Category:

22 Transmission Ideas + Free Government Cheese = Rat Infestation

4/30/2021

He's back! Thought you were done with Michael Skelly for good when his Clean Line Energy Partners went belly up after wasting $200M of investors' money? Sorry. The smell of free government cheese was apparently too much for him. He's back... as a "founder" of Grid United. Grid United LLC was just created a couple weeks ago and registered in Delaware. Gosh, where have we seen all this before?

Isn't this the way the Clean Line money burner started? I wonder if he's called up Jimmy and Jayshree to join him again? So... what sparked this sudden interest to join the transmission world again after such a spectacular failure?

Free government cheese! If you put out the cheese, the rats will come!

It appears that the people and corporations who will make enormous profits from overbuilding new transmission, along with "big green" non-governmental organizations who seek to fatten their own bottom line and reach their own political goals, have been elected to the White House. It's no coincidence that the cabals seeking political power and riches beyond imagination have taken control of U.S. energy policy. It's also no coincidence that the White House announced new actions to "upgrade America's power infrastructure" at the very same time that one of the cabals announced a new list of 22 "shovel ready" transmission projects. It's quite clear who is in control here. It's corporate interests. The swamp has been rewatered and the creatures are multiplying.

Along with the 22 "shovel ready" transmission projects, the White House announced more than $8B of federal loan guarantees for "innovative" transmission projects.

“DOE is making financing available for projects that improve resilience and expand transmission capacity across the electrical grid, so we can reliably move clean energy from places where it’s produced to places where it’s needed most,” said Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm.

Holy Solyndra, Batman! Gosh, what if Skelly could get his hands on $8B of free government cheese to spend on a new suite of Clean Line... err... Grid United... transmission ideas? Since no private investor would be likely to give him another penny for his transmission ideas, it's up to the federal government to give OUR money away for Skelly to play with. And where are those "places where it's needed most?" I've been trying to get this meaningless platitude defined for years now without success. I think it means turning rural America into an industrial power plant for urban needs. For some reason, urban needs are "most" and rural needs are sacrificed. Environmental justice? No, just a bunch of hypocrites of the highest order who intend to place their energy infrastructure on precious farmland and through the backyards of hundreds of thousands of rural residents, even though these "peasants" won't get any benefit from it. The DOE pretends that its free government cheese is only for "innovative" transmission projects, however the list of 22 "shovel ready" transmission projects includes mostly old technology projects that have been bumping along unsuccessfully for decades. There's nothing innovative here... overhead wires and hulking lattice structures hundreds of feet tall are something that Thomas Edison would recognize! There are only a handful of quasi-innovative projects on the list -- those that are buried underwater or along existing rights of way. And even then, they are based on the century-old idea of centralized generation and miles of transmission wire. What's truly innovative? This! Distributed generation, making power where it's used, is our future however there is no free government cheese for this truly innovative new energy idea.

What projects are on the list? Of course, Grain Belt Express makes the list, but it's not the project Invenergy is trying to build. The project on the list includes the leg through Illinois, although Invenergy has announced that it only wants to build the portion through Kansas and Missouri. It seems the "list" only includes Skelly's version of it. Is he going to buy it back from Polsky? Stab him in the back this time? Completing Skelly's dream is the Plains and Eastern project. It's on the list, although it was abandoned more than 4 years ago! Is Skelly going to buy that one back from NextEra? Adding to the mystery is the "new" Plains and Eastern's route. It ends abruptly at the Arkansas border. It does not continue through Arkansas to make the connection at Memphis that Skelly originally envisioned. In fact, Skelly never envisioned a connection point at the Arkansas border. What's there? Is that a strong connection point where a gigantic 4,000 MW converter station can be built? Nobody knows... it all seems like simple artwork fantasy.

Observing the report’s map, Skelly said, “If you squint a little bit, you can see the beginnings of what would be a nationally connected system. Obviously, there are plenty of gaps here, but … if these lines get done, then we have the beginnings of a something” that could “grow organically into a national grid.”

Ahh, geez, if you squint a bit you can also see an infestation of fat rats swarming the cheese. A squinting transmission plan and free government cheese? Is this what now passes for national energy policy? Stop the crazy! But wait, there's more...

Among the projects are a few originally proposed by Michael Skelly’s defunct Clean Line Energy Partners, including the Grain Belt Express and the Plains & Eastern Clean Line.

“The reason we put these projects on the list is because they’re sited, and they’ve got interconnect agreements, and they’ve got studies; they’re ready to go,” said Skelly, now a senior adviser at Lazard, who joined ACEG Executive Director Rob Gramlich and several representatives of the listed projects’ developers in presenting the report.

Say what? These projects have interconnection agreements? That is a BIG FAT LIE. Neither of these projects have signed interconnection agreements for both ends of the extension cord. In fact, Grain Belt Express seems to be hedging its bets about where it will interconnect lately. Will it be Ralls County? Will it be Randolph County? Will it be Indiana? Invenergy says it has no idea. No idea at all. In addition, nobody knows what NextEra intends to do with the Oklahoma portion of Plains and Eastern that it purchased. It's done nothing to make a new project out of the ashes of the old one. However, Skelly's new cabal has some more policies it wants to put in place using its new perch at the White House.

Given the scale of transmission need discussed above, other policies to enable large-scale expansion of transmission over the longer-term are also needed.

Anchor Tenant

Legislation could be enacted to direct the federal government to directly invest in new transmission lines as an “anchor tenant” customer, and then re-sell that contracted transmission capacity to renewable developers and others seeking to use the transmission line. This would help provide the certainty needed to move transmission projects to construction and overcome what is called the “chicken-and-the-egg problem,” in which renewable developers and transmission developers are each waiting for the other to go first due to the mismatch in the length of time it takes each to complete construction.

FERC Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation Reform
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has authority over how transmission is planned and paid for. FERC can use that authority to break the transmission planning and cost allocation logjams that are preventing large regional and inter-regional lines from being built. Legislation to direct FERC to use that authority could also be helpful.

Streamlined Permitting
While most authority for permitting transmission lines is held by states, federal agencies have authority over lines that cross federal lands. Steps can be taken to streamline and expedite that process, which can currently take a decade or more.

Hey, remember why Plains and Eastern failed in the first place? It was because the TVA (federal power marketer) refused to sign on as an anchor tenant and be Clean Line's customer. Skelly aims to fix that by requiring that the federal government hold the hot potato of transmission capacity nobody wants or needs. The government would pay Skelly for his project and then maybe re-sell capacity to someone else as a middle man. And if the government is as unsuccessful as Skelly at selling transmission capacity to a utility that wants it? Well, then, no harm done. The government can just continue to fund unneeded transmission that nobody uses... forever. This is absurd, uneconomic and just plain stupid.

There's so much free government cheese here it makes my head spin!

Free transmission tax credits.
Free government loan guarantees.
Guaranteed purchase of new capacity.
New federal government siting and permitting.
Wider cost allocation so consumers don't notice how expensive it is.
New rate incentives for transmission.
New federal planning to increase transmission expansion.

It's like different branches of the federal government are trying to out-do each other by providing layer upon layer upon layer of new cheese handouts for transmission developers. None of it is coordinated and designed to work together. It's a buffet line of government handouts for transmission. A tax credit here, a loan there, a customer contract on the side, a handful of new federal permitting authority, a bowl of new rate incentives. This is the epitome of bloated, ubiquitous government controlling your life and your wallet. Nose to the grindstone, little serf, we've got lots of big government to pay for!!

Let's take a sanity break for just a moment, shall we? Nearly all of the 22 transmission projects on the "shovel ready" list are merchant transmission projects. What are merchant transmission projects? Merchant transmission projects are distinguished from those planned by traditional public utilities in that such projects assume all the market risks, and have no captive pool of customers from which to recoup the project's costs. Merchant projects assume ALL market risk! They pay for themselves. They do not have any guaranteed stream of revenue from any captive customers. Because they have no captive customers, they are not regulated. Transmission with captive customers (such as the proposed federal government anchor customers, or perhaps the taxpayers who are paying for all the free cheese being handed out) must be regulated because the regulation serves as stand-in for competition in a free market. You cannot allow these monopoly constructs to charge as much as they want when there is no competition. But, yet, that is exactly what the federal government is now proposing. It is proposing to make itself a captive customer of an unregulated monopoly. It is proposing to make U.S. taxpayers captive customers of an unregulated monopoly. If we're going to start handing cash and guarantees to merchant transmission developers, THEY MUST BE FULLY REGULATED! When they are regulated they can no longer charge negotiated rates, and they must pass cost/benefit tests that guarantee consumers will receive more benefit than the project costs to build. There must be a fully vetted reason to build them, aside from corporate profit. You cannot hand public money to unregulated monopolies!

And let's end, for the time being, with a little irony, shall we? After he flamed out in the world of transmission, Michael Skelly became an activist against highway expansion in his own hometown of Houston. Let's take a look at his comments in a recent news article about the highway project:

Community opponents of the highway expansion said TxDOT’s only solution to ease traffic problems and congestion is to build more highways, which, besides allowing more cars on the road, also covers more city area with asphalt and concrete. This has considerably increased flooding in areas surrounding highways, many of which have suffered disproportionately since Hurricane Harvey in August 2017, they said.
Michael Skelly, a local activist with the Make I-45 Better Coalition, said TxDOT has consistently ignored residents’ input on project design despite several public hearings. “In 2015, a few of us residents got together and submitted our comments to TxDOT on a 2017 draft project,” he said. “It soon became clear they were not going to commit to anything.”

4 Comments

Moving Missouri Forward To New, Beneficial Solutions

4/23/2021

0 Comments

The Missouri Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment held a hearing on SB 508 this week. Dozens of Missourians came from all over the state to voice their support for this important legislation. They spoke from the heart.

But a handful of folks on Chicago-based Invenergy's payroll, along with some who think they may personally profit from using the solemn power of eminent domain to force the acquisition of private property for Grain Belt Express, were also on hand to deliver company talking points opposing the legislation.

Those company talking points were balm for uneducated and closed minds. It wasn't about reality, it was about providing cover for those who have already made up their mind to support the project. Let's take a look at the pure nonsense of these talking points.

1. The legislation is unconstitutional and will result in a $30M verdict against the state.

REALITY: It's not Invenergy's place to dictate to the Missouri legislature about the constitutionality of legislation. Of course they said that! It's one of the only cards Invenergy has left to play. Constitutionality is determined by the judicial system. Invenergy lawyers (and others in cahoots with them) are not judges. They say whatever benefits their position that they think dumb people will believe. As if a lawyer for one side can pre-determine what an impartial judge would decide. Lawyers are always trying to convince people that the side they represent is right. However there are always two sides before a judge and one of them will lose. Which one will it be? That's for the court to decide.

The legislature's job is to craft law necessary to serve the state and its people. In this instance, the legislature is closing a gaping hole in the state's eminent domain law. The statutes that allow eminent domain for public utilities are old and never contemplated the rather recent creation of merchant transmission. There was no such thing when the current statute was written. Back then, public utilities served the public in the state. Merchant transmission is not a public utility because it does not have an obligation to serve all persons who want service at the same rate. Merchant transmission serves only those who bid the highest for its service. Only those who pay the most are allowed to use the transmission line. In addition, Invenergy has significant financial interest in electric generation, and there's little safeguard against favoring its own financial interest in selecting the project's users. In fact, there's absolutely nothing stopping Invenergy from deciding not to sell service on Grain Belt Express at all and instead keeping all the transmission capacity for its own use as a private driveway across the state to move its own generation to higher priced markets. Grain Belt Express doesn't have to allow any "public" in Missouri to use the project. Do you trust that Invenergy will keep all its promises? You know what they say... Marry in haste, repent at leisure!

Where are all the Missouri customers? A handful of cities who were cut a sweet deal by old owner Clean Line Energy Partners in exchange for support at the Public Service Commission is only 10% of the service the company claims it could make available in Missouri. Why are there no other customers? I can't find where Invenergy has even opened another bidding window to negotiate with new potential customers in Missouri. It's almost like they're not even trying to find new negotiated rate customers in the state.

The reality here is that a substantially similar law to limit eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission projects was signed into law in Iowa four years ago. In that instance, the legislation was inspired by a different Clean Line project, the Rock Island Clean Line. What happened after it passed? Was it determined to be unconstitutional and was a $30M verdict against the State of Iowa awarded? NO. In that instance, Clean Line scrapped its project and moved on. No court battle, no verdict. If the legislation was so certain to be unconstitutional and worthy of such a huge payout, Clean Line would have taken it to the court. But it didn't. And it's not like Iowa even lost much when the project was abandoned. In the wake of the new law, a better solution was proposed. SOO Green Renewable Rail is in the process of developing an underground high-voltage DC transmission project built entirely on existing railroad rights of way. The state still gets the "benefits" of new transmission without any of the impacts to private property. Preventing eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission turned into a big win-win for Iowa! Why would Missouri roll out the red carpet for a dated, invasive project when it could have the latest technology without any landowner impacts instead?

The Missouri legislature could accomplish the same thing by passing SB 508. Invenergy's threats are empty.

2. Grain Belt Express would prevent future blackouts.

REALITY: Texageddon has become more than it was in order to use it to push new transmission for profit. Dig past the shallow talking points.

First of all, Invenergy has not committed to building its project through Illinois and into the PJM Interconnection grid. Lately, it's been claiming that it will only build the Kansas and Missouri portions of the project. GBE's chances of being permitted in Illinois are far, far from certain, thanks to an Illinois Supreme Court decision in the Rock Island Clean Line case that questioned whether merchant transmission is even a public utility under Illinois law.

However, Invenergy is pretending it can magically reverse its transmission project and suck power out of PJM on a whim. The legal and practical ramifications of this are not even talked about, instead Missouri is being fed a glossed over fantasy. Reality is that GBE's customers will own all the transmission capacity on the line... 100%. Invenergy has not explained how it can commandeer that capacity back from the customers who own it in order to sell it to someone else for a different purpose. In the Texageddon situation, which Invenergy spins for its own purpose, additional transmission would not have been useful. Surrounding areas were also low on generation due to the weather event. There simply was no power to be had. Grain Belt Express is not for the purpose of "reliability," it's simply a profit center for Invenergy. Building a DC transmission line with limited connection to Missouri's grid does not create reliability benefits. If it did, the project would have been planned and ordered by one of the regional transmission organizations, such as SPP or MISO. That it was not speaks to the lack of reliability "need" for GBE.

3. The PSC and the Court has approved and upheld GBE's use of eminent domain.

REALITY: The PSC shoehorned GBE into existing statute, although the statute did not contemplate merchant transmission and was a poor fit. It's just the only statute that it had. Ditto for the Court. The PSC is a creature of statute. It receives all its power from the legislature, not the other way around. Likewise, Courts only interpret existing law, they do not create new law. They have to work with what they're given by the legislature. It is the Missouri legislature's job to craft the statutes that the PSC and the courts use for merchant transmission projects.

Isn't it time for Missouri to update its statute to fit today's reality? Opposing this legislation is nothing more than anchoring Missouri in the past where huge, outdated, overhead lattice transmission towers impede Missouri's agricultural progress and destroy the right to own and enjoy private property. It is a wrong-headed obstruction to the possibility of a new, profitable energy future for Missouri.

Support SB 508!

0 Comments

Evasive, Defensive, and Quarrelsome

4/16/2021

2 Comments

That pretty much sums up the demeanor of the Grain Belt Express witness and counsel yesterday during the Missouri Public Service Commission Hearing on a complaint filed by Missouri landowner groups. The complaint alleges that GBE has materially changed the design and engineering of the transmission project that was approved by the Commission in 2019.

Grain Belt brought this on itself by its big announcement last summer that it was changing its project to deliver not just "up to" 500 MW of electricity to contracted customers in Missouri, but that it would deliver 2500 MW of electricity to consumers in Kansas and Missouri, a 5 fold increase.

The MO PSC Staff witness also seemed quite evasive and quarrelsome, taking forever to answer complainant's questions and concocting non-answers. If there was nothing untoward going on here, the staff witness should not have had any trouble communicating and answering questions. After all, he's supposed to be impartial, right? Working in the best interests of Missourians, right? Why did he sound like he'd just consumed a whole bunch of

It wasn't just normal abnormal demeanor, because the demeanor changed when the judge was asking questions (but not necessarily the hedging and long thinking pauses).

Let's start with GBE's counsel who was just way too aggressive. Counsel objected to witnesses, objected to evidence, insisted public information was confidential, objected to questions, and kept asking to have the case dismissed before it could even be heard. Seems like odd behavior for a company who is doing nothing wrong, doesn't it?

Counsel told the PSC during its opening (38:33 on the video) that the design and engineering of the Grain Belt Express project would only be determined after construction. In that case, why even bother permitting it ahead of time? Let's just let transmission developers build whatever they want, however they want, and let them tell us about it after the fact. Iis GBE admitting it has no plan for its transmission project? That it's just building willy-nilly without a plan? It seems like GBE had a definite plan for design and engineering of its project at the time it filed an application back in 2016, and it had a definite plan when that project was approved by the Commission in 2019. Now we learn that GBE apparently isn't following ANY plan whatsoever... just making it up as it goes along so that there is never a material change to its existing plan. If there is no plan, there's nothing to change, right?

GBE counsel also had a whiny moment around 42:00, when it bleated angrily about complainants raising money for lobbying at the state capitol. Nice to know that our contributions made GBE so angry, isn't it?

GBE counsel also made a change to stipulated facts submitted earlier. He explained that the stipulation that no construction has occurred was no longer true. GBE has begun construction, although he was really vague about it. Since there is no plan, and design and engineering for the route is only 30% complete, (Kris Zadlo, 2:51) what the heck are they doing? Constructing a single tower in each county, like a dog marking its territory? Are Missourians supposed to be intimidated by that? Or are they just symbolic "construction starts" meant to prevent the CPCN from expiring this year? Those wind companies sure know how to pretend to construct things that they're not actually constructing in order to qualify for tax credits from the federal government, don't they?

But, hey, guess what? That's not how real transmission developers build projects. They actually have checked and double checked design and engineering plans before they build anything. They have their substation (interconnection) sites nailed down before any route design. How could you design a route if you don't know the beginning and end point? Once a real transmission developer begins building, it's a continuous line. It saves the cost of transporting material and workers all over the place to construct random towers across the state. It also ensures whatever it builds lines up correctly. I'd hate to see how these guys lay tile... one piece here, one piece there, then hope you can fill in the empty spaces to complete the project?

But we really should give the evasive, defensive and quarrelsome trophy for the day to Invenergy's Kris Zadlo (or Zaldo, as the judge repeatedly referred to him). Whatever his name is, he's not somebody you'd ever want to find answering your questions.

Zaldo said the GBE's press release announcing changes to the project was "a marketing exercise" to indicate GBE's openness to exploring the potential of dropping off more power in Missouri. (2:20).

Dropping off? Like Door Dash or something? The only "dropping off" would be if a customer contracted to take delivery at that point, right? It's not like GBE is the Johnny Appleseed of free electricity. So, is Zaldo saying that GBE was just trying to drum up customer interest in Missouri? You'd think they would first want to sell the full 500 MW they first offered to Missouri, before trying to offer 5 times as much, right? This whole "marketing exercise" thing rings hollow. Maybe the judge should have asked him if his marketing exercise actually turned up new customers?

And, demonstrating just how argumentative he could be, Zaldo claimed just a minute later (2:21) that he never mentioned the press release. He also claimed there is no design for the converter stations at all, and then claimed that the only material difference between a 500 MW converter station and a 2500 MW converter station was that "it would be bigger." (2:27). This guy's pretending to be an engineer? I wouldn't let him build a lego set.

But perhaps the evasiveness reached its pinnacle when the questions about grid interconnections began. GBE's counsel used plenty of interruptions, objections, and claims of confidentiality to try to derail this line of questioning. Got something to hide, GBE? Your behavior gives you away.

Zaldo finally admitted GBE had "multiple" interconnection requests at MISO. When pressed to define "multiple" he said "about 5." (2:33:20). When asked if all 5 were located at the original interconnection point for 500 MW, Zaldo waved his special magic cape of confusion once again. (2:35). When asked if the other requests were significantly farther away... or at different places, Zaldo claimed they were not far apart because they're "all in Missouri." Uhh... sport... Missouri is a big, BIG, BIG place. Building a big converter station in Ralls County (original plan) is materially different than building a gigantic converter station in Randolph County (new interconnection request points).

Zaldo admitted GBE had "a couple" interconnection requests in PJM as well. He couldn't recall the capacity. (2:36) Is that because the PJM interconnections had shrunk in size from the original plan? Turns out GBE has only requested 2,000 MW of interconnection to PJM. Maybe, Zaldo isn't sure. The original plan called for 3,500 MW and counted on the higher prices in PJM to make the project profitable enough to construct. If GBE has cut its revenue from PJM by a significant percentage, does that mean that electric consumers in Kansas and Missouri would have to pay more in order to make the project marketable and profitable? I thought Kansas ratepayers were not allowed to pay for ANY of the project without permission from the panacotta-fueled KCC?

At this point, GBE's counsel attempts to hand Zaldo a "safe word" to get out of a really tough interconnection question by claiming confidentiality. (2:38) It didn't take long for Zaldo to use it. And off they all went to a confidential break out session.

Really, GBE? Your interconnection requests are public information on the MISO and PJM websites. It may not have your name on it, but who else is requesting to make large HVDC connections along the GBE route? We've known about your changing interconnection requests for quite some time. Interconnection requests are not cheap, and they not frivolous actions that can be made and withdrawn with great frequency. Changing interconnection requests indicate material change of plans. Perhaps the most important thing about a transmission project is its ability to interconnect to the existing transmission system. Without that interconnection, the project is nothing but a floppy extension cord not plugged in on either end. No wonder GBE was so defensive, evasive and quarrelsome about changing interconnection requests. That, perhaps more than any other evidence, demonstrates material change.

Parties will file post-hearing briefs by the middle of May, and the judge will make his recommendation afterwards.

Let's hope the PSC finally recognizes that Invenergy *could* be scheming to string the state along while it builds a completely different project. Maybe it could be a generation tie line for Invenergy's exclusive use to move its generation across Kansas and Missouri in order to sell it at a higher price? Why would the PSC allow Invenergy to threaten landowners with eminent domain takings for such a project? Why is Invenergy claiming to be constructing the project when it doesn't have all its easements? Why has Invenergy not yet filed any condemnations? Why is Invenergy hiding behind the old GBE project in order to use the threat of eminent domain against landowners? It's a mystery.

An evasive, defensive and quarrelsome mystery.

2 Comments

Updating an Old Law to Reflect Today's Reality in Missouri

4/13/2021

3 Comments

Ever read something and feel that it made you dumber? That's pretty much my summation of a news article and OpEd that recently appeared in Missouri, along with an article in a law school journal. A law school journal? Isn't that supposed to be an in depth examination of the law using facts? The things they're teaching kids these days...

Let's start with the law journal piece, because it's just so much fluffy opinion.

Missouri’s Chance at Low-Cost Renewable Energy ‘Gone with the Wind’? in the St. Louis School of Law Journal uses references to opinion pieces to make its point. Is that how current law students intend to win future court battles? "Because Sierra Club told me this should be my opinion, therefore, it shall also be the opinion of the Court...". All "facts" are unproven, one-sided claims and studies. There is no balance here. If this was a journalism student writing for the school newspaper, he should receive a failing grade. But it's law, where reality is molded to support a desired outcome. Works great unless there is an opposing side. And there's always an opposing side! Maybe the author should have spent more time researching eminent domain and its requirement that property taken must be put into "public use." Public use and public "benefit" are two separate things. The public may not use Grain Belt Express. It's a privately owned project for the exclusive use of its selected customers. Just because some wrongly believe it provides some economic public "benefit" does not mean it's for public use. Building a Walmart in your Mom's backyard would provide economic benefits to the public, right? Or how about a casino in your spare bedroom? A McDonald's next door? All businesses spur commerce, new taxes, and convenience to users, however we don't use eminent domain to site them. It's not like anyone can come in off the street and sell its cheap Chinese goods at Walmart, sell their own burgers at McDonald's, or set up their own shell game in the casino's lobby. That would be public use. I hope the law school soon includes a class on the 5th Amendment, maybe some study of Kelo v. City of New London. It's desperately needed before these new lawyers are unleashed on society. This piece discusses political opinion, not the law.

Next let's look at this article in The Kansas City Star. It also concentrates on purported "benefits" and opinion, not the law. Granted, it is a newspaper, but the article is about proposed legislation to change the law. Shouldn't they be concentrating on the law? There's nothing in there that sheds any light on changes to the actual law, or why legislators and voters believe the changes are necessary. It nothing but a trojan horse of "benefits" that aren't really necessary. It toots loud and long about "reliability" benefits, claiming that GBE will bring "needed" reliability to the electric grid. However, reliability is something studied, planned and ordered by regional grid operators, such as Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). If you need new transmission for reliability, SPP or MISO will order it to be built. GBE has not been ordered for reliability. It is a merchant project planned by private interests for their own pecuniary gain. Its only purpose is to make money for Invenergy. It's "reliability" you don't need. If you did, SPP or MISO would order it, but they have not. It also makes some crazy claims about the ability to redirect the project to bring power to Missouri from Indiana, instead of the other way around. Maybe that would work if it was a public access transmission line, but it's not. GBE plans to sell 100% of its capacity to generators on the Kansas end of the line and load serving entities who supply power to consumers at the Indiana end of the line. These entities would own all the capacity on the line for their own use. The idea that MISO or SPP could commandeer this private use transmission line and use it to ship power from generators in Indiana to load serving entities in Missouri doesn't work. How would the contracted customers be compensated for that? What would happen if the load serving entities on the Indiana end of the line were counting on GBE's capacity to meet their own power needs, and GBE suddenly stopped delivering power and, instead, began sucking locally generated power out of Indiana for use by load serving entities in Missouri? There's a lot more to this story that isn't told. It's an idea that makes little sense but it is spoon fed to an ignorant public as possible.

The article also attempts to convince that we need to "upgrade" the wider electric grid, and GBE will accomplish that. No, not even close. Our current grid is often compared to an interstate highway, open for the public to use. However, GBE is not a part of the wider electric grid. It's a private toll road from Kansas to Indiana that charges a fee to its contracted users. Only those contracted users can use the highway. It does not provide benefit to communities crossed because they cannot use it.

In addition to providing a source of affordable, renewable energy to communities along the route, Invenergy says it expects to provide broadband capability to internet service providers — connecting as many as 1 million Missourians with high-speed internet.

No, it does not provide a source of energy to communities along the route. And it doesn't provide broadband either. Just putting broadband capabilities on the project does not connect communities along the route. The communities would still have to make the connection and construct the "last mile" of infrastructure that makes the actual connection to users, and that's expensive. Another "benefit" that's not useful.

And then perhaps we should consider the comments of Invenergy's Kris Zadlo, and maybe the MO PSC wants to consider them as well during its hearing this week regarding purported changes to the project. Is Invenergy changing the project? Depends on what day it is. In some media, they claim they will build the project without the leg through Illinois that connects to Indiana, and increase the offering of capacity to Missouri. But it tells the PSC it's not changing the project... and then it reverts back to the original project it had permitted for purposes of lobbying against new legislation. Which is it, Invenergy?

Aside from Missouri’s proposed legislation, Zadlo said the project only needs final regulatory approval in Illinois before construction begins. It’s expected to be online by 2025, he said.

Invenergy has more personalities than Sybil!

Last, let's take a look at today's Op Ed from Senator Bill White in The Missouri Times (still pretending to be a news source?)

White claims that the legislation is unconstitutional because it changes the law. Hang on a minute... is he saying that the legislature is prevented from changing the law? The legislature's job IS to change the law!

GBE was approved using a law that doesn't fit. The MO PSC's authority to approve transmission and grant eminent domain was created before merchant transmission was invented. The law was written for public use projects that the PSC determined were needed for reliability, economic purposes, or to provide service to customers who don't have it. Missouri doesn't have any laws regarding merchant transmission, therefore the PSC tried to shoehorn GBE into the existing law, even though it was a poor fit. The current legislation amends the existing law to include provisions for merchant transmission. Because merchant transmission is for private profit, and not for public use, it shouldn't receive eminent domain authority. It is entirely within the purview of the legislature to update existing laws to fit today's reality, and that's exactly what the legislature proposes to do. Senator White purports that Invenergy could sue the state for making new laws that frustrate its profits. How ridiculous is that? Why is Senator White inviting an out-of-state corporation to sue the state for making laws that benefit its citizens (but not necessarily foreign corporations)? Does Invenergy want to invest more time and lots more money engaging in a long-term legal battle? At some point, Invenergy needs to cut its losses and move on. Either bury this project on existing rights of way to quell landowner opposition, or abandon this project entirely. What would people in Senator White's district think if a merchant transmission project was granted eminent domain to take their land? I don't think they would be any happier than landowners in other parts of the state. White isn't thinking long term for the benefit of his constituents, he's only thinking about the immediate effects in his own backyard. Not In My Back Yard? Sure, great, let's build it! How short sighted and self indulgent is that?

Every year about this time, Chicago-based Invenergy pours money and influence into Missouri in order to protect what it sees as future profits. Isn't it about time for Missouri to shrug off out-of-state lobbying and make laws that benefit its citizens? Support HB 527!

Why is this legislation needed? Because existing eminent domain laws are dangerously out of date. Changing old laws to reflect today's reality provides vital protection to Missouri's citizens!

3 Comments

About Those Overhead Cash Registers...

3/9/2021

2 Comments

The best ever euphemism for aerial merchant transmission is back.

Overhead Cash Registers

We first saw the term bandied about in public in 2018, when one fake news source gushed about a renewable energy conference that was being held. But the writer got so excited about it all that he captured the private love language of renewable developers and shared it with the public. Who couldn't love that?

Now the "overhead cash register" euphemism rears its ugly head again in this article from Recharge.

On the other hand, a fully utilised and well-managed 50-plus-year merchant wire asset delivering an initial several gigawatts of electric power could be a potential overhead cash register for its owners.

Let's see... a merchant wire asset delivering an initial several gigawatts? Sounds an awful lot like the Grain Belt Express project, doesn't it?

So the industry thinks GBE is an "overhead cash register" for Invenergy? Maybe the real reason Invenergy bought the project and continues to try to build it is simply for profit? When you strip away all the green propaganda, that's exactly why Invenergy is building it. It's all about the Benjamins, my friends.

And Invenergy thinks it should be allowed to use eminent domain to take private property for its "overhead cash register" money-making scheme?

That's not what eminent domain is for.

Eminent Domain: the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.

Missouri's Public Service Commission made a mistake by not recognizing the differences between GBE and an open-access transmission line for public use, and then granting eminent domain authority to Invenergy.

Now the Missouri legislature must step in to make a correction. There's nothing stopping Invenergy from negotiating with landowners to purchase an easement at a fair, open market price. Invenergy should not, however, be permitted to use the sledgehammer of eminent domain as a threat to acquire easements easily and cheaply.

If GBE is going to be such a money-maker for Invenergy, it should not enjoy the government's power to take land from private owners to make a place for its overhead cash register.

And now let's take this blog in a little bit of a different direction inspired by another news story.

This big transmission cheerleader took a break from urging Congress to make transmission siting and permitting a federal affair under FERC's jurisdiction to write about a revolutionary new idea to build the transmission they want without the opposition from landowners. Say what? Yes, there is a project in the works that would build new transmission buried in a shallow trench completely within existing rail rights of way.

Isn't that a better idea? Without landowner opposition, transmission projects usually sail through permits and siting. However, companies like Invenergy have been complaining for years about how expensive and infeasible it is to bury HVDC transmission on existing rights of way. Well, guess what?

But it’s also because developers still have an inflated sense of the cost of undergrounding lines. The news hasn’t widely spread that modern lines require less conducting metal, horizontal drilling has been perfected by natural gas frackers, and inverter stations are as little as 25 percent the size they used to be.
Here’s what Dr. Christopher Clack, an energy modeler at Vibrant Clean Energy (VCE), told me:
"Data that I was provided from Tier 1 transmission vendors shows that the cost of underground HVDC transmission has a similar price point to the same overhead capacity of HVAC when the transmission line is over approximately 250 miles. This includes the cost to build inverter and rectifier stations at each end."

And of course the sticker price of building overhead lines does not include the unpredictable expenses of regulatory hassles and intransigent landowners. A line can not be cheap if it never gets built.

In terms of long-distance transmission, underground HVDC is now the smart choice.

Just think of all the money Invenergy could save on transmission towers, and separate deals with each landowner along its route, not to mention the expensive propaganda and lobbying campaigns Invenergy engages in every year about this time...

But wait... Invenergy prefers to build an outdated, hated, overhead cash register? Why, Invenergy, why?

Is it because you think outdated, intrusive transmission is going to make your cash register ring a little louder at the end of the day, especially if you can use eminent domain to take private property at a bargain basement price?

Maybe if Missouri stopped enabling Invenergy's abuse of its citizens, better solutions could happen?

2 Comments

Invenergy Calls Landowner Eminent Domain Concerns "Fake"

3/2/2021

1 Comment

No, really! Yes, my jaw dropped, too. How DARE they?

Here's the entire quote in a new article from a publication named The Center Square.

Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley said the bill was expected and is no different than previous efforts to use property right concerns as a fake reason to derail the delivery of “clean energy” overwhelmingly supported in Missouri and across the country.

So Beth thinks opposition to GBE is just an effort to derail delivery of clean electricity? Any landowner concern about eminent domain is merely "fake" window dressing?

She's really, really, really gone and done it now.
And she should know better.
She was bought up from Clean Line along with the GBE project. She's been working on this project as long as you have. Beth thinks landowner concern about property rights has been nothing but an act for 10 years?

You know, 10 years is a long, long time for busy farmers to carry on a "fake" grassroots movement to prevent "clean energy." Like farmers have nothing better to do than spend a decade of their lives, and a big chunk of their savings, just to make sure "clean energy" isn't delivered to Missouri and other states.

Landowners across Missouri have shown up in Jefferson City to support property rights legislation again and again. I've honestly lost track of how many years legislation has been proposed. Does Beth think it's easy for these folks to take a day out of their work schedule to travel to the capitol? Unlike Beth, these people never take a day off. Animals still must be fed and cared for. Crops still need attention. There are a million different things farmers need to accomplish every day, and there is no time clock to punch out for a day to visit Jefferson City just to fight against "clean energy."

What is wrong with you for suggesting such a thing, Beth?

Missouri landowners are about the most genuine people I know. They don't have time or money to play fake political games. They are fighting to protect their property rights because they are deeply concerned. They are concerned that their generational farms are being slowly gobbled up by development for benefit of others far, far away. They are concerned that construction of a new transmission line across their farm is going to hinder their productivity and lower their yield. They recognize that GBE isn't a necessary power line needed to provide electric service to their neighbors who don't have it. Instead, it's a private, for-profit roadway through their farms that's going to make Invenergy a bundle of money. GBE won't benefit these landowners in the least, and for their trouble Invenergy wants to pay them a "market value" pittance. Worse yet, if the landowner resists Invenergy's offer, Invenergy wants to use the solemn power of the government to condemn and take the land of uncooperative landowners. Nothing at all "fake" about being concerned about that.

Maybe Beth should take a look in the mirror? After all, isn't there an active complaint at the Missouri PSC regarding Invenergy's fake claims about what project it's trying to build? Beth herself claimed in a podcast that Invenergy was building transmission for gen tie and started that ball rolling. Invenergy has been all over the media (and at the Kansas Governor's place) touting its changed plans. But yet, Invenergy has been telling the MO PSC that its project hasn't changed a bit and that it's still entitled to use the threat of eminent domain to coerce landowners to sign agreements.

Seems to me that Invenergy is the fake one. Pretending to build one thing while planning another. Pretending it's about to condemn property in order to get landowners to sign early and cheaply. Pretending that it's bringing "benefit" to Missouri.

Pretending that GBE could prevent a Texas-style power outage in Missouri. Now that's really FAKE! The project Invenergy says its building in Missouri will sell 100% of its capacity through negotiated contracts with load serving entities in other states (less a tiny fraction for Missouri municipalities looking for a free lunch at the expense of landowners miles away). Another option for Invenergy is to sign with a generator who wants to deliver to customers at the other end of the line. The point is that ALL GBE's transmission capacity will be owned by other entities. These entities control what flows over GBE and where it goes. Beth and Invenergy cannot commandeer GBE back from the customers who own its capacity in order to ship energy to other customers elsewhere. So, let's say another big freeze happens across the Midwest and Missouri's generators freeze up and go offline (this would never happen because Missouri generators are protected from winter weather). If that happens, Missouri would need a big shot of power to keep the lights on. Except Missouri's neighbors are probably also having issues and have no power to spare. Even if they did, unless they owned some of GBE's capacity to use for this purpose (or could purchase or rent it through someone who did), GBE is about as useless as a bucket underneath a bull. GBE is not a public access transmission project that anyone can use. It's a private transmission project for the exclusive use of private customers who pay the most to use it.

Grain Belt Express should not have the power of eminent domain.

Beth needs to get herself back to the land of the fake in Chicago and quit insulting rural Missourians. Does she really think that's going to help the situation? Make sure your legislator knows exactly what Invenergy thinks of Missourians.

The race is on... who is going to stop Invenergy's fake condemnation of private property in Missouri first? The legislature, or the PSC?

1 Comment

Five Years And Counting... A Landowner's Odyssey To Pry Information Out Of The U.S. Department of Energy

2/1/2021

2 Comments

It's every landowner's nightmare... a faceless government agency threatens to use the solemn power of eminent domain to take private property. Many of us have been there before. But what about when it's a for-profit corporation that's threatening to have the federal government take your property for their greedy "clean energy" scheme? What if you smell some sort of swampy conspiracy between the federal government and the energy corporation to gang up on you?

Corporations only tell you what they want you to know. They have no obligation to be transparent. However, our government is subject to the transparency of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). While FOIAs may be commonplace for sophisticated information gatherers, like the media,* they aren't routine for landowners subject to government condemnation.

For one Arkansan, the smell wafting out of the Clean Line Energy Partners/U.S. Department of Energy honeymoon suite was too much to bear. He determined to get to the bottom of it and find out just how much chummy collusion was going on. And why shouldn't he? This chummy collusion between government and industry was threatening to run a new high-voltage DC electric transmission line right through his father's farm. His father was a hard-working veteran who had served his country honorably... and this was how his country was repaying him for his sacrifice.

So, our landowner hero, let's call him Joel,** submitted a FOIA to the U.S. DOE in May of 2014 asking for documents showing any communication between DOE & Clean Line (CLEP) regarding transmission line route maps. This curiosity was created by DOE itself, when it admitted there were preliminary route maps being used for internal purposes that were not to be shared with the public. The DOE managed to cough up some documents in July of 2014, although not what Joel was looking for. But, hey, at least they tried.

And because they tried, Joel also tried. He tried again with another FOIA in the summer of 2014, asking for more documents showing correspondence between DOE, CLEP, and the Southwestern Power Administration (a federal power marketer). This time Joel got the hairy eyeball from DOE's FOIA contractor, eGlobalTech. The contractor determined Joel was an "other" requester because he was a mere landowner subject to eminent domain taking by the DOE and was not entitled to have his fee waived or his request expedited. Joel was informed that he'd have to pay a fee to receive information that required more than 2 hours of search time or totaled more than 100 pages. Imagine that... you are being threatened that a government agency is going to condemn and take your property, and you don't even have as much right to information about that process as a reporter has to a story that doesn't even personally affect them! But eventually, Joel did receive another pile of non-responsive fluff that didn't tell him how the government was communicating with CLEP. They must have been sharing some walkie-talkies because they weren't sending written messages to each other.

Later on, in the Fall of 2014, Joel tried again by submitting a limited and targeted request for information. This time he asked for any documents regarding the "Management Committee" consisting of DOE and CLEP personnel that was required to meet by a signed agreement between the two. If there was a requirement to have quarterly meetings, surely there would be some agendas, emails, and other meeting materials. Perhaps these meetings were where DOE and CLEP were communicating? Joel's request was again processed by his "friend" at eGlobalTech. This time he was advised that a fee would apply to his request. He was quoted an exact price of $798.90. Joel sent the DOE a check for $800 and waited several months to receive the documents. What he received was seven pages of repetitive emails about travel and lodging and when/where to meet for breakfast in Houston. Completely useless... and for that he paid more than $100 per page? But wait... the story doesn't end there. Four months later, the DOE mysteriously returned Joel's $800 check uncashed and without explanation.

Figuring that his targeted request was too narrow, and increasingly curious how DOE and CLEP were communicating now that DOE had agreed to "partner" with CLEP to use federal eminent domain to take his farm, Joel tried a wider request in 2016. He asked for all communications between the two parties. Apparently it did successfully capture what Joel wanted, because the DOE has STILL not completed that request, nearly 5 years later.

Joel's contact on this request was a contractor from Central Research. First, the woman tried to substitute another party's completed FOIA for the information Joel requested. When he didn't accept that, she quoted him a price to fulfill his request between $1249.40 and $4997.60. Right down to the penny! That ought to make Joel re-think things, right? Wrong. Despite the offer to provide other parties' FOIA responses at no cost if he would only close his request, Joel persevered by asking about payment arrangements. The contractor said she would work up a more detailed cost estimate and get back to him to arrange payment. But she didn't. When Joel later inquired about the hold up, she again said she was working on it and would be in touch. But again... crickets.

Finally in January, 2017, the contractor informed Joel that all the information he was seeking had been provided to others and therefore there would no charge for his request and that it was in process.

In May, 2017 (a year after the original request, mind you) the contractor popped back up and offered Joel another substitute for the information he requested. She offered him an index of documents (a list of documents, not the actual documents) provided to a federal court in Arkansas as part of a lawsuit against the DOE. Joel smartly rejected this substitute of information that was already publicly available. Growing disgusted with DOE's contractor's foot-dragging, Joel contacted another government agency to see if he could light a fire somewhere. Although the federal agency demurred to having authority to force DOE to do anything, it admitted it had contacted DOE about the request and that DOE had promised to finish it and produce the information within 2 weeks. This was May 26, 2017.

Finally, at the end of August 2017, Joel received his first "partial response" to his FOIA request containing 409 pages of non-responsive fluff that told him nothing. After that, DOE seemed to forget about his request entirely.

In 2018, Joel submitted another FOIA request to the DOE seeking the same basic documents. This was met with a detailed response from a different Central Research contractor who, again, tried to get Joel to accept prior FOIA productions as a substitute for his own. This contractor also let Joel know that he was also responsible for the dropped 2016 request which was "still being processed." When Joel again insisted on having his request fulfilled as written, the contractor once again clammed up and disappeared.

In October of 2019 (see, another year later!) a different contractor with Central Research popped up to let Joel know that he was now responsible for the 2016 request. He said, and I quote:

I wanted to give you an update on your FOIA request. The complete document set is undergoing review and should be out to you soon, hopefully in the next 1-2 months.

He also tried to get Joel to "combine his outstanding requests under one FOIA number" and close out all the old requests that were clogging up productivity levels. He was also requested to substitute different FOIA productions for his own request. But why would he do this when the 2016 request was fulfilled and ready to be delivered? He did say it was completed and under review, right?

So, Joel stuck it out, waiting anxiously for 2 months for his requested documents. Someone really ought to do a welfare check on that reviewer... we suspect that this person may have perished at his/her desk and is still undiscovered because the "complete document set" never has shown up... to this day.

But wait... on January 26, 2021, Joel received a note from a new contractor with Wits Solutions advising him that he was now assigned to Joel's 2016 request and would be his new contact.

And what about the outstanding 2018 request? In February of 2020, a year ago, Joel received a note from a new contractor at Central Research claiming that she was now assigned and working on that request.

Near as I can figure, Joel never received the documents he requested in 2016. He never received the documents he requested in 2018. Confirming these requests are still open is the raw data from DOJ's Annual Report of DOE FOIA requests. Both of these requests, classified as "simple" requests are still outstanding with no action. Why is it that this is acceptable? When is DOE going to clean up its huge list of outstanding FOIA requests? It turns out that DOE has a less than stellar record of complying with FOIA requests. Is it DOE policy? Or is it the result of a contractor zoo culture of "pass the buck?" Joel's FOIAs are contractor hot potatoes... passed from one contractor to another without any resolution.

Is Joel giving up? No. Although the transmission project in question was cancelled in 2018 (quietly and without fanfare) and Clean Line Energy Partners went belly up a short time later, the question still remains... how did DOE and CLEP communicate when the project was active? Joel hypothesizes that perhaps DOE has mastered the art of mental telepathy, an amazing scientific discovery! I wish they would share this with the rest of us!

I would also like to know why DOE, in all its governmental beneficence, has not been more forthcoming with information for a landowner subject to its exercise of eminent domain over private property? And what does this bode for the future, where politicians are cheering the use of federal eminent domain for new transmission of dubious necessity? Is our federal government getting more transparent, or, as Joel's experience reveals, more murky?

Shame on you, DOE!

*Although how will FOIAs be used in this brave new world where the media and government are so thoroughly intertwined in a mutual love fest? The media doesn't want to know the truth anymore and chooses to look the other way and cover up stories they once would have used FOIAs to investigate. The FOIA should be placed on the endangered species list. The media is now an arm of the government.
**Maybe not his real name... or maybe it is.

2 Comments

Invenergy Confused About Where It's Building Grain Belt Express

1/29/2021

0 Comments

That's about the only conclusion I can come to after reading this blurb penned by one of Invenergy's most avid supporters... conveniently inspired to write an op-ed just when new legislation to restrict eminent domain abuse was heard by a Missouri House committee. Invenergy's cheerleader said:

... some lawmakers in Missouri disagree. They’ve repeatedly played political games and tried to make up new laws to target this specific project.

Their efforts are anti-progress, anti-business, and have failed every time. They’ve failed because the 39 communities affected by the project know a good deal when they see one.

Woah, woah, woah there, sport. 39 communities affected by the project know a good deal when they see one? What 39 communities would that be? Do you mean the 39 communities who belong to MJMEUC and will be the beneficiaries of MJMEUC's below cost contract to buy transmission service from Grain Belt Express? I kind of think that's what you meant to say... but those communities are not AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT. By and large, they're miles away from any new infrastructure constructed through other communities that won't receive any benefit at all from the project.

Other communities are affected by the project, not the 39 who are party to MJMEUC's "good deal." The 39 communities on the receiving end of GBE's below cost pricing know a good deal when they see one, however they simply don't care who has to suffer to make their "good deal" possible. It's kind of like finding a cash-stuffed wallet on the sidewalk, picking it up, and making absolutely no effort to find its owner. Finders keepers, right? Having such a "good deal" dumped in your lap comes with blinders to the misfortune of others? Is that what Missouri wants to show everyone? Morally bankrupt opportunistic "good deals"?

Anyhow, I hear the committee hearing went well for the landowners who attended and spoke to protect their property rights. Keep up the good fight!

P.S. Yes, I know the op-ed is full of other misinformation, but honestly it's not worth writing about. Nobody believes any of it.

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Admits It Plans To Change Project

1/10/2021

1 Comment

In a recent letter to landowners, Invenergy admits that it is PLANNING to change its Grain Belt Express project:

Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.

This is a PLAN to change the project that was permitted by the Missouri PSC. Invenergy admits that it will have to get this CHANGED PLAN approved by the PSC.

Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan...

But not yet. Right now Invenergy has been telling the PSC that it hasn't decided to change the project yet and therefore can continue to operate under the existing permit. Is that like asking your Mom if you can have a cookie after you've cleaned out the cookie jar? The PSC isn't in the business of permitting projects after the fact... a utility project must be permitted before it begins activities. Perhaps this is why the PSC has decided to hold a hearing on whether the changed Grain Belt Express project is no longer in compliance with the permit it was issued?

What other silly things does this letter say?

Increased Local Delivery to Kansas and Missouri
As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers. For many years before lnvenergy Transmission acquired the project, local stakeholders called for more of Grain Belt's power to be delivered locally. This plan makes sense as demand for clean energy has grown in Kansas and Missouri. For the first time, this would open the option for Kansans to benefit from energy produced in-state, and in Missouri, it would expand access beyond the 39 communities across the state that are already contracted to receive service from the line.
Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt's 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers, who would see up to $7 billion in energy cost savings over 20 years. This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri, which would double the overall economic investment in Missouri to approximately $1 billion.

Local stakeholders called for increased local delivery of power from GBE? Where? When? I don't recall that ever happening. In fact, as far as the public is aware, GBE has failed to find "local" customers for all of its originally offered 500MW of delivery to Missouri. That doesn't sound like a call for more local delivery. It actually sounds like a call for LESS local delivery.

And the logic here is even worse... "local" delivery to Kansas would be effected by shipping power from Kansas to Missouri, and then back to Kansas? Does Invenergy know how stupid that sounds? Local delivery of power to Kansas would be most efficiently done on existing transmission. You don't need GBE for that.

Another problem with this "plan" is that GBE is a merchant transmission project (at least according to its current permits) that would negotiate service with voluntary customers. If the "local" customers don't sign up for service, they receive none of it. The customers of GBE would be distribution utilities that in turn sell electric service to retail customers. There is no new "option" for Kansans to sign up for service individually. They are captive consumers of whatever their electric provider decides to to, and GBE has not revealed any voluntary wholesale customers, aside from a few municipalities who purchased "up to" 250MW of service (which is half of what was originally offered by GBE). Where's the customers, Invenergy?

Expanding the converter station? Has that been approved by the regional grid operator? The grid operator must engage in numerous studies to determine how much power may be injected into the existing transmission grid by GBE. Changing 500 MW to 2500 MW is going to be a significant increase in power. It's going to require certain changes and upgrades to the existing grid, and Invenergy is going to have to pay for them all. Perhaps Invenergy is planning to inject its power elsewhere on the grid? The feasibility of expanding the converter station has not been made public.

Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan, which would also allow for project construction to proceed prior to approval in Illinois. In the meantime, as the proposed changes do not affect the approved route, project development activities are proceeding based on existing regulatory approvals.

Invenergy is going to ask for permission to build only a portion of the transmission line? But GBE told the PSC that the economic feasibility of the line was premised on selling service to utilities in the eastern PJM grid at a much higher price, and in order to do that, GBE must be connected in Indiana. Without the leg through Illinois, the project is not economically feasible. Is Invenergy going to build a road to nowhere and hope that things come together later? Doesn't sound very plausible, does it? Invenergy would have a lot of explaining to do at the PSC before it got approved to do that. In addition, GBE's Kansas permit requires approval in Illinois before it can build the project in Kansas. Looks like two states would have to approve the road to nowhere.

In Kansas and Missouri, Grain Belt has moved from monopole to steel lattice structures, resulting in more compensation for landowners per structure.

Oh, please! It's not about more compensation for landowners, it's because lattice structures are CHEAPER for Invenergy to build! And why was it that lattice structures were compensated at three times the price of monopoles? Because they're more invasive and take up more ground and are harder to work around. Save the drama for your mama, Invenergy!

Grain Belt Express, along with its land partner, Contract Land Staff ("CLS"), is in active dialogue with landowners along the route as our team continues to sign voluntary easements in Kansas and Missouri. Thank you to those who have signed agreements to date. We value open conversations with landowners and landowners' attorneys to provide timely, accurate, and useful information that will allow you to make the best decisions regarding your land.

Voluntary. All easements are voluntary. So is "dialogue" with CLS land agents. Thank you for signing an easement? Did this letter really go out to landowners who have already signed voluntary easements? Or was that some glaring attempt to make landowners believe they have missed the bandwagon if they have not signed up? If so, that's pretty insulting to the intelligence of landowners.

Our goal is to secure all easements voluntarily and to make informed facility design decisions
related to your property. That is possible only with open communication. If we have attempted to contact you and we have not yet reached you or your legal representative, please contact your CLS representative at your earliest convenience.

Is Invenergy saying they have not yet made "facility design decisions" for the project? I find that rather hard to believe. It looks more like an attempt to get landowners to believe they can change the design of the project if they only call now. Operators are standing by...

And then there's this. I laughed so hard I gagged... and almost threw up. Positive Energy? Didn't the wheels fall off that when Invenergy rolled it out? Who hasn't read all about it?

Positive Energy: Pass it Along
Finally, 2020 has brought some significant challenges to the world. We believe that Positive Energy is needed now more than ever. Grain Belt will bring affordable power for families and businesses, jobs for workers, and local investment in school districts, and public services - that's positive energy. With everything going on in 2020, we want to pass along positive energy to you, and hope you do the same. These days we all need it.

I don't know about Positive Energy... but I am positively revolted at GBE. Is Invenergy positively lying to the PSC? Is Invenergy positively negotiating with landowners under false pretenses when it negotiates for a different project than the one it has permitted? Let's hope the PSC positively gets to the bottom of this!

1 Comment

Ut-oh, Invenergy!

12/29/2020

0 Comments

It looks like the Missouri PSC has finally tried to connect the dots between the project Clean Line said it was building and the one Invenergy has lately been promoting in the media and found that something is amiss. The project that they permitted maybe is not the one Invenergy says it is now building, and the PSC wants to find out more.

On December 23, the PSC issued an order cancelling its prior briefing schedule using the existing evidentiary record, and has decided that it needs to hold a new evidentiary hearing on this matter.

New evidence!

That's exactly what is needed here!

This case is based on a complaint filed by the Missouri Landowners Alliance that purported that the project the PSC permitted has been modified by new project owner Invenergy. Invenergy tried to bat the complaint away, claiming that it hasn't made any decisions on the project yet, and is only undertaking a public thought process (in the media!) in the interest of transparency.

Yeah, right. Because every corporate money-making scheme is always debated openly in the media. Isn't it?

It seems that Invenergy's grandiose public relations campaign has accidentally inserted Invenergy's foot in its mouth. Was that what you were going for, Beth Conley? If so, it looks like you've done a bang up job! I hope you celebrated by touring a couple of transmission substations with your family over the holidays. Who doesn't love looking at that stuff?

The people and communities along GBE's route, that's who!

And, if she didn't do enough already, Beth recently claimed that Invenergy will apply for a new permit in Illinois in 2021. Was that supposed to cover up for all the mistakes? Are we supposed to now believe that maybe Invenergy is planning to build the project Clean Line has permitted? Sorry, Beth. There are still too many unanswered questions. And it looks like the MO PSC intends to get to the bottom of them.

Whoopsie!

Merry Christmas, Missouri!

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

22 Transmission Ideas + Free Government Cheese = Rat Infestation

Moving Missouri Forward To New, Beneficial Solutions

Evasive, Defensive, and Quarrelsome

Updating an Old Law to Reflect Today's Reality in Missouri

About Those Overhead Cash Registers...

Invenergy Calls Landowner Eminent Domain Concerns "Fake"

Five Years And Counting... A Landowner's Odyssey To Pry Information Out Of The U.S. Department of Energy

Invenergy Confused About Where It's Building Grain Belt Express

Grain Belt Express Admits It Plans To Change Project

Ut-oh, Invenergy!

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog