Category:

MO PSC Complaint Alleges Grain Belt Express Can No Longer Claim Eminent Domain Authority

9/3/2020

Transparency is a great thing for the public. But sometimes it's not such a great thing for a company who's trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

Invenergy's recent dish about how its project has changed was not accepted in the spirit in which it was issued. I'm not sure what Invenergy expected... that citizens, local governments, elected officials, and electric utilities across Kansas and Missouri would stand up and cheer to know that the project's original plan to make a bunch of money shipping electricity from Western Kansas to PJM states on the east coast has been thwarted. Instead, GBE claims it will simply move power around the two states instead. Clean Line's plan brought money from PJM's more expensive electric market to Kansas and Missouri. Invenergy's plan brings no new investment to the states. GBE is supposed to cost more than $2B to build. Someone has to pay for that. It's not going to be rich east coasters anymore, but the people of Kansas and Missouri.

Missouri landowners have apparently had enough. The Missouri Landowners Association, Eastern Missouri Landowners Association, and an individual landowner have filed another complaint at the Missouri PSC alleging:

The Commission in that case granted a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (“CCN”) to Respondent Grain Belt, authorizing it to build the transmission project described in the Application filed by Grain Belt at the outset of that proceeding. However, one condition attached by the Commission to the CCN was as follows: “If the design and engineering of the project is materially different from how the Project is presented in Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC’s Application, Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC must file an updated application with the Commission for further Commission review and determination.” In a press release issued on August 25, 2020, Respondents announced plans for changes to the project which will clearly make it “materially different” from the one approved by the Commission in the CCN case. A copy of that press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and is available to the public on the Grain Belt website: www.grainbeltexpress.com.

To Complainants’ knowledge, Respondents have not sought Commission permission to make any changes to the project as it was approved in the CCN case.

Inasmuch as Respondents have publically announced that they no longer plan to build the project for which the CCN was granted, at this point Grain Belt does not have a valid CCN to build anything in Missouri.

GRAIN BELT EXPRESS DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CCN TO BUILD ANYTHING IN MISSOURI!

Another issue with MO PSC CCN conditions:

Invenergy’s press release also indicates that it plans to begin construction of the Missouri portion of the line before obtaining approval for the line from the Illinois Commerce Commission. However, another condition to the CCN imposed by this Commission was that Grain Belt could not begin construction in Missouri until it has obtained commitments for funding of the entire multi-state project. Obviously Invenergy cannot obtain financing for the large segment of the project in Illinois, including the converter station there, without approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission.

GRAIN BELT EXPRESS DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CCN TO BUILD ANYTHING IN MISSOURI!

Either Invenergy is building GBE in Kansas and Missouri, or it's also building it in Illinois. It cannot be both. Invenergy cannot rely on a situation that may never happen to support its permit request today.

There's also this:

In contrast, the project approved by the Commission was to deliver 500 MW to the converter station in Missouri, and 3,500 MW to the converter station near the Illinois/Indiana border for delivery to the PJM system. If 2,500 MW are delivered to Kansas and Missouri, then the total capacity for delivery into what the Commission found to be the more lucrative PJM market would be reduced from 3,500 MW to only 1,500 MW.

The drastic reduction in sales into the PJM system will obviously have a material impact on the economic viability of the project, as it was presented to the Commission by Grain Belt in the CCN case.

That's right! Who is going to pay for Grain Belt Express? It's not GBE's below-cost contract with MJMEUC. And it's not the itty bitty contract Clean Line signed with some energy trader in Illinois. In fact, one may wonder if either of those contracts are even valid anymore with the elimination of service from Missouri to PJM? I'm pretty sure those contracts included additional options to purchase that service. If Invenergy is no longer committed to building that service by seeking regulatory approval for its project in Illinois, then perhaps those contracts are as void as GBE's CCN?

Let's think about Invenergy's admission... it wants to build part of its project. What happens if Invenergy does not follow through in Illinois, or is denied by the Illinois Courts? (Because that is a very real possibility thanks to the efforts of the Illinois Landowners Alliance.) Who is going to pay for this partly constructed project? Will the cost of the unfinished, uneconomic project fall upon the taxpayers and ratepayers of Kansas and Missouri? These are serious questions the regulators of both states must determine. Allowing GBE to continue on with a permit that doesn't match its plan is not an option. Allowing GBE to provide "updates" to select portions of its project application is not an option. An entirely new application for an entirely new project is required!

What does this all mean for affected landowners?

Respondents (Invenergy) and their land agents are now in the process of seeking easements from landowners on the right-of-way for the project as initially proposed. At the same time, Respondents are telling the public on their website (and possibly by other means as well) that Grain Belt currently has the right of eminent domain for the line in Missouri. Obviously, having the right of eminent domain would give Grain Belt a powerful advantage in its negotiations for the easements it is seeking. But if Grain Belt no longer has a valid CCN in Missouri, then Grain Belt and its agents are currently negotiating with landowners under false pretenses. Grain Belt’s continued pursuit of easements for a project for which it does not have a valid CCN, under threat of eminent domain, constitutes a violation of the Commission Order which initially granted the CCN.

MLA/EMLA have asked the MO PSC to act on their complaint expeditiously. Meanwhile, perhaps landowners should refrain from negotiations with GBE that could be taking place under false pretenses?

And what about Kansas? Nobody has filed a complaint at the KCC (yet), but Invenergy's permit from the KCC has just as many conditions that are now being violated by Invenergy. There's the requirement that GBE must be approved in all 4 states before beginning construction in Kansas. Illinois is named as one of the 4 states. And then there's the requirement that GBE commits to not recover the transmission project's costs ... from Kansas ratepayers. I must have missed the part of Invenergy's press release where it was planning to provide service to Kansans for free. It sure looks like Invenergy plans to recover a portion of the cost of GBE from Kansas ratepayers.

Invenergy has lost this game of permit Whack-a-Mole! It's back to start in all states. Any easement agreements signed under false pretenses may be deemed invalid.

2 Comments

Invenergy Finally Admits It's Not Building Clean Line's Grain Belt Express

8/26/2020

0 Comments

Nudge, nudge, nudge... did it get a little hot under that magnifying glass, Invenergy? Seems like Invenergy rushed its gush just a little bit yesterday, because it just doesn't make sense. There are still crucial parts missing. However, the fake news corporate-controlled media probably won't notice because they are no more than well-trained parrots anymore. They don't know, and don't care, whether the "news" they report makes sense... they just re-print glossy press releases as if they mean something.

The media has never understood, and fails to understand now, that GBE is just a transmission line without enough customers to make it feasible. GBE does not sell electricity, wind powered or otherwise. It is nothing more than a toll road. So when Invenergy and the media gush on about how much a transmission line will save consumers, it's complete and utter garbage. Without the wind farms built and in operation (and they're not, not even on any planning list) nobody knows how much the power would cost, it's nothing but a guess. As well, nobody knows how much the transmission line is going to cost consumers. The rates GBE will charge its VOLUNTARY customers are still to be negotiated. If the rates negotiated with customers who so far don't exist are high, so are the costs consumers will pay to use the transmission line. If the rates negotiated in the future are low, then costs consumers pay to use it will be low. GBE has NO IDEA how much it will charge its customers to use the transmission line in the future, but it's a given that GBE will try to charge the highest prices it can negotiate.

GBE only has ONE rate scheme. It has been authorized to negotiate with voluntary customers to sell service on an open-access transmission line under FERC rules. It has no state rate mechanism where it can add its costs to the rates captive electric customers pay. Saying that Grain Belt Express + some vague generation that doesn't exist will save the citizens of Missouri up to $50 per month on their electric bill is nothing more than a shell game. It's just guessing. GBE's "report" from a hired consultant is nothing more than speculative garbage. It tries to sound all scientific, but it actually says nothing more than... "We created an equation that produced this number. We can't let you see the actual equation, or the actual data we used, or the variables we tossed in, but just trust us on this one. Our answer is valid!"

Oh, please!

Unless, it's not an open-access merchant transmission line selling capacity at negotiated rates, but instead the GEN-TIE Beth Conley mentioned. A gen-tie would combine Invenergy's generation with Grain Belt Express and sell buyers generation delivered to eastern Kansas or Missouri, instead of just transmission service (plus a contract for generation that would have to be negotiated with a third party). That would look sort of like this statement:

The transmission line and associated wind generation (collectively referred to as “Grain Belt Express” or “Grain Belt”) are projected to create significant cost savings for electricity ratepayers in Kansas and Missouri.

Who is going to buy this service or product? Grain Belt Express has been trying to sell 500 MW of transmission service to Missouri since like 2014, and has only managed to sell "up to 200 MW" to MJMEUC at a loss leader price. During PSC hearings, project owners said they would make up for the below-cost price MJMEUC was paying by selling service from Missouri to Indiana and charging more for it to make up the difference. Without the leg to Indiana, who is going to pay more than their share to support MJMEUC's sweet deal discount? And if GBE had so much difficulty selling "up to" 200 MW of its offered 500 MW of service in Missouri that they had to reduce it to sell at less than it costs GBE to provide the service, who is going to buy the other 300 MW of service to Missouri, much less the additional 2,000 MW Invenergy now says it's offering to Missouri customers.... and pay way above cost of service for it?

And what happens if Invenergy dumps 2,500 MW of imported wind energy from Kansas (or other places, like Oklahoma - google "States Edge Wind") into Missouri's electric grid? That's 2,500 MW of electricity currently produced in Missouri that will be supplanted by a variable source produced in another state. That's more power than produced by Missouri's largest electric power plant -- no longer needed by Missourians to keep their lights on. Will Missouri's electric generators be closed, causing massive unemployment and loss of tax dollars for the communities where they are located? Did Invenergy figure that into it's phony equation? And how much harder will the surviving electric generators have to work to cycle up and down to support such a large variable resource to make sure the grid's delicate balance is maintained? Missouri needs to think long and hard about importing such a large amount of variable power, and sending its energy dollars to Kansas and Chicago. When power produced in Missouri is used in Missouri, the economic boost and energy dollars stay in Missouri. Supporting economic development in Kansas does NOT fix Missouri's economy! The nonsense Invenergy is spouting simply doesn't make sense.

And what about Illinois? Invenergy is pretending it ran into some sort of regulatory snafu there and that's what spurred this sudden change. There's absolutely no evidence that Invenergy ever applied for a permit in Illinois! And the one Clean Line obtained was cancelled by the ICC at the direction of the Appeals Court. Invenergy would have to start from scratch by filing a new application for a permit before it could run into any regulatory snafus. Invenergy's snafu seems to be of it's own creation by failing to actually file anything in the first place.

And speaking of regulatory filings and state permits... Invenergy informs that it's going to have to apply to both Kansas and Missouri to make changes to its current permits. What if one or both states require completely new applications for this completely new project? This isn't the Grain Belt Express approved by Kansas or Missouri. It's a completely NEW project that has simply appropriated GBE's name and a portion of its route. It's a completely new project for a completely new purpose owned by a completely new company. It deserves to be subject to a completely new state review. So much has changed that relying on existing information under the guise that this is still the same project is nothing less than lying by omission.

And, hey, guess what? If Invenergy's permits are no longer valid because they're no longer building the project they had permitted, then Invenergy/GBE no longer has eminent domain authority! No reason for landowners to even acknowledge GBE land agents that have been calling. GBE/Invenergy CANNOT take your land until it receives new or updated permits.

Way to win community support, Invenergy! Now people probably think Invenergy is an even bigger liar than Clean Line Energy Partners ever was. And the truth is still missing!

0 Comments

Did Beth Conley Just Let Invenergy's Cat Out Of The Bag?

8/21/2020

1 Comment

Miss Kitty Hamm doesn't play well with others. She's always on the prowl for other cats invading her space. She alerted me this morning to a strange cat in the vicinity. We think it may be Invenergy's cat. And what a tale this kitty has to share!

New this morning is a podcast from Energy Cast. Take a listen. On this podcast, Invenergy's vice president of communications, Beth Conley, says something incredibly curious. If you listen really hard, you may hear some faint meowing and hissing as if someone is trying to stuff a cat back into a bag from which it has just escaped.

Around minute 17:05, this podcast gets really interesting. Beth is telling the host about the other kinds of energy projects her company is working on. She says

"We're looking at working on transmission for gen-tie"

And then the audio gets abruptly cut off, as if Beth's power supply was cut, or maybe something was edited out, or she suddenly found her foot in her mouth. There's a definite blip in the audio when she mentions the word "gen-tie." She picks back up in mid-sentence, stating

"... for some of our existing projects and then as stand alone projects recognizing that renewables are located often far from demand."

Gen-tie? Did she mention gen-tie? Yes, yes, she did!

What's a gen-tie? It's short for "generation tie line" also known as "Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities" (ICIF). A gen-tie is a generation company's private driveway to a strong point on the transmission system where it's feasible to connect their generator. A gen-tie is not a public use, open-access transmission project that others can use to ship energy at set rates. An ICIF owner is not required to let others connect and use its line... all the capacity on an ICIF line is for the exclusive use of the owner's generation. There are no rates others pay to use these lines, because others cannot use these lines. A gen-tie is a private use facility paid for and used exclusively by its owner. These facilities are protected from having to supply transmission service to others.

So, Invenergy is working on a transmission gen-tie ... for some of their existing projects, and then as stand-alone projects... but they are still gen-tie facilities, and not open access transmission lines.

Where might Invenergy be working on a transmission gen-tie project? Look it up on google. I can't really find any. Can you?

However, Invenergy is working on the Grain Belt Express transmission project. But that's not supposed to be a gen-tie project. It's a merchant transmission project that is supposed to sell transmission capacity to unaffiliated companies at negotiated rates. Anyone who wants to take service on GBE can make Invenergy an offer... or maybe they could, if Invenergy was actually holding an open season looking for customers. But google can't find that either. If Invenergy is selling service on GBE, it's a deep dark secret... and open seasons are not supposed to be deep dark secrets, but widely publicized to draw maximum notice from potential customers... just to be fair and all. If Invenergy was selling service to the highest bidder, wouldn't it be fair to give everyone an opportunity to bid?

Of course, if GBE was a gen-tie, there is no public notice necessary because no one else can buy service on the line. Deep-dark-secrets are okay here!

Does it make a difference what Invenergy is building? Of course it does! The Missouri PSC and the Kansas KCC issued permits to build a merchant transmission project and granted eminent domain authority for Invenergy to take rights-of-way for GBE. Both states considered GBE a "public use" transmission project worthy of eminent domain authority because it was selling service to other customers for benefit of the public at large. A gen-tie does not provide public benefit... it only provides benefit to its owner... like a private driveway vs. a public roadway. We can all use public roadways, but we cannot use private driveways belonging to others for our own profit.

What exactly is Invenergy building now? If it says it's building a merchant project for sale at negotiated rates, then it can use eminent domain to acquire property, or at least the threat of it, to push landowners to sell. If it's building a gen-tie, it probably wouldn't be allowed to use eminent domain to acquire property and would have to pay whatever price landowners demanded for right-of-way. Without the sledgehammer of eminent domain, market prices depend on arms-length negotiation and no landowner is forced to sell an easement.

Don't you think Invenergy should start practicing some of that great "transparency" Beth tootled on about during the podcast? Maybe landowners should start asking Invenergy representatives if GBE is a gen-tie, generation tie line, Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facility, or ICIF? And maybe they should record Invenergy's answer, or get it in writing?

Down, Miss Kitty Hamm, down! Does anyone have some catnip I can borrow?

1 Comment

Caveat Venditor, Missouri!

8/14/2020

0 Comments

Seller beware!

Landowners along the proposed GBE route have found it necessary to file two separate complaints at the Missouri Public Service Commission regarding the behavior of GBE and its land agents as they bombard landowners with requests to "negotiate." Grain Belt Express seems to be in a great big hurry but perhaps the landowners aren't buying the slick, carnival spiel. You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer! Perhaps Invenergy missed all the earlier Mayberry lessons?

The first complaint, filed on June 22, reveals that a GBE land agent calling a landowner on the phone stated,

“Grain Belt is no longer involved with this business” (or possibly, that “Grain Belt is no longer involved with the business.”)

It was a strange one-off until a second landowner got a similar call from the same GBE agent who made similar statements.

Based on statements made during those telephone conversations by the two CLS agents, Mr. Daniel was also led to believe that Grain Belt was no longer associated with the proposed transmission line project.

Now it's a pattern involving one particular land agent. Was lying to landowners about who owns GBE, or possibly the name of the project, working for this land agent? Was it getting his figurative foot in the door? But it's dishonest! It's against the GBE Code of Conduct for Land Agents that's on file at the PSC.

However, Invenergy's attorneys denied it ever happened and filed an affidavit from the land agent denying ever saying anything like that. Who believes a liar? The landowner reported that the land agent told him a lie... so why wouldn't the land agent tell the PSC another lie? You know what happens when you lie... one little lie leads to other lies to cover up the original lie, and the next thing you know everything is a lie... and then you're just a liar.

What a coincidence -- a land agent is accused of saying something that dovetails nicely with Invenergy's current attempt to publicly wash its hands of the GBE name and make landowners believe it's something different. Why else would Invenergy use door hangers that say "under new ownership"? And why would they be purchasing country hams in the name of "Invenergy Transmission" instead of Grain Belt Express? Invenergy's efforts to shed GBE's bad juju have been numerous. Lying to landowners could be just one more manifestation.

Landowners aren't falling for this crap, are they?

So, the PSC will investigate. Or something.

A second landowner complaint was filed just this week. This complaint comes from a landowner who noticed differences between the standard easement that Clean Line used that was approved by the PSC, and a new standard easement sent to him by a new GBE land agent. This new easement form has NOT been approved by the PSC and may not be in the landowner's best interest. Items that changed:

Section 26 of the revised easement introduces an entirely new provision, titled “Waiver of Jury Trial”. Printed in all caps, so as to highlight its obvious importance, this section essentially provides that if there is any unresolved dispute regarding any provision of the easement agreement, the parties automatically forfeit their right to settle the issue in a jury trial.
Section 21 of the revised easement includes another new concept, under the heading of “Severability.” It essentially states that if any provision of the easement is found to be invalid, the remaining provisions of the document shall remain in full force and effect. There was no similar language in the original easement.
Section 23 of the revised easement, mentioned in the preceding subsection, attempts to protect Grain Belt from legal defects in a document which was drafted (or at least approved) by the Respondents themselves. It would force the landowner to join with Grain Belt in correcting such defects by either amending the easement or signing a new easement in a form reasonably requested by Grain Belt.
Section 2.e of the revised easement, titled “Site Plan”, could seemingly have the landowner signing the easement as tendered without even knowing the type and number of support structures, if any, which would be installed on his or her property. The “approximate location” of the structures, as referred to in Section 2.e, may or may not mean that those structures will eventually be built on any particular parcel of land. And without that information, the landowner cannot determine what the total easement payment will be, and thus cannot logically decide whether or not the proposed easement is in their best interest.
Section 8 of the revised easement, titled “Cooperation”, seemingly gives Grain Belt the right to sign documents in the landowner’s name, without the landowner even knowing the specific language in the document being signed.
Section 22 of the revised easement is also new. It provides that the activities of both parties shall be controlled by the Missouri Landowner Protocol, Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocol, and the Code of Conduct -- “as may be amended, supplemented or replaced from time to time....” Based on this quoted language, Grain Belt has apparently given itself the unilateral right at any point in time to revise or replace any of the documents in question. And those revisions would presumably constitute binding provisions of the easement.
Under Section 10 of the original easement agreement, Grain Belt was generally given 30 days to cure any monetary breach of the agreement before it could be terminated by the property owner. Under Section 12 of the revised agreement, that period has been extended to 60 days. This change is significant, in that it could allow Grain Belt to salvage an easement which could otherwise be terminated. If 30 days was sufficient during the entire course of the CCN proceedings, there is no reason to believe that is still not the case.
In Exhibit C to the new agreement, Grain Belt grants itself a three year Easement Agreement Extension, as opposed to the two years specified in the original easement. Again, this is simply another example of Grain Belt’s attempt to unilaterally modify the terms of this important document to its own advantage.
The Missouri Landowner Protocol, compliance with which is mandatory on Grain Belt’s part, provides in part as follows: Grain Belt Express will pay landowners for any agricultural-related impacts (“Agricultural Impact Payments”) resulting from the construction, maintenance or operation of the Project, regardless of when they occur and without any cap on the amount of such damages. For example, if the landowner experiences a loss in crop yields that is attributed to the operation of the Project, then Grain Belt Express will pay the value of such loss in yield for so long as such losses occur. In other words, the intent is that the landowner be made whole for any damages or losses that occur as a result of the Project for so long as the Project is in operation. This language clearly means, for example, that Grain Belt would be responsible for crop damages resulting from soil compaction anywhere on the property for as many years as those damages continue. The same would be true for crop losses resulting from damages to drainage systems. Crop damages are addressed in Section 3 of the revised easement agreement, which is at best confusing. It first echoes the general principles quoted above from the Landowner Protocol. However, it goes on to state that the compensation as computed in Exhibit E to the revised easement “is in satisfaction of all loss in crop yields attributed to construction of the Facilities ... throughout the Term of this Agreement and Grantor [the landowner] waives all additional claims for loss in crop yields associated with such construction ....” So one must look to Exhibit E to determine if it preserves all of the rights to compensation provided for in the Landowner Protocol. At best the answer is unclear. At worst, the revised easement can be read as eliminating a potentially significant portion of the compensation for crop damage required under the Landowner Protocol.
As is apparent, Section 3 and Exhibit E of the revised easement either totally confuse the issue of crop compensation, or more likely, they would act to reduce by potentially significant amounts the actual compensation to which landowners are entitled under the provisions of the Landowner Protocol. In either case, those provisions of the revised easement agreement should be eliminated.
Section 6 of the original easement states that if the easement is terminated by Grain Belt, it must remove its facilities within 180 days of the termination. Under Section 11 of the revised agreement, Grain Belt would only be required to remove the facilities “as soon as practicable”.
Section 13a requires that if someone purchases the land on which an easement has been granted, the new owner is required to notify Grain Belt in a specific, detailed manner before Grain Belt is required to make any payments to the new property owner. No such provision was included in the original easement, and nothing has occurred in the interim which would warrant this more stringent notification process.
Section 2 of the original easement refers to the grant as being “a perpetual exclusive agreement.” The comparable section in the revised easement does not specify that the easement is to be “perpetual”. This change could cause needless confusion not only on the part of landowners, but potentially in any future litigation related to the term of the easement. The original language should be reinstated.
Finally, Paragraph 2.d of the revised easement gives Grain Belt the right to use the property in question “for installation, operation, and maintenance of fiber optic cable ....” The problem here is that the CCN does not authorize the installation of fiber optic cable as part of the Grain Belt project.

That's a lot of changes. Looks like Invenergy just did a wholesale re-writing of the easement agreement. I'm pretty sure they didn't do it for the benefit of the seller. Invenergy's lawyers work for Invenergy, not you. Never sign anything without the advice of a lawyer who works for you! The second complaint is the reason why.

Invenergy has reneged on a lot of Clean Line's promises about GBE, and not for the better. Remember the monopoles? Yup, gone. All towers will be lattice. They're cheaper to build, you know. Spare no expense for the landowner who will be looking at it in perpetuity. As well, the name "Grain Belt Express" has become a dirty word best not mentioned in the hope that the landowner will forget to pick up all the old GBE baggage before negotiating. Now the easement and other documents that the PSC thought provided a measure of safety to landowners have been tossed out the window and replaced with documents that give Invenergy more rights and landowners less compensation.

What else has changed? Don't you think it's time for Invenergy to come clean about exactly what it thinks it's building now? It's not Clean Line's Grain Belt Express. What if landowners refuse to negotiate until they have answers?

Caveat Venditor, Missouri!

0 Comments

Big Wind's Big Bucks Bandwagon

8/12/2020

1 Comment

How obviously greedy does a wind turbine company have to be before a supposedly "clean energy" website poops all over their poorly written blog post? That's what I wondered when I came across this "article" on CleanTechnica. CleanTechnica is pretty famous in certain circles for its misinformed pandering to an arrogant bunch of sycophantic loyalists who post incessant, incorrect "facts" and argue with people in the "article" comments.

So, I went looking for the source, although CleanTechnica conveniently "forgot" to link to its source material, it was easy enough to find.

It looks like this guy is the "president of sales" so of course he's interested in selling more product, in this case wind turbines. I hope he's better at selling wind turbines and he is at selling ideas, because this one is dead on arrival. Even CleanTechnica couldn't stomach it.

Chris's main problem seems to be that there's not enough transmission from the remote areas where his customers would put his wind turbines. This is cramping Chris's profits (and probably his bonus). So now Chris is an expert on electric transmission and has all the good ideas that nobody has ever tried before. And he deploys it using the most trite of propaganda devices.

The Bandwagon propaganda device attempts to persuade the target that everyone else thinks the same way as the propagandist. Use of inclusive words and ideas, such as "everyone", "we", "our", or "most Americans" are a way the propagandist draws the reader in to think that if they don't agree with "everyone" and conform, they're missing the bandwagon and will be left out or become unpopular. It replaces individual thought with group think. And there's nothing more dangerous to personal liberty than mob rule.

Find the use of bandwagon in this short quote:

Every week you open your browser, scan the headlines, and see something to the effect of, “fossil fuels are out and clean energy is in”. The recent court decision upholding the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline and Dominion and Duke’s decision to abandon their Atlantic Coast pipeline project indicate a changing tide in how consumers and utilities view our energy future.

Most Americans want clean energy. People want electric vehicles and a cleaner environment. But, our policies on building the infrastructure to deliver this clean energy future have not caught up to public sentiment.

In June, the leading renewable energy trade associations made a goal to reach 50% renewable energy by 2030. Meanwhile, if elected, Joe Biden will push for a carbon-free power sector by 2035. Goals aside, the fact remains we need more transmission to move cheap wind and solar from more rural areas to load centers if we want to reach ambitious clean energy goals. We need a new wave of electron pipelines.

Not me. Chris doesn't speak for me. He probably doesn't speak for you either. You know who he speaks for? Vestas and himself. But yet he has imposed his personal and business views on "most Americans", "you" (the reader), "consumers", "utilities", "people", "public sentiment", "we, we, we" (all the way home!) for the express purpose of convincing someone that his ideas have merit.

Let's look at some of these ideas:

The Plains & Eastern transmission project exemplifies this problem. In 2009, Clean Line Energy Partners announced plans for a transmission line that would carry 4,000 MW of clean power from Oklahoma to load centers in the southeast and Mid-Atlantic. Years of navigating state and local regulations and gathering, then losing, federal support ensued.

By 2019, Clean Line had divested most of their transmission projects, including the Plains & Eastern Clean Line project, selling them off with the hopes someone else could overcome the endless regulatory and political battles associated with interstate transmission lines.

It NEVER had the support of its desired government customer, Tennessee Valley Authority. It had hopes and dreams and a MOU that TVA would consider the project. Ultimately, when TVA considered it, TVA decided Clean Line wasn't economic or needed for serving its customers. Meanwhile, Clean Line could not find any other customers. If TVA wasn't buying or was dragging its feet, Clean Line was free to go sell service to other eager customers. Except there weren't any. There were no utilities interested in buying service on a "clean line" from Oklahoma. This is what ultimately killed the Plains & Eastern. Get your facts straight, Chris!

And here's the inconvenient truth Chris misses -- it's not lack of transmission connections that is preventing utilities in other states from buying remote wind. Even when the transmission connection can be made, customers fail to materialize, as the lesson of Plains & Eastern demonstrates. Why? Because states want to develop their own renewables because development of new renewables bring economic development to the state. Why send your energy dollars to Oklahoma when you can create new industry and new jobs in your own backyard? Offshore wind is coming! Onshore wind profiteers like Chris are nearly hysterical over it.

It's simply not true that if new transmission is built utilities will voluntarily elect to use it. Building new transmission is an attempt to FORCE utilities in other states to purchase imported power. The industry keeps bellowing (without support) that remote wind from the Midwest is "cheaper" than building renewables near coastal load. But how cheap is it really when the cost of the generation is combined with the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars of new transmission? Not so cheap anymore... and it provides no economic benefits to the importing states. The only way to make imported generation "cheaper" is to allocate the cost of building new transmission for export onto captive electric consumers who may not benefit, instead of the current requirement that the generator must pay its own costs to connect to the existing system. This idea cannot work because it upends the long-held principle that beneficiary pays for utility costs.

Of course Chris has ideas because he can solve any problem! Let's make "coordinated transmission working groups" to change the siting dynamic, "transmission NIMBYism" and community involvement. You mean Interstate Transmission Line Sighting Compacts? Yeah, that hasn't worked in 15 years. Why? Because no state wants to subject itself to mob rule of other states. Just because Chris has suddenly found the interstate compact idea doesn't mean it can suddenly work. It won't work.

Next idea...

In addition to state input, there should be back-stop federal authority when transmission projects reach an impasse. The 2005 Federal Power Act attempted to give FERC this authority, but the rule framework was convoluted and limited in scope, leading to several court challenges. Through a clearer and more definitive act of Congress, FERC can serve as the final decision-maker when a transmission project cannot garner all permits from state and local authorities, or the permitting process is delayed beyond a year.
If the majority of a transmission line’s route has received proper permits, but a small portion has been denied or delayed by regulatory challenges, a transmission developer should be able to bring the case before FERC for final adjudication.

To address the aesthetic concerns of high voltage transmission lines, policy-makers can consider tax incentives or direct pay reimbursements for companies that bury their power lines near residences and towns or work with communities to design more aesthetically-pleasing structures.
To aid in the clean energy future, these incentives should only be available to power lines that predominately transfer renewable energy. This would allow transmission developers to accommodate the very real concerns of citizens and not break the bank.

Again, you're 15 years too late for this party, Chris. Backstop siting authority didn't work because it was plain usurpation of state authority. And Chris has made it even dumber with his plan for FERC to sit as some state transmission permitting court of appeals. FERC has no such authority to overrule state permitting decisions. Various iterations of FERC and special interests have been begging Congress to give FERC siting and permitting authority over electric transmission for years, but it's never even gotten close to happening. It's unlikely to happen now, when Congress is at its most dysfunctional. States do not want to give up their authority to the federal government. End of story.

Chris also needs to learn that there is no such thing as a "power line that predominately transfers renewable energy." Power lines are open access... electrons from all generators get mixed up and there's no way to separate them. A transmission line cannot prevent "dirty" generators from using its line.

So who is all this propaganda directed at? Your elected representatives. If your elected representatives don't hear from you, they may believe Chris's lie that "most Americans" want huge increases in their electric bills to pay for new transmission lines in their own backyard that they'll have to fight in Washington, D.C. before people who have never set foot in their communities. Make sure your elected representative hears the truth from you today!

1 Comment

Building Community Trust

8/9/2020

1 Comment

That's an important part of any infrastructure project, and Invenergy has completely failed at the task.

Behold! An Invenergy/GBE door hanger left on a landowner's door. Know where it ended up? The trash can. It had to be separated from the household refuse in order to sit for its recent photo session. I'm going to guess that's a giant grease stain at the top, and not a weird, gray cloud.

And how does Invenergy attempt to build community trust with this door hanger?

NOW UNDER NEW OWNERSHIP!

Obviously, Invenergy understands that nobody trusted the prior owner of the project, Clean Line Energy Partners. But simply stating there's a new owner doesn't get the job done.

Clean Line spent years holding community meetings and events with pulled pork sandwiches, bouncy houses, and other "fun" attractants for local residents to come and develop a cordial relationship with the company based on trust. There was even a ham dinner, where one lucky landowner filled up his own sack with a pile of ham slices. That event was so successful, it transformed an ordinary house cat into the amazing Miss Kitty Hamm, who is able to communicate through the internet for brief periods of time.

Unfortunately, like all cats, Miss Kitty Hamm has developed a little bit of an attitude. She recently penned a note asking for more Grain Belt Express ham, but Invenergy is a cheap date. It prefers to do ABSOLUTELY nothing to foster trust in the local community. I tried to explain that there's little a company can do during these trying times. There's a pandemic raging and person-to-person contact and sharing of food isn't a good idea. But Miss Kitty Hamm can be incredibly stubborn...

Food is the key to a kitty's heart, however, the humans at Invenergy have underestimated the intellectual abilities of the average feline and the people who serve the cat kingdom. We can read! Where's the news stories? Where's the colorful community advertising? Where's the outdoor music festival where kitties and humans can cavort at a distance while enjoying music and speeches? Where's the donations to food banks? Where's the new parks being built for the communities? Where's the cash donations to help the local schools with the added expense of distance learning? Where's the catnip mice for the local animal shelter? There's plenty a "new owner" can do to win the hearts and minds of your average kitty. Invenergy is failing to do anything to build trust with the communities in Missouri! Without a pile of free ham, I simply cannot trust these people!
P.S. That's not a grease stain. My litter box needed changing.

The community's mistrust of Invenergy is raging. First thing they did was eliminate Clean Line's proposed monopoles and replace them with cheaper and more invasive lattice structures. Invenergy has not bothered contacting local county commissions to seek assent for its project. Without assent, this project is not fully permitted. And speaking of permits, Invenergy STILL has not bothered to submit an application for a permit in Illinois. There's no end point for this project. Where's the end point? Well, Invenergy isn't saying.

Western Kansas and the surrounding area to customers in Missouri and other states in the region.

Well, that's sort of like dialing your binoculars out of focus, isn't it, Invenergy? Clean Line's project used to go from Western Kansas to a substation in Indiana for delivery to eastern states. But now Invenergy's project begins in "the surrounding area" of Western Kansas. What "surrounds" Western Kansas? Other states, like Oklahoma, where Invenergy owns the unfinished States Edge Wind Farm. Other states like Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, and even Texas. How many potential wind farms does Invenergy own in those states? On the eastern end, what other states are in the same "region" as Missouri? Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas? Where are the customers in those states? How big is a state "region"? Invenergy could be planning to build a transmission line through Missouri that begins and ends anywhere... or nowhere at all. And since Invenergy is just so vague these days, should we ask ourselves who does that? Who builds the middle of a highway to nowhere that doesn't connect with any known roads on either end? You can bet that Invenergy has a plan... it's just not one it wants you to know about right now. In fact, it appears that they don't want anyone to know about their actual plan right now, including regional transmission organizations, other utilities, and especially state regulators. Not exactly a way to win your trust, is it, Kitty?

Meow! Err... no. I trust Invenergy about as much as I trust that smiling sadist at the veterinary clinic with the syrupy voice and greased fanny pole behind her back.

Trust in Grain Belt Express is at an all time low in Missouri.

UPDATE: Ya know how Facebook spies on you and attempts to show you things you may like? Miss Kitty Hamm hopes this means that Invenergy is planning another community ham dinner! And sometimes the jokes just write themselves...

1 Comment

Advice for GBE Landowners

7/30/2020

1 Comment

Good advice for Missouri landowners from Block Grain Belt Express this week:

Denlow and Henry Law Firm Packet
By now, landowners on the path of Grain Belt Express have likely received a packet in the mail from the condemnation law firm, Denlow and Henry of St.Louis, Missouri. While most of the information in the packet is accurate and helpful, the third sentence of the first paragraph states that the Grain Belt Express project has been fully approved. As discussed below, this statement is somewhat misleading. The project has not been fully approved.

Grain Belt/Invenergy Has Not Been Fully Approved
Grain Belt Express has not been approved in Illinois. In fact, the company has not even applied for the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the Illinois Commerce Commission, the state’s equivalent to our Public Service Commission. That application process could take 18 to 24 months. There is no guarantee it would be approved when it does apply.

Grain Belt also must obtain consent from each of the eight Missouri counties it is slated to cross before it can begin construction. And, to the best of our knowledge, after it was granted permission to build the line in Missouri the company has not approached any of the eight impacted Missouri county commissions for their consent.

Finally, the company has not yet obtained the financing to construct the line and doing so would require the project to be fully approved.

Reminder of Landowners’ Rights
At this time, neither Grain Belt Express employees nor any of its contracted agents including surveyors may enter a landowner’s property without the landowner’s permission.

Furthermore, landowners are under no obligation to allow access to their property for any reason. They also are under no obligation to talk or negotiate with the company’s representatives or agents.

Grain Belt is currently Attempting to Acquire Easements from Landowners Voluntarily. The offers to purchase easements by land agents do not constitute the required 60 day notice of intent to condemn property.

We do not expect Grain Belt to begin condemnation proceedings until all the regulatory approvals and financing have been obtained. Easements obtained through condemnation would be very much more expensive for the company than those acquired by negotiation.

Owners Need Not Contact Attorneys until Receiving the Required 60 day Notice
As we have said many times before, we believe landowners faced with condemnation will fare better if they retain an experienced condemnation attorney. At this point, however, condemnation attorneys are not likely to get involved. Only after the 60 day notice of intent to condemn has been sent to landowners will condemnation attorneys normally get involved.

We suggest that landowners do not sign anything. However, if you are inclined to do so, we do suggest you either call us or an attorney before signing anything the company or any of its agents ask you to sign.

Important Factor about Easements Obtained Through Condemnation
Another reason why we believe landowners will fare better if they retain a condemnation attorney rather than sell an easement to GBE outright is the Public Service Commission approval order of GBE. The order stated that all easements acquired through condemnation must be dissolved with full ownership reverted back to landowners without reimbursement to the company if financing for the construction of the line has not been obtained after five years by the company.

However, the Public Service Commission did not order GBE to dissolve the easements purchased from landowners voluntarily nor has the company made any commitments not to seek reimbursement for payments they made for negotiated easements.

Landowners should remember that although it was approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission, GBE still lacks key approvals and financing. We should also remember that the Grain Belt/ Invenergy project is a highly controversial, privately owned speculative project that does not meet the typical public use requirements required by most states. That is, the project would not service all users in a territory and that all users of similar types are charged the same rates. Instead the company would deliver power only to utility companies at rates it would negotiate with each one separately. And the project certainly is not necessary to bring electricity to any area in Missouri or to update the grid in any way. GBE seeks to acquire, through condemnation, if necessary, approximately 800 miles of easement through thousands of farms and other private properties across three states.

So, what's the rush? GBE is in a big hurry to coerce landowners to sell easements voluntarily right now. This should be a GIANT red flag for targeted landowners. No matter how much GBE threatens to use eminent domain to hurry landowners along, it's an empty threat designed to acquire easements as quickly and cheaply as possible. Under the law, landowners will receive a 60-day notice before condemnation is filed. Landowners can safely ignore GBE until that happens. In the event it does, landowners are safer going the condemnation route than signing voluntarily.

I'm going to tell you a story about my own experience with eminent domain and how I got the best price possible for my land by holding out until the bitter end. It's not the first landowner to sign that gets the biggest payday, and it's not the landowner who signs somewhere in the middle of the process. It's the landowner who holds out until the condemnation hearing. I used to own undeveloped land that had been in the family for years. We'd been faithfully paying our taxes and holding on to it for future use. But then the county got into cahoots with a developer who wanted a large parcel of land for a private development. The county attempted to acquire this big parcel by piecing together a bunch of small, undeveloped parcels held mostly by out-of-state landowners. The county's first offer was insulting... it wasn't even as much as we paid for the property 30 years ago, never mind the taxes we had paid to the county over that time period. I refused to negotiate. Then a second offer showed up, more than the first, but still low-ball. Then the threat of condemnation showed up. I got a lawyer. With my lawyer, we continued to reject the county's increasing offers while the case headed to condemnation hearing. Literally on the court house steps on the day of the condemnation hearing, the county finally made an offer I could accept, and the deal was done. I was one of only a handful of landowners who had resisted all the county's efforts, and it was worth a bundle to the county not to have to face the judge. How much did my resistance yield? The offer I accepted was six -- 6 -- times the county's original offer. Lesson: It pays to be stubborn in a condemnation situation, and it is the landowner who holds out the longest that gets the biggest pay day. The county/company cannot afford to pay everyone top dollar, but it can afford to pay it to a handful of stubborn landowners at the end of the process just to get their project done. Be that landowner!

Grain Belt Express doesn't have all its permits, and has not even applied for some of them. The question you may want to ask yourself is why they're willing to spend money acquiring part of the land they need for a project with no substantial customers and no financing? This is not normal. It's risky behavior that most corporations shy away from. Remember Clean Line? It lost around $200M of investors' money engaging in risky behavior by spending so much on projects that didn't have permits or customers. Are we supposed to believe Invenergy has no sensitivity to risk? That Invenergy has pockets so deep that spending millions acquiring easements for a project that is not fully permitted means nothing?

I didn't fall off the transmission turnip truck yesterday. Invenergy is up to something. Does it think it doesn't need a permit in Illinois? Does it think it doesn't need county assent? Does it think it doesn't need customers? Hmmm... who creates a giant money suck without a revenue stream to balance it out? Maybe Invenergy doesn't actually want to sell transmission service to others? Maybe Invenergy wants to be its own transmission customer? That situation could be very profitable, but it's unlikely eminent domain could be used to condemn easements for a private use transmission line. Is Invenergy nothing more than a paper tiger, trying to acquire easements voluntarily before changing its business plan? Until the first 60-day notice gets issued, it's all voluntary acquisition.

Grain Belt's plan has a bunch of holes in it right now. Some things don't make sense. Block GBE has some good advice, folks! Solidarity is safety!

1 Comment

A Transmission Line In Every Back Yard: The Democratic Vision For Overbuilding Electric Transmission

7/11/2020

1 Comment

Our federal government is completely dysfunctional. The two houses of Congress don't agree on anything and neither one is willing to give an inch. As a result, nothing gets done except through Executive Order.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is wasting its time creating, on paper, their own utopian vision of how our country should be, even though the legislation they produce is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. It's completely pointless, except as a roadmap for how things *could* be if the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Their little committees have been hard at work, and their "House Select Committee on the CLIMATE CRISIS" (all caps because they're shouting, I guess) has just released a "report" entitled "Solving the Climate Crisis, The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient and Just America."

Really? The very small section on electric transmission that I read seemed more like a plan for an unjust, poor, and dark America. I'm not quite sure how they crammed so much bad into just 6 pages. Reads more like a renewable energy company lobbyist's wish list than a just and effective plan for electric transmission. See for yourself -- and you only need read pages 51 - 57 of the report.

First, this section is premised on things that just aren't true. It states that the cost of wind and solar have fallen dramatically, but they fail to mention how much federal production tax and investment tax credits have subsidized the cost of renewable energy. What does it really cost without taxpayer handouts? Not so cheap anymore, is it? Nevertheless, these swamp creatures think we need to build some sort of "National Supergrid" (Macrogrid, anyone?) to act like the world's largest Energizer battery, to suck up renewable generation and deposit it thousands of miles away, just like magic. Very expensive magic. We'd get along just fine if we built renewables near load, and all loads have their own unique sources of renewable energy. There is no place without renewable energy resources.

First thing the Democrats want to do is "modernize" the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) that were part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These corridors, dreamed up by energy industry lobbyists as a "fix" for the poor maintenance and operation of the existing grid that caused a major blackout, were not designed for renewable energy transmission lines. As if there even is such a thing... because the electric grid is a un-sortable mix of both "clean" and "dirty" electrons. Once a transmission line is connected to the existing grid, it is "open access" to all generators who want to use it. There is no such thing as a "clean" line. And speaking of Clean Line...

To meet its climate goals, the country needs to build cross-state High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission lines to significantly ramp up renewable electricity generation. The five HVDC transmission lines Clean Line Energy Partners unsuccessfully tried to develop to deliver renewable energy across the country are high-profile examples of these challenges.

This ridiculous report then had the audacity to footnote that with a reference to Russell Gold's hero-worship fantasy story about a failed energy idea (the whole book!). The "challenge" that killed Clean Line Energy Partners had nothing to do with planning, permitting, or siting. Clean Line Energy Partners could not find any customers to pay for service on its lines. No customers, no revenue, no transmission line. It's as simple as that (there, I saved you from reading a really awful book).

The report admits that NIETCs have been a miserable failure due to two separate federal court opinions that completely neutralized their use, hence the new brainfart to "modernize" them. NIETCs, as currently written, task the U.S. Dept. of Energy with designating corridors for new transmission to connect areas rich in energy generation with areas of high population. One of the corridors so designated once upon a time covered a long swath of the Mid-Atlantic and was designed to connect the Ohio Valley coal generation plants with the east coast cities. Once a corridor is designated, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is anointed with "backstop siting authority" for a transmission line proposed for the corridor, in the event a state does not have authority to issue a permit for a new line in a corridor. Except states do have authority to site and permit, and the court decided that a state's denial was the end of the road. FERC could not preempt state authority in the event of a denial.

Changes to NIETCs include taking DOE out of the loop and allowing FERC to designate corridors that it will then have permitting and siting authority within. This does away with any "checks and balances" that exist within the current split authority system. In addition, FERC can only designate corridors that coincide with transmission projects proposed by energy companies. This way, energy companies drive the entire NIETC program and may use it to ram through their transmission wish lists. The Democrats think it works best like this.

... requiring DOE to designate broad areas as corridors before project proponents have developed specific, narrow proposals can strain relationships with landowners and communities. Allowing project proponents to apply for corridor designation after having laid the groundwork with landowners and communities may be better.

In what universe? Project proponents are horrible at "laying the groundwork" with landowners and communities. Nothing foments entrenched opposition to new transmission like an energy company telling them that they "need" a new transmission line through their home. Instead, project proponents want to wield the authority of the federal government to designate corridors as a sledge hammer to beat down developing opposition. This can't end well.

The NIETCs also have a new goal. It's not just about transmission in general anymore... "the goals of the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors program are to help achieve national climate goals, including enhancing the development, supply, or delivery of onshore and offshore renewable energy."

The new NIETCs are also about usurping the authority of states to site and permit electric transmission.

Consistent with requirements under NEPA, Congress should amend the Federal Power Act to clarify that FERC may exercise backstop siting authority for an interstate electric transmission facility within a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor if one or more states have approved the project, but one or more states have denied the proposed project or have withheld approval for more than two years.

Under the new rules, if even one state approves a multi-state transmission project, then FERC may step in and take control of the siting and permitting process. Other states crossed by the project would have no say in it and their authority would be preempted by FERC. In this way, the Democrats want transmission siting and permitting to be a federal process, which removes the current state authority to site and permit.

Why would any state give up its transmission siting and permitting authority? The new NIETCs are nothing more than heavy handed preemption of current state authority to allow project proponents to run roughshod over any state that resists their proposal.

Just in case the crushing new authority scenario doesn't work for you, the Democrats also want to create a new federal slush fund using your tax dollars so DOE can bribe state, local, and tribal authorities to approve new transmission lines. DOE could provide "economic development incentives" to entities that agree to approve the new transmission line within two years. A host of federal acronym agencies will "offer" their expertise to review the transmission application for the local governments, and help to pay for the review. It won't cost you a thing... except your soul. Seriously though, this is merely a way to bribe your local government to throw you under the bus in exchange for cash for them. The landowner doesn't benefit from these bribes, but local governments will be encouraged to sacrifice landowners in exchange for cash. The biggest insult may be that this is YOUR cash the federal government is bribing your local government with! The government doesn't have any money of its own... all its money comes from your pocket!

In keeping with the new federal theme, Democrats want FERC to develop a "National Policy on Transmission." This "policy" is intended to "guide the decision-making of government officials at all levels as well as reviewing courts, the private sector, advocacy groups, and the general public."

As if the general public is going to be "guided" by some rent-seeking corporate transmission policy. Not sure who the "advocacy groups" are supposed to be, but let's assume it's the big green NGOs whose private financiers have their own agenda to control your life. The real scary one here, though, is the idea that some corporate lobbyist's self-serving "policy" is supposed to drive the judiciary. The courts are our safety net against an overbearing and unjust government. The courts guide the policymakers to keep their policies within the law and the limits of the Constitution, not the other way around. The Democrats have lost all sense of democracy in their eagerness to "guide" the courts. Our government is split into three branches for a reason just like this!

What do the Democrats think is in "the public interest?"

Congress should establish a National Transmission Policy to provide guidance to state and local officials and reviewing courts to clarify that it is in the public interest to expand transmission to facilitate a decarbonized electricity supply and enable greenhouse gas emissions. The policy statement should also encourage broad allocation of costs. Congress should amend Section 111(d) of PURPA to require consideration of the national benefits outlined in the National Policy on Transmission in any proceeding to review an application to site bulk electric transmission system facilities.

First, let's get the comedy out of the way... Democrats want to "enable greenhouse gas emissions." Well, gosh, fellas, then let's start mining more coal! *can't even produce a report without serious typos*

Now, let's think about how this mandate of federal considerations conflicts with existing state laws. Each state with transmission permitting and siting authority is doing so in accordance with their own state laws. It is up to the states to decide if they want to make federal policy part of their transmission application considerations. This idea doesn't work.

And, hey, look what they tossed in this section... The policy statement should also encourage broad allocation of costs. This idea is sprinkled liberally (haha) throughout the report. Democrats want to spread the cost of new transmission over a broader pool of captive electric ratepayers. Currently, transmission is paid for by its beneficiaries. Benefits are pretty concrete, such as lower costs, needed reliability, or state public policy requirements (and within this subset, only the citizens of a state are responsible for its public policy transmission cost -- a state cannot shift the cost of its public policy requirements onto citizens of another state).

But what's the real reason for broader cost allocation? It's because building all this new transmission is going to be astronomically expensive! If they left current cost allocation practices in place, people would notice a huge increase in their electric bills. They would notice how much all this new transmission costs. However, if they can spread it around to more people by inventing new "benefits" for everyone, then it's less likely to be noticed.

Once the Democrats have diluted the costs by spreading them among more consumers, they also plan to increase the costs by allocating the cost of connecting new generators to consumers. Currently, FERC's policy assigns not only the cost of interconnecting the generator to the system, but also the costs of upgrades needed in the regional network caused by the interconnection, to the new generator. It's been this way for a long time. When someone builds a new electric generator, it's a commercial enterprise to sell electricity for a profit. It's up to the generator to pay its cost to connect to the system, and also for any upgrades to the system it causes to be necessary. It would be like building a new widget factory -- the factory pays for its costs to build the factory and any private driveways it needs to connect to the public road system. If the factory has so much traffic that the public road needs to be widened, the factory would have to pay for that, too. The public shouldn't have to pay for a private corporation's burden on their road system when the corporation is making money by having that connection. The same is true of electric generators. But now the Democrats want the public to pay for grid upgrades made necessary by new generators making a profit selling electricity. The current policy ensures that new generators are sited in the most economic places, instead of willy-nilly all over the place. If a generator has to consider the cost of upgrades it may make necessary, perhaps it would site its new generator in a different spot near existing strong connections to minimize its upgrade costs. The Democrats want to do away with this important safeguard so that new generators can be built anywhere without any economic considerations because consumers are paying the cost of the upgrades. This is bad policy and will result in higher electricity costs.

The Democrats also want government incentives to increase the capacity of existing transmission lines. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just bad execution. The Democrats' idea is based on a fallacy... "Over the last few years, the costs caused by transmission congestion have been increasing." This isn't universally true. In fact, in the PJM Interconnection region, congestion costs have been decreasing over the past few years. In addition, the Democrats want to create a "shared savings" incentive whereby the transmission owner keeps a share of the "savings" created by increasing the capacity of existing lines. Sounds reasonable, until you realize that their share is based on the projected savings, not the actual savings. So, a transmission owner could tell you its project would save ten hundred bajillion dollars and then charge you its share of that amount. There will be no measurement to verify that consumers actually saved a dime. Why not just write these fellas a blank check from the Electric Consumer Savings and Loan?

Another bad Democratic idea is mandating interregional planning of new transmission lines. Currently, each interconnection region plans transmission that serves needs within its own region. That's what they're supposed to do. FERC has also tried to get them to plan for joint projects that bring benefits to more than one region, but it hasn't worked in practice. Why? Because nobody needs interregional transmission lines, and nobody wants to pay for them. Interregional transmission lines don't benefit both regions equally. One region's consumers receive the energy (benefits!) while one region's consumers receive nothing (exporting energy is only a benefit to energy corporations, not consumers).

The Democrats' plan is so bad that they want regional grid planners to develop plans that "proactively plan transmission lines in anticipation of renewable energy development." It's not about building transmission lines that are needed, it's about building transmission lines that are not currently needed with the hope that someday they will be needed. What the everliving spit would we do that for? Transmission is not only incredibly expensive, it also takes private property using eminent domain and violates the sanctity of people's homes. Why would we do that for transmission that's not even needed? Sounds like some Congressional Committee got a little too big for their britches, doesn't it?

But wait, they're not done yet!

Congress should provide financial support for priority HVDC transmission lines, such as through an ITC. Congress should provide an option for direct pay for the tax credit.

Democrats want to use taxpayer funds to pay money to transmission developers for building new lines. Wait... who thought this was a good idea? The current tax credits for renewable energy generators are costing taxpayers billions. Is there some money fountain spewing in Washington, D.C., that we don't know about? In addition, all of the long-distance HVDC transmission lines that have been proposed to date have been merchant transmission projects. That means that all the risk of building them goes to their owners and investors. A transmission project with a mandated public revenue stream cannot be a merchant transmission project because that would shift risk from the project to the ones who pay that revenue stream (taxpayers). This idea just doesn't work.

The Democrats also want to create a national RTO/ISO to manage its new "national grid." We already pay billions of dollars in our electric bills to support our regional RTO/ISOs. This would add a whole new layer of costs to consumer electric bills.

What does this all add up to? YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT!

And if you think you will somehow benefit from this federal effort to usurp state authority, you'll be thinking differently when these clowns propose a new transmission line across your property and your only venue to be heard is in Washington, D.C.

If this is the Democrats' plan for electric transmission if we elect them to office in November, I won't be voting for them. Think hard before you vote. The electric bill and back yard you save just might be your own.

1 Comment

The Truth About The Macrogrid Initiative

7/7/2020

8 Comments

Renewable energy companies, transmission builders, and Bill Gates have come together to brainwash the American public into thinking that they need a "macrogrid." And, of course, the mainstream media is only too eager to assist by publishing thoughtless propaganda designed to guide your thinking towards their goal. Here's one of the first examples, from the Los Angeles Times.

Renewable energy has been using your tax dollars for years to build infrastructure that provides small amounts of intermittent energy. Because they are financially rewarded with your money for building, they've built more than the people can use in certain areas, like the Midwest. They have gobbled up a lot of the available transmission capacity to export their product to cities, where people expect all the benefits of energy without any of the sacrifice that goes along with creating it. In order to keep building renewable energy generators in places where there is no need for the electricity, these piggish profiteers want to build a whole bunch of new transmission. They presume if they can get their energy to populated areas, consumers will be forced to buy it. Absolutely not true. The populated areas are also busy building their own renewable infrastructure so they can create both renewable energy and economic development in their own cities, states, and regions. We don't need new transmission to switch to renewable energy. Even if we overbuild transmission, it doesn't mean distribution utilities in New Jersey will choose to buy wind energy generated in Iowa.

Let's take a look at the one-sided propaganda these racketeers are spreading.

1. A macrogrid can save consumers billions of dollars per year.

THE TRUTH: The "studies" that supposedly proved all these savings are skewed. The biggest problem? All renewables studied were terrestrial sources. Offshore wind wasn't part of the study, although offshore wind provides the best source of wind power and is conveniently located near the largest population centers -- both coasts and the Great Lakes. When offshore wind is removed from the equation, the best sources of wind become the Midwest, and the best sources of solar are the south and southwest. But is it cost effective to build a gigantic new grid to move this generation to the population centers? No, they already have a better source closer at hand. I also don't trust the magic math taking place here that prices this new grid. It's going to take a lot longer, and cost a lot more, than a bunch of scientists think it will. None of these guys know the first thing about utility ratemaking. And what are these scientists comparing their new utopia to in order to produce a "savings"? The most expensive sources of energy they can find shipped the longest distance they can imagine on the most congested transmission lines they can find? That's how magic math happens... change the variables until you arrive at the desired answer. If we don't build a macrogrid and force people to use energy produced thousands of miles away, how much will energy prices actually rise? But it's not really about the price of energy, it's about "climate change" and changing how we produce energy. Telling the people that it's going to save them money on their power bill is a dirty lie.

2. We can power our country with 100% renewable energy.

THE TRUTH: Not feasible with today's technology. Just the other day, the Midwest ISO ran into an issue with not having enough supply on a hot day. This is a region that has built a lot of wind turbines. But those turbines weren't producing when the region needed it most on a hot day. Here's a graph showing the generation sources for MISO's power on a hot, summer afternoon.

Without coal, gas and nukes, the power would have gone out.

MISO was also importing more than 5,700MW of power from neighboring PJM Interconnection, the grid authority for a number of eastern states. MISO was importing an astonishing 39% more power than scheduled from PJM in order to serve its load. Here's a graph of the generation sources operating in PJM at that time.

Again, coal, gas and nukes. Without them, a good two thirds of the country would have blacked out yesterday afternoon.

These graphs show the cheapest resources available being dispatched in real time. If renewables were cheap and available, MISO and PJM would have been using them. The resources necessary to run everything on clean "renewable" energy do not exist.

However, some "studies" and "reports" have suggested a massive build out of new industrial wind and solar under the pretense that we can have enough renewables to meet load. How much wind and solar does it look like we're going to need to meet peak load on a hot day? This report calls for 62,626 square miles of new wind and solar installations. For comparison, that's an area just a little bigger than the state of Georgia, and just a bit smaller than the state of Wisconsin. Imagine the entire state of Georgia covered end to end, side to side, with industrial wind turbines and solar panels. How much do you think that would cost? And if the government keeps giving them tax credit handouts with our tax dollars, how much additional cost would that add?

The capacity factors for renewable energy are surprisingly low because they cannot store fuel on site to run when called. When they produce energy, it's a happy accident, not on purpose. Because renewable generators can only be counted on to produce energy a very small percentage of the time, you'd need to overbuild them by perhaps factor of 10. Example: If you need a generator with a dependable capacity of 100MW, you'd need 10 wind farms with a nameplate capacity of 100 MW each. Even then, you're taking your chances that those resources would produce the power you need when you need it.

Wind and solar are poor choices for a 100% carbon-free power source.

3. Renewable energy provides jobs and we need jobs to restore our economy after Coronavirus.

THE TRUTH: Are we supposed to spend money building stuff we don't need in order to create jobs? That's absurd. We build stuff we need, and jobs happen. Why would we spend a bunch of money creating make work jobs building stuff we don't need? The renewable energy industry isn't at any greater risk than any other industry in the wake of Coronavirus. In fact, they seem to be getting additional help other industries aren't. Because Coronavirus put a short pause on the renewable energy industry, the federal government has extended the amount of time they have to claim the fading production tax credit. What other industries are getting taxpayer handouts for making things? Are restaurants getting tax credits for each meal they sell? Of course not. Renewable energy, however, is getting a tax handout for each unit of power they generate for 10 years after being put in service. Remember, that money they're earning comes directly from your pocket because the government does not have its own source of income. All its income comes from you!

We've been subsidizing industrial wind and solar for decades. At first, perhaps it needed a leg up to compete with conventional generation, but over time it developed an appetite for government handouts and now doesn't want to exist without them. In fact, the renewable energy industry has asked the federal government to convert the tax credits it currently earns into straight up cash payments. A tax credit is just that... a credit for the recipient's tax burden. Because many renewable energy companies pay little taxes, they have been converting the credits they earn into cash by selling them to other corporations that can use them to reduce their tax liability. But just like those companies that will convert your long-term legal settlement payments into instant cash, they only give you a portion of the value of the settlement (or tax credit) in exchange for some cash now. Renewable energy companies don't want to lose the full value of tax credits they earn but can't use, so they want the government instead to just give them cash they can use. Pretty bold, isn't it?

And then the industry speaks out of the other side of its mouth about how mature its industry is, how cheap the power they generate is, and how mainstream it's become. They claim they are competitive with conventional generation. If that is true, why do they still need a handout to stay in business?

Renewable energy companies have opportunely seized upon the Coronavirus crisis to pretend they can solve the economic crisis. Never let a good crisis go to waste!

Renewable energy is back in business, and they're building things. We don't need to give them more money to create new jobs... we need to concentrate on other industries that haven't fully re-opened in order to restore jobs. We don't need to spend our money building out an existing industry.

4. We need to "modernize" our grid.

THE TRUTH: Our grid is adequate for its purpose. Old lines and equipment are constantly re-built and upgraded. Transmission operators and reliability organizations make sure the grid stays reliable. They order fixes, re-builds, and new lines as needed. Interestingly enough, this call to build a new "macrogrid" doesn't even contemplate fixing the existing lines, it just wants to build a new system to work in conjunction with the existing one. If the existing one fails, it's going to take the new "macrogrid" down with it. The macrogrid is about building new transmission to ship energy further from its point of generation. It's got nothing to do with the existing grid.

And a couple more things about that crazy LA Times article...

It starts out talking about a newly built power line in operation. It mentions that there was opposition to the project because it would "saddle energy consumers with unnecessary costs, degrade sensitive wildlife habitat and interrupt a series of gorgeous landscapes." And then the Times points out that it was built anyhow. Logic leap! Just because the project was built doesn't mean it obviated all those concerns. It merely means that those concerns were run over in the process of approving it. Unnecessary costs and degradation of habitat and landscapes happened anyway. Building it didn't make them disappear.

The article tells you that building billions of dollars of new transmission will make you less likely to catch Corona. So will wearing a mask, and that's only going to cost you a buck.

Landowner concerns about eminent domain and sacrifice for the benefit of people far, far away are glossed over and minimized with the idea that if they don't accept it, we're all doomed. The idea that we have to sacrifice something and may only choose which sacrifice to make is overblown. We can have it all if we choose to build renewables near load. It's as simple as that!

On the subject of Clean Line Energy Partners... that company failed because it had no customers. It wasn't the fault of landowners or regulation. Those things merely slowed the projects, they didn't kill them. CLEP failed because there were no places "where the energy is needed." If nobody needs imported "clean" power, why would we spend billions building new transmission?

The article points out that California, a huge importer of power, has plans for 100% clean electricity by 2045. But what happened when California recently debated the issue of installing wind offshore? The fishing industry, the U.S. Navy, and coastal residents got their shorts in a wad, claiming that offshore wind would hurt them. Where does California plan to get its renewable energy if it doesn't make it in state? Why, it plans to put those hurtful burdens on other states to produce it and export it to California. The politically disconnected are ground zero. This is the epitome of environmental injustice! If you want renewable energy, you must sacrifice. You! Not someone else! Only when these states are forced to make their own sacrifices will all the impossible clean energy goals begin to wane.

One more thing... this "macrogrid" has been proposed in one form or another ever since I've been doing the transmission thing... a dozen years now. Except it's only recently been about "clean energy." It used to be about moving coal-fired resources around the country "cheaply." It's just been re-packaged to fit today's narrative. It's not about "clean energy." It's about building a whole bunch of transmission in order to make billions of dollars of profit at consumer expense.

And about the House Democrat's newly released climate plan? Ahh... that's another blog post soon to come! Keep checking back!

8 Comments

How Wind Companies Are Reinventing Clean Line's Business Plan To Take Your Land For Their Own Use

7/5/2020

0 Comments

Once upon a time, Don Quixote Skelly had an idea. He envisioned a company that would build transmission lines to move wind generation across the country. Skelly had left the wind industry to become an electric transmission magnate. Skelly would no longer sell the wind generation upon which he'd built his career, he would now be an independent transmission owner selling transmission capacity to wind developers. Skelly planned to use the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Negotiated Rate Authority to sell transmission capacity to generation owners. Negotiated rate authority allows the transmission owner to sell service to unaffiliated companies essentially at auction. All companies desiring service would submit a bid for service. FERC requires the selection of customers to be fair, setting the criteria for the transmission owner's selection of customers. A transmission owner wishing to sell service to itself or its affiliate has a very high bar to jump to prove to FERC that it did not give its affiliate undue preference. All bids, including those from a transmission owner's affiliate, must be evaluated using the same criteria. The transmission owner must provide open access to its merchant line, allowing all bidders to receive equal treatment. If an unaffiliated generation owner offers more for service, the transmission owner cannot turn it down in order to provide service for its own affiliate at a cheaper price. But, because Skelly did not own any generation, there was no way he could give his own affiliates any preference. FERC's Negotiated Rate Authority worked perfectly for Clean Line's business plan.

But Skelly's business plan didn't work in reality. He couldn't find any companies willing to pay for service on his transmission line. Eventually, Skelly's company went broke and sold its failed projects to other companies. Funny that... all the new owners of Skelly's projects were renewable energy generators. How was the project's negotiated rate authority going to work for these new generation-owning companies? Were these new owners really going to build transmission lines and sell service on the line to their competitors? Remember, under negotiated rate authority, the line must be open access for all bidders. The new owner could not restrict its competitors from bidding on service on the new line, and the new owner cannot give preference to its own generation. Why in the world would a renewable energy company want to build transmission that allowed its competitor's generation to be sold in higher priced markets? You never actually believed that the new owner was planning to enable its competitors, did you? Of course not!

The new owners needed to jettison Skelly's negotiated rate authority so they could keep the transmission they built for their own use. The new owners want to use Skelly's transmission project to connect the stranded generation they own. The new owners needed a new rate scheme!

Pattern Energy, the new owner of Clean Line's Western Spirit transmission project, wanted to use the project to connect its future wind farm sites to a strong point in New Mexico's existing transmission grid so that it could sell that generation, perhaps for export to other states. New Mexico's RETA had already been "partnered" with Western Spirit to realize Skelly's negotiated rate business plan. Clean Line had been "making contributions" to RETA for years in order to use RETA's eminent domain authority to take private property for its "public use" negotiated rate project. RETA used its eminent domain authority to force landowners to sell, believing that the project would be open access for all renewable generators who wanted to connect and purchase service.

But, Pattern didn't want to share. It wanted to use all of Western Spirit's transmission capacity for its own new wind farms. That's a private use, not a public use. An apt comparison could be made using roads... a public road or highway allows anyone to use it, therefore taking private property to build it is a "public use." However, a private driveway is only for its owner's use, it's a private use. It's not a "public use" to enable eminent domain. Clean Line wanted to build a public road. Pattern wants to build a driveway.

The use of eminent domain in this country is limited to situations where the land taken is put into public use. We don't use eminent domain to take private property from one person for the private use of another. There was considerable outcry when the Supreme Court ruled that private property could be taken from one person and given to a private company if "economic development" happened as a result. SCOTUS decided that economic development was a "public use." In the wake of that awful decision, many states made changes to their eminent domain laws to prevent its use for purely economic development reasons.

But not New Mexico. New Mexico invented a quasi-governmental authority to build and own electric transmission for the purposes of promoting economic development in the state, and it gave its creation eminent domain authority. It also took authority away from its Public Regulation Commission and allowed RETA to call the shots on the building of new transmission in the state.

Maybe RETA thought it was providing a public service by taking private property for Clean Line's "public use" project? That seemed to be settled. But what happened when Pattern bought the project and the "public use" became a private driveway? Did RETA ever consider how this change upended its justification for using its eminent domain authority?

Pattern Energy came up with a new business plan for Skelly's old project. Pattern Energy will build the transmission project using RETA's eminent domain authority and then sell the project to New Mexico's incumbent public utility, Public Service Company of New Mexico. That way they could pretend the project was still a "public use" worthy of eminent domain. But what about Western Spirit's legacy negotiated rate authority? Could Public Service Company auction off service on the line to other companies? No, Public Service Corporation applied for a new rate scheme from FERC -- Incremental rates, whereby a generator would pay a transmission service provider its costs to build new transmission to serve the new generator. No sharing required. Under federal laws, a transmission owner must allow a new generator to connect to its system, as long as the generator pays the cost of the new connection. This scheme allows Pattern to sign a transmission service agreement with Public Service Company to use the new line. It allows a generator to make exclusive use of a new private driveway to connect its own generation because the generator is paying all the costs. This kind of transmission line is a generation tie line. It does not allow public access because other companies are not paying for it.

A company proposing a generation tie line is treated much differently from an open-access transmission line. While an open-access "public use" transmission line is like a public roadway, a generation tie line is a private driveway. A generation tie line would not meet the definition of "public use" under the laws of many states and therefore is not an appropriate use of eminent domain. For example, if another Clean Line project, say Grain Belt Express, had applied to the Missouri Public Service Commission for a generation tie line across the state, it would have virtually no chance of approval and being awarded eminent domain authority. But Grain Belt Express was approved as an open-access "public use" project that would sell service to voluntary customers, like MJMEUC. GBE is still pretending to use the negotiated rate authority rate scheme, but it doesn't have enough customers to make the project economically feasible. Invenergy, GBE's owner, is planning to sell service on the line to its competitors who want to move their generation from western Kansas to Indiana. You believe that, right, even though Invenergy has done nothing to apply for a permit in Illinois while it is going hammer and tongs to acquire property in Missouri under the threat of eminent domain?

There's this bridge in Brooklyn...

Anyhow, Pattern Energy has completely changed Don Quixote Skelly's business plan for the Western Spirit transmission project in New Mexico. The formerly independent open-access transmission roadway has now become Pattern's private driveway. Isn't it time for New Mexico to pause and give adequate consideration to Western Spirit's changed business and rate plan before it takes property from its citizens and gives it to a for-profit corporation for its private use?

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

MO PSC Complaint Alleges Grain Belt Express Can No Longer Claim Eminent Domain Authority

Invenergy Finally Admits It's Not Building Clean Line's Grain Belt Express

Did Beth Conley Just Let Invenergy's Cat Out Of The Bag?

Caveat Venditor, Missouri!

Big Wind's Big Bucks Bandwagon

Building Community Trust

Advice for GBE Landowners

A Transmission Line In Every Back Yard: The Democratic Vision For Overbuilding Electric Transmission

The Truth About The Macrogrid Initiative

How Wind Companies Are Reinventing Clean Line's Business Plan To Take Your Land For Their Own Use

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