISO's planning efforts, and vaporize GBE's competition by May 15?

Fat chance.
]]><![CDATA[I Told You So!]]>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 17:29:33 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/i-told-you-so
Picture
This may be the first of several blogs with the same title.

I told you so, DOE!

It seems that one of the first merchant transmission projects that DOE gifted with a capacity contract has gone belly up because it couldn't find any other customers.

FACT:  Merchant transmission capacity contracts are NOT like painting Tom Sawyer's fence... just because the federal government is stupid enough to sign a capacity contract for service doesn't mean anyone else is equally stupid.

Last October, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the first three recipients to be granted transmission capacity contracts paid for by taxpayers.  And I blogged about it here.
DOE is buying something that it doesn't need and won't ever use, but will put a lot of money in the pockets of private investors who otherwise would have no buyers for their overpriced service.  Can I just say "I told you so" in advance?  This program is wasteful, illogical, and unfair.
Taxpayer funded merchant transmission capacity contracts for projects that have no other customers DO NOT inspire other buyers to sign a contract.

I've been telling DOE this since the dawn of this stupid idea.

But they didn't listen, being all concentrated on political nonsense and lacking common sense such as they are.

And this week, I was right.  The Twin States Clean Energy Link was cancelled.  It was cancelled because it couldn't find any other customers besides the U.S. DOE.  That's right, even when the DOE put up our tax dollars to support a merchant transmission project nobody needed, it still didn't inspire any other customers to sign up.  This experiment in propping up unneeded merchant transmission projects with taxpayer dollars is a miserable failure.

Undaunted, the DOE recently issued a second solicitation for more loser merchant transmission project contracts.

Sometimes you just can't fix stupid, especially when their pockets are full of Other People's Money.

Speculative merchant transmission projects are not viable.  Quit wasting our money, DOE!

Did I mention I TOLD YOU SO?
]]><![CDATA[FERC Tosses GBE's Negotiated Rate Authority and Issues New One]]>Sun, 03 Mar 2024 17:42:27 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/ferc-tosses-gbes-negotiated-rate-authority-and-issues-new-one
Picture
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has finally gotten around to solving one of GBE's little problems... for now.

Last year, GBE asked FERC to "amend" the negotiated rate authority issued to the project in 2014.  However, FERC conducted a review de novo, as it would have a reviewed a new application.  GBE's original authority is history, but FERC also granted new authority based on GBE's application.  FERC also said that GBE did not need to file for negotiated rate authority before selling capacity (d'oh GBE).  Under Commission policy, a merchant transmission developer can either opt to file in advance to show it has met the Commission's four factor analysis, or it could just submit everything after the fact and hope it got things right.

While FERC said that GBE met the first and forth factor, it is reserving judgment of the second and third factor until after GBE makes a later filing.  But there were some leaps of logic in there that makes me wonder what FERC is up to.

First leap... 
Grain Belt notes that this area is within the geographic footprint of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), but the generation will not be interconnected to the SPP transmission system. ​
So, GBE is NOT connecting to SPP and will simply connect directly to the generators?  GBE will not have a connection to the SPP transmission system.

But then FERC turns around and says these things:
The GBE system consists of (in part):  AC overhead transmission lines to connect the converter stations to portions of the SPP, MISO, and AECI managed electrical systems in Kansas and Missouri.  

And that...

Grain Belt contends that Phase 1 will increase resilience for the SPP, MISO, and AECI Balancing Authority Areas (BAAs) by allowing the potential of one BAA to import a large amount of power from another BAA to bolster system reliability and improve the ability of each BAA to recover after a power failure.
That's right... GBE does connect to SPP.  Someone at FERC overdosed on contradiction cookies while writing that order.

​But it doesn't stop there, and the rest of them are not so inconsequential.
In the 2014 Order, the Commission directed Grain Belt “to make a filing disclosing the results of the capacity allocation process within 30 days after the close of the open solicitation process.”  Grain Belt did not submit a compliance filing during the required timeframe and, as such, has not satisfied the conditions of its initial grant of negotiated rate authority.  Grain Belt indicates that it will seek approval of the Initial TSAs in a future compliance filing.  Given the Project changes described in the instant filing and the passage of time, the Commission will conduct a de novo review of the Initial Open Solicitation and the Initial TSAs at such time as Grain Belt submits a filing providing sufficient detail to evaluate whether the capacity allocation process satisfied the Commission’s requirements.
FERC acknowledges that GBE did not follow its order, but says that doesn't matter.  Why even bother with the 30 day deadline if utilities don't have to follow it, but can take 8 years or more to make a required filing under a different order?  FERC has turned itself into a paper tiger.  Anyone can violate any FERC order it likes in the future and suffer no repercussions.  Hear that, market manipulators?  FERC says you can break its rules whenever you like and there will be no penalties.  Ridiculous!  

And here's the worst leap of logic in the whole thing...

GBE says it was not required to get FERC's approval for the sale of the project (and its Negotiated Rate Authority).  The Illinois protestors say that approval was required and made extensive arguments to support their contention.  And what did FERC do?  It chucked that whole argument because it ruled that GBE's prior negotiated rate authority does not exist because they reviewed and granted new authority de novo.  That makes the entire argument moot and FERC does not need to make a decision on whether it should have approved the sale.
Given that we are reviewing Grain Belt’s filing de novo, we find moot protestors’ argument that Grain Belt may not rely on the Commission’s prior grant of negotiated rate authority in the 2014 Order because Grain Belt failed to obtain section 203 approval.  Our findings here are based on Grain Belt’s current ownership structure and project design, and thus do not turn on whether prior section 203 authorization was required for either Invenergy’s acquisition of Grain Belt, or the transfer of Grain Belt’s negotiated rate authority.   ​
And then FERC says:
Grain Belt’s request for continued authority to sell transmission rights at negotiated rates is hereby granted in part, as discussed in the body of this order.
But the Commission tossed its 2014 order finding that GBE met all four factors and its new order only finds that GBE complies with two.  GBE lost serious ground here.  FERC was not snowed that it should simply rubber stamp a renewal of the 2014 order.  GBE is going to have to go back to square one and prove factors two and three all over again... if it can.

And here's another easter egg for FERC... GBE said approval for a sale is only required if the sale was made AFTER the project was energized.  Therefore, GBE won't actually have to get approval of any sales it makes before the project is in service, which includes all the sales it intends to make now during its sale of capacity and undivided interests in the project.  Again... FERC says do whatever the heck you want, GBE, we'll settle up later.  The only hazard there is one for GBE... perhaps a different group of Commissioners and staff is going to be scrutinizing your compliance filing after you finish selling your project, and maybe they don't have such a permissive style of regulating based on one administration's push for "clean energy".  GBE is cocked and ready to make as many fatal mistakes as necessary... well, if anyone is even interested in buying transmission capacity from Kansas to Missouri.  Will they be interested in a $7B project from unspecified generators to a connection point in Missouri that may be ready in 2030 when MISO is building a competing project that costs a lot less and is scheduled to be online in 2028?

Have at it, GBE, but watch your back, FERC's not done with you yet.
gbe_nra_order.pdf
File Size: 271 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[As The Dollar Turns]]>Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:20:02 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/as-the-dollar-turnsCost allocation for PJM's 2022 Window 3 projects has now officially turned into a long-running soap opera at FERC, and eventually through the courts.

Last year, PJM solicited new transmission to solve future issues with the retirement of 11,000 MW of existing generation in the eastern part of its region due to state "clean energy" policies, and the addition of 7,500 MW of new data center load concentrated in Northern Virginia.  In December, PJM selected and approved a huge portfolio of new transmission that looks like this.
Picture
You don't need to be a transmission engineer to notice that the majority of the new lines have a concentrated end point -- data center alley in Loudoun County, Virginia.  Power from southeast and southwest Pennsylvania (feeding from huge coal-fired plants in West Virginia) and power from central Virginia is being piped into data center alley on new transmission extension cords.  In the eastern portion of the map, power from southeastern Pennsylvania is being piped into the Baltimore area via new transmission extension cords.  The destinations for the new power is directly tied to PJM's statement of need -- new power for data centers and to replace closing coal-fired plants in the Baltimore area.  These are the causers of the new transmission.

In January, PJM made a filing at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to allocate the more than $5B cost of this new transmission according to its regional cost allocation formula for big, regional lines.  Lines needed for regional reliability are allocated 50% to all load-serving utility zones across the region based on each zone's share of peak load for the preceding year.  The zones with the largest load receive a bigger share of this 50% of the cost of the lines.  The other 50% of the cost is allocated based on zones who will use the new lines.  Here's a map of PJM's utility zones.
Picture
PJM's territory is vast and stretches from the east coast as far west as Chicago, and as far south as North Carolina.  Under the 50% to load allocation, the ComEd zone around Chicago uses the most power so therefore it receives the largest share of these costs.  What benefit is Chicago getting from data centers in Virginia or "clean energy" in Maryland?  The correct answer is... zippety do dah!  However, the old thinking goes that since PJM is a connected region, any threat to reliability anywhere in the region could black out the entire region.  Therefore, everyone "needs" transmission to ensure reliability.

The old thinking also went that load increased incrementally around the entire region, with it being impossible to finger just one region for increased load, therefore everyone paid for regional increases in load.  It was too hard to measure exactly where load was increasing over time, and no new user created an outsized increase in load that could be isolated and allocated to the cost causer.  PJM cannot be changing its cost allocations constantly every time a new industrial plant asks for a connection, and these new users didn't cause a huge jump in power use when compared to the amount of power flowing across the region.

Toss that old thinking out the window!  PJM's latest portfolio of projects CAN be tied to just two things... closing baseload generators in eastern PJM and increased data center load concentrated in a tiny spot on PJM's vast map.  And what is causing that?  State "clean energy" policies that require the closing of existing fossil fuel baseload generators and prohibit their replacement with similar generators that can produce hundreds of megawatts of electricity when needed.  Replacement with renewables is a fairy tale.  Renewables take too much land for the amount of power they produce, and the power they produce is not reliable.  It takes many more megawatts of renewable power to equal one megawatt of fossil fuel power because renewables are such weak generators and they are intermittent and cannot be relied on to produce power when needed.  If we rely on renewables to keep the lights on, we're only kidding ourselves.  We cannot build enough renewables to take the place of all the fossil fuel generators in PJM that keep the lights on.  Here's a graph showing the source of PJM's power this morning that is powering this computer, and everything that's making your Saturday happy.
Picture
Without coal, gas and nuclear, we wouldn't have electricity.  This isn't a one-off, PJM's graph looks like this on a daily basis.  If we are ever going to get to zero carbon, we need to start building lots of nuclear power... yesterday.  Wind and solar and "other renewables" are not going to get there... EVER.  PJM has no control over power generation.  It only has control over transmission to get available power to load.  Generation is a state issue... except we deregulated it years ago so the states have no control over it either.  Generation is controlled by market, that is when it's profitable to build new generators, the market will inspire new builds.  However, PJM steps in long before the market can actually work and builds transmission to ensure reliability.  In certain states with "clean energy" policies, it is impossible to build new fossil fuel generators.  And it doesn't help that Big Green is putting pressure on existing generators to retire early with threats of lawsuits.  It's accelerating, and we are so screwed!  When The Sierra Club is in charge of your power supply you should be frightened.  They have but one goal... to shut down fossil fuels.  They have no responsibility to keep the lights on.

Now that I've set the table (or maybe it was just a rant), let's get back to PJM's cost allocation filing.  PJM makes numerous filings like this every year, and other regional grid operators do as well.  It's usually routine... filing is made and FERC rubber stamps it.  Sometimes a few entities will file objections, but they are rarely sustained.  Once, about 20 years ago, numerous states objected to PJM's cost allocation for its Project Mountaineer transmission projects.  These 500kV projects were for the purpose of increasing the use of coal-fired electricity in eastern PJM by 5,000 MW, and states in the other parts of PJM objected to paying for them.  That case (Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC) ended up at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals... twice... before PJM adopted its current cost allocation methodology.  The Court said that FERC had to demonstrate that the costs of those projects were allocated to the cost causers.  Since then, things have settled down.

However, PJM's latest projects have lit another fire that is probably going to burn as bright as the last one.  Something extraordinary is happening in PJM's cost allocation FERC docket.  In addition to the comments filed by consumers, and the protest of the Maryland Office of People's Counsel that more of the cost should be allocated to Virginia than Maryland, last week the Virginia State Corporation Commission filed comments basically calling Maryland a hypocrite and stating that Maryland is equally to blame for these new transmission lines.  I tend to agree... that both Maryland and Virginia are hypocrites!  These are the two states causing all the "need" for new transmission lines that will be paid for by other states.

But it's not going to end there... a giant parade of entities have intervened in this case at FERC.  Being an intervenor means you are a party to the case.   Only parties have standing to request rehearing at FERC and eventually appeal the case in federal court.

Intervenors include:
  1. FirstEnergy (utility building some of the new lines)
  2. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
  3. American Electric Power (utility building lines)
  4. Dominion (utility building lines)
  5. Exelon (parent company of utility building lines)
  6. Delaware Division of Public Advocate
  7. PPL (utility building lines)
  8. Calpine (generation company)
  9. Rockland Electric (utility in PJM assigned costs)
  10. Duquesne Light (utility assigned costs)
  11. New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel
  12. Old Dominion Electric Co-op (utility assigned cost)
  13. Organization of PJM States
  14. North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. (utility assigned cost)
  15. Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocatte
  16. Maryland Office of People's Counsel
  17. Maryland Public Service Commission
  18. PSEG (utility building lines)
  19. West Virginia Public Service Commission
  20. Southern Maryland Electric Co-op (utility assigned costs)
  21. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
  22. Dayton Power and Light (utility assigned costs)
  23. Ohio Consumer's Counsel
  24. American Municipal Power (utility assigned costs)
  25. Long Island Power Authority (utility assigned costs)
  26. Virginia State Corporation Commission
  27. Northern Va. Electric Co-op (utility assigned costs)
That's a lot of intervenors!  Many more than a normal FERC docket.  You may even be able to sort them into "camps" based on whether they are entities that will pay these costs, or whether they are entities that will benefit financially from building these projects.  It really sucks when they can be placed in BOTH camps, such as the utilities assigned costs that also benefit from building new projects.  Do you think these entities will side with their ratepayers against being assigned costs for these projects, or will they side on gladly accepting costs because their financial interests are greater than their public utility responsibilities to their customers?

So, what happens next?  There may be more intervenors and more comments, but eventually FERC will issue an order.  No matter what FERC decides, one "camp" or the other isn't going to like it.  That camp will file for rehearing.  FERC will reconsider the matter and issue another order.  One camp won't like that and will file an appeal in the federal circuit court(s) of appeal.  The Court will decide the matter and remand it to FERC with instructions to issue a new order that comports with the Court's instructions.  Once FERC issues the new order, it may be appealed again, and back to the courts it goes.  One camp may decide to appeal the federal court's order to SCOTUS.  It's going to drag on for years, like a bad soap opera.

Meanwhile, PJM will continue to pursue its projects.  If any cost allocation adjustment are made due to the appeals, that's a money issue that will be taken care of through rates.  The utilities assigned to build these projects will file applications for permits to construct with some of the intervening states.  Think about how that will go...  If a state denies a permit, permitting may be bumped up to FERC under new backstop permitting laws created by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021.  The longer the permitting process for these projects, the higher their costs climb.

And what about those costs?  Will the possibility that zones in Virginia and Maryland are eventually assigned more of the costs become a risk factor that will impact the need for these projects in the first place?  Will data centers want to continue to build in Virginia and accept the risk that the cost of their electricity is going to skyrocket in the future when the legal cases are finally settled?  Or will they decamp to cheaper pastures without the risk?  (Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!). And what about Maryland?  Will skyhigh electricity costs cause Maryland to re-think its clean energy policies that prohibit the building of new fossil fuel plants?  Will Maryland begin a nuclear generation renaissance that could be equally expensive?

Those are the only changes that will make a difference in PJM's load forecast, but getting there will be rough.  PJM never changes its mind, once it is made up.  FERC should require PJM to create a new cost allocation method for new transmission due to state "clean energy" policies that is involuntarily allocated to the states whose policies cause the new transmission.  PJM should also create a new cost allocation policy dealing specifically with data centers.  This relatively new electric user stands out as a huge load that must be separated from normal, incremental load increases.  Data centers use so much power, they are in a class by themselves.  While FERC cannot allocate costs directly to data centers, it can allocate costs to the zones in states where the building is causing need for new transmission.  It would then be up to the state whether to spread the costs of the transmission among all users, or allocate it to data centers directly.  Whatever happens, it won't be an easy decision, and someone isn't going to like it.

Probably you.  Your electric bill is going to skyrocket.

Be sure to tune in to our next episode when FERC issues an order on PJM's cost allocation filing... this is going to be the longest running soap opera in history!
]]><![CDATA[Grain Belt's Not So Big News]]>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:26:06 GMThttp://stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog/grain-belts-not-so-big-newsSomeone sent me this article earlier this week.  It tries to pretend that Grain Belt Express has made some sort of regulatory or procedural progress... like it got things *approved*.  But the reality is that the only things GBE recently got was a well-deserved kick in the behind from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a big nothing from the U.S. Department of Energy.  Big deal.  Must have been a slow news day... or just one ripe for propaganda and fake news.

​Let's go to the DOE thing first.
Picture
That's right... zero plus zero is still zero.  GBE is still a big, fat zero.  FAST-41 is supposed to be a government run program that "speeds up" the environmental review for selected projects.  Except, the government getting involved has never sped up anything!  Government slows everything because of its pendulous rules and process.  GBE's Environmental Impact Statement has already been underway for more than a year, and it's already at least 6 months behind schedule.  And there's no end in sight.  How would anyone even know if FAST-41 speeds up the GBE EIS, since it's already behind the non-FAST schedule?  This is just a waste of time and tax dollars, let's move on to FERC.

The article says
Grain Belt Express is also making procedural headway at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Say what?  Did this silly reporter even READ the FERC Order he's reporting on?  I'm thinking no, because no sane person would have read that Order and decided it was favorable to GBE.  What GBE got from FERC was nothing but a scolding.

We've known for quite a while that GBE was going to connect to MISO and AECI in Callaway County at the existing McCreedie subtation and also at a new substation it is sharing with Ranger Power's immense solar farm.  The new substation is called Burns.  Burns will be owned and built by incumbent utility Ameren (however I hear that Ranger Power bought the land and scraped all the topsoil off it before handing it over to Ameren).  Ameren has been ordered to build this substation and connect both Ranger Power and GBE by regional grid operator MISO.  Ameren cannot refuse to build it.   In addition, MISO's studies determined that there needs to be two new 345kV high-voltage transmission lines from the new Burns substation to the existing Montgomery substation (in Montgomery Co.) in order for GBE to connect.  The existing line cannot carry enough power and new ones must be built.  Ameren has also been ordered to build these new transmission lines, although GBE must pay for them.

GBE's interconnection to MISO was subject to a Transmission Connection Agreement between the parties.  The TCA is a pretty standard thing that relies in large part on MISO's filed tariff with FERC.  TCAs can be negotiated somewhat and once they are complete, they are filed with FERC for approval.  Except GBE could not agree with MISO on a number of issues so MISO filed the TCA with FERC unexecuted (unsigned).  FERC approved that unsigned TCA.  GBE had asked FERC to make several changes to the TCA and force MISO to do certain things, and for FERC to make Ameren hurry up and build the new transmission lines that GBE needs to make its connection at Burns.  FERC declined to make any of GBE's suggested changes and told GBE it was not necessary to tell Ameren to hurry up.  GBE got NOTHING it asked for here.  GBE was legally smacked upside the head.  FERC has sided with its regional transmission organization, MISO, on all issues.  This really isn't novel or different.  FERC always sides with its pet RTOs.  GBE is just stupid if it thinks it can challenge MISO and get a different result.  Maybe now Polsky will get a clue about why they "don't hear from them" on all the complaints Invenergy has filed against MISO?

Although the TCA was approved by FERC, it doesn't do anything to make GBE's connection happen faster.  It's still scheduled for, maybe, 2030.  GBE had asked FERC to force MISO to connect some smaller portion of capacity in 2027.  Not happening.

Why is this such an issue for GBE?  Here's a quote from the Order:
Grain Belt asserts that, with respect to the reasons for delaying the In-Service Date of the GBX Line, Ameren Missouri did not mention that its affiliate, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois, was awarded a number of transmission facilities under MISO’s Long-Range Transmission Planning process, which it is constructing with planned In-Service Dates of 2028 and 2030. 
That's right, folks!  MISO ordered Ameren to build new transmission lines to be in service in 2028 and 2030 for the purpose of importing wind and solar energy from Iowa to Missouri and Illinois.  These regionally planned lines are cost allocated to all ratepayers in MISO.  This means that the cost to use them is going to be considerably LESS than the bloated $7B merchant transmission Grain Belt Express.  In fact, ratepayers are going to be paying for the new Ameren lines, even if they choose to use GBE instead.  Let's see... renewable energy on new lines you pay for OR renewable energy on the GBE, which costs a lot more, and then you STILL have to pay for the Ameren lines anyhow.  Doesn't take an energy trader to figure out that problem.

The Ameren lines will be cheaper.  Therefore, GBE is in a big hurry to try to get its bloated behemoth online before Ameren gets those lines built.  Looks like that's not going to be possible.

GBE is stripped bare... it's too expensive and obsolete.  Who would want to be a customer?  And, speaking of customers, GBE still does not have negotiated rate authority to try to find any.  No matter though... GBE can't connect its project until at least 2030, when there will be better options for renewable energy transmission service in MISO.
Picture
]]>