Buzzwords, Bluster, and Baloney: Stirring Up Grain Belt Express

Languished, obstacle, move forward, favorable, finish line, ambitious, momentum, demand, key, tax credit, renewable, next steps... what do these words have in common?  They're tired buzzwords used to describe tired transmission ideas to a tired public who has stopped caring.  Ya know, if it wasn't for the St. Louis Dispatch energy reporter's own personal greenwashed beliefs, there wouldn't be a "story" here.

What's wrong with this article?  It's misinformed, propaganda-driven malarkey that relies on glittering generalities  and opinion.  It's not "news."  It belongs on the Editorial page, not in "business news."

The proposed multistate transmission line, Grain Belt Express, has languished before Missouri regulators for years — with their at times controversial rejections representing the last major obstacle to sending Kansas wind energy east along an intended 780-mile path.

A bigger obstacle to sending Kansas wind energy east is Illinois.  It seems like the reporter is completely oblivious to the court decision in Illinois that vacated the Grain Belt Express permit in that state.  GBE is back to start in Illinois and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be permitted.  The Illinois Supreme Court has serious concerns that Clean Line's merchant, negotiated rates business model does not meet the definition of a public utility.  If it's not a public utility, it doesn't need a permit from the Illinois Commerce Commission.  Clean Line is free to build any transmission it wants in the state, but it may not use a public utility's eminent domain authority to do so.  The same concern has been briefed in Missouri.  Grain Belt Express will not serve all customers equally, which is a hallmark of public utility status.  Without all of the requisite qualifications, Grain Belt Express cannot be a public utility.

While the overall decision on the project’s approval remains the bigger matter before the PSC, the regulatory body announced this month that it was also warming up to begin the separate process of approving its sale.

Warming up?  What the heck does that mean in a regulatory context?  GBE and Invenergy have applied for Commission approval of the sale.  The PSC has set a hearing to determine a procedural schedule.  It does not imply approval.  It merely illustrates the timing differences here where the companies want the PSC to issue a permit to a project based on new ownership BEFORE it has approved said ownership.  It bolsters the argument of Missouri Landowner Alliance that the PSC cannot approve the project based on the qualifications of Invenergy because Invenergy does not yet own the project.

Some outside experts in Missouri speculate that Invenergy’s bid to take over the project can only help its odds of getting across the finish line.

Outside experts?  Renew Missouri is a party to the PSC case.  Invenergy is the applicant.  These are INSIDERS.  And there is no "expertise" here.  It's talking heads spewing glittering generalities and misinformed, self-serving opinion.

James Owen:  this guy has shot himself in the foot so many times by spewing falsehoods in the media that nobody even listens anymore.  If Invenergy wants to buy the project that's proof there's value to the project?  The only proof there is that Invenergy has some sort of scheme in the works to leverage some parts of the project to serve its quest for profit.  The Invenergy/GBE deal is contingent upon successful permitting in Kansas and Missouri.  It is not contingent upon successful permitting in Illinois and Indiana, nor successful transfer of GBE's FERC negotiated rate authority to proposed new parent Invenergy.  If Invenergy intended to build GBE as currently proposed, all those conditions would be present in the contract.  They're not, therefore Invenergy does  not need Illinois or Indiana permits, nor negotiated rate authority, for whatever scheme it may cook up with the carcass of GBE.

She declined, however, to give updates or estimates about Invenergy’s anticipated, or hopeful, timeline for the project.
“I think it’s premature for us to be talking about timelines right now,” said Conley. “When we have a decision in that case (from the PSC), then we can really consider timelines and development and what the next steps for the project are.”

Is that right, Beth?  You can't reveal Invenergy's actual plan for GBE until after the PSC approves the wolf in sheep's clothing?  Then why was it that two Invenergy witnesses told the PSC at hearing last December that the company would have to begin eminent domain proceedings against 700 landowners immediately after approval, and well before it had all state permits in place to build the original concept?  Invenergy admitted that there have been discussions about ending the project in Missouri, or taking a different route around Illinois.  Invenergy doesn't intend to build Grain Belt Express all the way to Indiana and then sell capacity through negotiated rates, does it?  The only thing "premature" here would be letting Invenergy's cat out of its bag and demonstrating its true intentions to the MO PSC before it makes a decision on the project. It's a lot easier to beg forgiveness than seek permission, isn't it, Invenergy?

The project would be accompanied by the large-scale construction of new wind energy generation in western Kansas. Although about 85 percent of electricity distributed by the project would be destined for other states, it would power approximately 200,000 Missouri households. The PSC, even in denying the project through certain legal interpretations, has agreed that it is in the public interest, and would save Missouri customers millions of dollars by promoting access to cheap wind energy.

This is the reporter's opinion.  There are no facts here.  Building a transmission line does not ensure construction of any generation in any specific location.  Eight-five percent will not be destined for other states.  If GBE would have a capacity of 4,000 MW, then 15% would be 600 MW.  GBE proposes 500 MW for Missouri, if it can find customers for that much.  Instead, it only has purported customers for up to 200 MW, which is 5%.  And of that 200 MW, only a bit over 100 MW has actually been "sold" to municipalities in Missouri.  And where does the 200,000 households come from?  Did the reporter add up all the participating municipalities to get that figure, or did he just harvest it from some GBE propaganda?  So, more than 95% is destined for other states currently.  And of that 95%, only 50 MW, or just over 1%, has been tentatively sold.  And since a merchant project cannot be built without customers (customers who would pay much higher rates than those loss leader rates offered to Missouri municipalities), any prognostication about who would buy the capacity and where they would be located is pure speculation and fairy tale.  Also, it matters not what the MO PSC did on an entirely different matter.  GBE has changed significantly since its prior application, and the PSC's opinion may have changed significantly as well.

The transmission project would be the biggest, by far, that the Chicago-based company has ever undertaken. The company has developed more than 400 miles of combined transmission lines in its history, Conley said — just over half of the distance that Grain Belt would cover.

But what kind of transmission lines has Invenergy developed, Beth?  They've all been short generation tie line segments built without eminent domain authority.  This is a comparison between apples and oranges.  Invenergy has no experience with open access transmission lines with negotiated rates using eminent domain authority.  All Invenergy's transmission lines are private use for the company to sell its product.  Are we supposed to infer that GBE would just be another one of those, albeit more than 700 miles long?  Great!  But no eminent domain authority would be appropriate for that kind of project.  And besides, Invenergy has not applied to build any transmission project.  The PSC cannot approve this project as something Invenergy is building because Invenergy does not own it.

But for any prospective wind energy developer, the end of 2020 has long been a key point on the calendar.
After that point, production tax credits for completed wind projects begin to phase out. Even without receiving the full tax in their entirety, Clean Line officials previously said they felt the project would be cost-effective, thanks to technology and declining costs. Invenergy shares that belief, Conley said — full tax credits or not.

Does this reporter not know that Clean Line isn't eligible for, and will not receive, any tax credits?  There are no tax credits for transmission lines, and GBE cannot be built in time for any new wind to be built that qualifies for the credit.  It sounds good, but it's pure fiction, certainly not "news."

Perhaps this reporter should have attempted a balanced piece by talking with opponents to the project?  It's almost as if there is no opposition at all.  Failure to recognize the opposition does not make it disappear.  It only makes this article look biased.  And what's up with that graphic?  It shows three Clean Line projects, two of which have been officially cancelled, without any recognition whatsoever by the reporter.

This article is opinionated garbage.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch needs to do better.