StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Grain Belt Express Is An Electric Toll Road

2/20/2020

0 Comments

 
The legislative battle over eminent domain for private purpose projects continues to rage in Missouri.  There are several months left in the legislative session, and the battle is already half over, with the House overwhelmingly supporting new legislation to prohibit the use of eminent domain for merchant transmission projects.  Now all eyes are on the Senate, and the people of Missouri will support this legislation wholeheartedly. 

Fantastically well-written op eds are appearing in Missouri news outlets from Missouri Farm Bureau.  I particularly love Eric Bohl's comparison of GBE to a private purpose toll road.  It is a must read!
Imagine if Warren Buffett wanted to build a private toll road across northern Missouri. The billionaire would charge cars $100 apiece to race from his home city of Omaha, Nebraska, to Nashville, Tennessee, pocketing a huge chunk of profit on each trip. He might call it the “Music City Express.” Unfortunately, the toll road would have no exits in Missouri. Cars could only get on in Nebraska and exit in Tennessee. No local residents could use it at all.

Even though the Music City Express would make a fortune for Buffett, he would probably have trouble convincing every single landowner in his path to sell. The road would do them no good — it would just be a nuisance and take away their land. Surely a few holdouts would foil his plans. If only his project qualified as a “public use,” he could invoke the governmental power of eminent domain to force unwilling landowners to sell. But the project isn’t designed to benefit the public — it’s meant to enrich its owner.

And there's lots more, particularly about GBE (or Buffett) tossing money at cities in another part of the state in order to create a false "need" to toss the northern part of the state under the bus in order to benefit cities in the southern part.  You've got to read it!

Another fabulous op ed written by Blake Hurst is appearing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  You can read that one here.  Hurst makes a very important point:
The promotional literature for the company touts the project as a “free market solution to meet the growing demand for sustainable energy.” Well, there is nothing in a “free market” that gives entities the right to condemn property owned by the residents of Missouri and taking it for a private business.
When normal utilities are granted the ability to use eminent domain, their electricity rates are regulated by the state of Missouri. In exchange for the convenience of siting their facilities and the money saved because sellers have no bargaining power, the PSC protects consumers and makes sure that the benefits of eminent domain are passed along to electricity consumers.

The benefits of using eminent domain for GBE go into the Chicago-based pockets of Invenergy CEO Michael Polsky.  They don't go to electric customers in Missouri.  Even the pie-in-the-sky savings of $12M in electric costs each year aren't drawn from eminent domain savings.  The Cities will save money either way because their contract price will not change if eminent domain is used.  They would still get the "benefit" if eminent domain for GBE is prohibited by law.

And then Hurst absolutely nails exactly what I was thinking after reading American Wind Energy Association's breathy, disconnected push for GBE that absolutely fails to resonate with Missourians.
Tom Kiernan, writing in favor of the project in the Feb. 12 Post-Dispatch, has made it clear that the project, part of a multi-state effort known as the Grain Belt Express, would be “difficult” to complete without eminent domain. But his op-ed piece seemed designed to avoid actually mentioning the words “eminent domain.” Why did he fail to mention the central issue driving this controversy?
I dunno.  Maybe he thinks the people of Missouri lack the gray matter necessary to make their own decisions about their own property?  How does anyone discuss GBE and completely avoid the words "eminent domain?"

It seems that Invenergy is fighting a losing battle.  Limiting the use of eminent domain is something every voter can support.  The only ones who seem to like it are the ones who think they can profit from its use.

And, hey, there's that broadband thing.  Just a couple more cheap trinkets for the natives.
Picture
Hurst says:
As the Missouri Legislature enters its third year of debate over the project, Clean Line’s backers have started talking about fiber optics as well. Not only will electricity consumers receive a bonanza, but everybody in north Missouri will be able to watch Netflix.

Perhaps not as good as a toaster for opening a new account, but haven’t we all been asking for better rural broadband? Well, yes we have, but extending the fiber to homes, which is the most expensive part of providing rural broadband, is a much more difficult and expensive proposition than what Clean Line is offering.

And be sure to tune into This Week in Missouri Politics on Sunday, where you can hear more from Farm Bureau and the legislators involved in this important issue.

Maybe you'll even be inspired to write your own op ed?
0 Comments

Beware, Missouri!  Child Catcher Sighted In Your Neighborhood!

2/6/2020

1 Comment

 
Lollipops... cherry pie... ice cream... treacle tarts... broadband...  ALL FREE TODAY!
Today, Invenergy's Grain Belt Express announced its plans to include broadband capability on the project infrastructure at no additional cost to Missouri communities or taxpayers.

So, hey, guess what?  Missouri communities and taxpayers won't have to pay to build it but they will have to pay to use it.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... or lollipop... or broadband.

Discussions are underway with Missouri internet service providers who could use the infrastructure to provide internet for nearly 1 million underserved Missourians.

Yes, they could use it, once they pay Grain Belt Express a fee for the service.  And then they'll charge end users a fee to use it as well.

Invenergy will seek permission from landowners to consolidate this infrastructure in project easements along the Missouri Public Service Commission approved route.

Ya mean when they take the property using eminent domain, now extended for the use of broadband, too?  Does this mean that anyone who wants to build broadband in Missouri can use eminent domain just like Invenergy?

I'm gonna spare you the rest of the garbage about how wonderful Invenergy thinks they are and how much they just love, love, love you and your community!  I simply can't type when I'm retching.

If you see the Child Catcher in your neighborhood, it is recommended that you hide in your basement and don't come out, no matter how delicious the free treats are today.  You don't want to end up in his cage.
1 Comment

Eminent Domain Bill Clears Committee in Missouri Senate

1/29/2020

1 Comment

 
Word is that the Missouri Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment Committee voted the Senate's version of the eminent domain bill out of committee this afternoon by a vote of 6-5.

The bill, SB597 sponsored by Senator Brown, is identical to HB2033 that was passed by the Missouri House of Representatives earlier this week.

This is good news!  Hopefully the bill will be on the Senate floor soon for debate and vote.

Many thanks to all the committee members who supported this bill, especially Senator Riddle who stood strong for her constituents today!

This is Howard Cosell, signing off... until the next big game!

Picture
1 Comment

Silly Cities Getting Desperate

1/28/2020

3 Comments

 
The more desperate someone becomes, the further their arguments stray from the truth.  When the truth isn't working, the message gets embellished.

You'd think all Missourians were head over heels for Grain Belt Express after reading this.
...a project that will benefit so many small rural communities and save Missourians millions of dollars...
It's also a project that will destroy so many family farms and the rural economies they support.  Lower yields and higher costs to farm mean less income for farmers.  Less income for farmers equals less they have to put back into the agricultural economy in their own communities.  Not every rural community would "benefit" equally.

And let's talk about all those amazing savings, shall we?
Missourians do not like living paycheck to paycheck paying high utility bills and soon many won’t have to. The Grain Belt Express Transmission Line will lower the cost of utility bills to dozens of communities throughout the state.
Oh, c'mon!  This guy has no idea what it's like living paycheck to paycheck if he thinks that saving the price of a cup of coffee on your monthly electric bill will lift you into economic prosperity.  I think maybe he's spreading it on a little thick.

What are the savings?  And how accurate are they anymore?  How much is waiting around for GBE to be built costing municipal electricity customers?  The amazing savings claim is overblown.

I'm guessing this fella hasn't looked at the MJMEUC contract, or GBE's filings at the PSC.
In Missouri, the line will span eight counties delivering at least 500 megawatts of low-cost energy (and probably much more). 
GBE said it would make available 500 MW, a very small percentage of its 3,500 MW capacity.  MJMEUC only agreed to purchase up to 200 MW of the 500 offered.  The other 300 MW is going stale on the shelf because no one in Missouri wants to buy it.  Get it?  There's no need for GBE in Missouri!  If it was needed, there would be buyers willing to pay for it.
Picture
And then there's all the jobs blather.  I'm sorry, but creating jobs is not a "public use" granted eminent domain authority.  No one's right to have a job trumps another's right to own and enjoy property.

We're currently experiencing a booming economy.  Unemployment is at record lows.  Justifying the use of eminent domain for some jacked up number of temporary jobs for workers from other areas completely falls flat.

But this... this is the ultimate piece of work...
In recent years, special interest groups have gathered in Jefferson City with the goal of preventing the project from moving forward. This legislative session, these special interest groups are at it once again, introducing legislation to block the project and hinder Missourians in rural communities, suburbs, and across our state.
Is your land a "special interest?"  Calling landowners, voters, citizens, engaged in a grassroots effort to protect their homes, businesses, and way of life "special interest groups" is the ultimate insult.  These are honest, hardworking people defending the taking of what's theirs from out-of-state "special interest group" Invenergy, who is seeking to make money from the taking.  The only "special interest groups" here are Invenergy, and a handful of municipalities who have bellied up to the buffet to gorge themselves on the loss of others.  (Except, hey, check the menu... it's really just granola bars and water, not the feast they promised you.)

I think it's Grain Belt Express that is "hindering Missourians in rural communities" across the state.  Landowners have been held in limbo for a decade while first Clean Line bumbled its way through years of unsuccessful permitting, and now Invenergy comes after them, even though it doesn't have enough customers to make the project economically feasible.  How many sleepless nights will the landowners endure while out-of-state corporations play their corporate money-making games?  How much of the landowners' hard-earned income is being siphoned away in an effort to protect their rights?  Landowners didn't ask for this, and to continue to hold them hostage while Invenergy plays energy games is shameful.  Let Invenergy play its games in a free market where no one is held hostage!  Invenergy could build its project underground, on existing rights-of-way, and not bother anyone, but it doesn't want to.  It must believe Missouri is its doormat, as much as the author of this op ed seems to.

When other Clean Line projects were defeated, better projects emerged.  Buried transmission on existing rights-of-way is really happening!  If this guy really cared about Missouri, he'd drop GBE like a hot potato and look to the future where a project that does no harm will emerge.

Is this guy convincing anyone with his pie-in-the sky, exaggerated claims of how wonderful GBE would be for Missouri?

Not me.

But, hey, there's one point where I can agree with him!
I encourage everyone who wants to see their family and neighbors benefit from this project to contact your legislator. As a constituent, taxpayer, and Missourian, your voice matters.
The only way anyone is going to benefit from this project is by leaving it in the dust and moving on to better ideas.  Contact your Senators, because your voice matters!  A quick email or phone call is all it takes!  Do it today!
3 Comments

Caveat Emptor, Invenergy!

1/27/2020

3 Comments

 
Congratulations, Missouri!  This evening, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of HB 2033 that would prohibit the use of eminent domain by merchant transmission developers!

The bill is now on to the Senate.  Stay tuned for ways you can help ensure this very important new law is put into place.

But what about Invenergy?  Caveat Emptor, fellas!  You bought a used transmission project with a host of problems.  It's not just a little dog-eared, it's rode hard through a briar patch with stones in its shoes and put away wet lame. 

The people of Missouri have spoken through their elected representatives.  I think the message is loud and clear.
Picture
NO NEED, NO GAIN, NO EMINENT DOMAIN!
3 Comments

The "Changing Rules" Myth

1/16/2020

0 Comments

 
Here's another stupidity currently being recycled by Missouri municipalities in opposition to legislation that is currently working its way through...
Lawson wondered whether singling out one project should be a concern to anyone planning to develop large scale projects in the state. Lawson said, “What signal are we sending about our state’s desire for job creation and economic progress if we change the rules at the last minute?”
Different versions of the "changing rules" myth have been hanging around for years.  It's time to put them to rest.

The legislature isn't "changing the rules," it's changing the law.  That's what legislatures do.  It's a risk all transmission projects accept when developing a project.

Laws are not a stagnant thing.  Once they're made, they're often changed.  New laws are made.  Existing laws are amended.  It's what happens in a healthy, democratic society.  If we had to keep all laws stagnant for fear of "changing the rules" on someone, there are plenty of old laws that would still be hanging around, much to our detriment.  We change laws to make them work better, for the benefit of all citizens.

To answer Lawson's question about the "signal" it sends, let's look at Iowa.  In 2017, the Iowa legislature passed a new law that declared above-ground merchant transmission lines a private development purpose that may not be granted eminent domain authority.  The Clean Line project that inspired this legislation, the Rock Island Clean Line, was faced with a choice... to build its project without eminent domain authority, or to bury it.  Nothing the legislature did actually banned or stopped the project.  It was Clean Line's choice to abandon it.

The "signal?"  Transmission is still being built in Iowa, but not above-ground merchant lines.  Instead a better project has been proposed for basically the same purpose.  SOO Green Renewable Rail proposes an underground merchant transmission project built on existing rights-of-way.  It's a much better solution to the imagined problem.  It may be more expensive, with undergrounding costing roughly twice as much as above-ground lines, but that's okay because this is a market-based project.  The market for transmission capacity will dictate the prices customers will be willing to pay in a voluntary market, free from manipulation and outside influences.  The developers of SOO Green believe their project will be marketable, despite its cost.

This is the signal the Iowa legislature sent... that projects must do better to avoid impacts to Iowa citizens.  And they all lived happily ever after.

Arkansas also passed a law inspired by a different Clean Line project, the Plains and Eastern Clean Line.  That law prevented the use of eminent domain for a transmission project that was not directed or designated to be constructed by a regional transmission organization.  What happened?  Nothing.  There's still transmission and economic prosperity going on in Arkansas, and the lights are still on.

Legislatures can and do change laws all the time.  And the one in Missouri desperately needs updating!  Public utility and eminent domain law were developed at a time before merchant transmission was proposed in the state.  Multi-state merchant transmission without contracted customers is a relatively new thing everywhere, and other states have dealt with it in the recent past, as noted above.  Nothing disastrous happened. 

The law that gives a public utility eminent domain authority is premised on a belief that a public utility is constructing regulated infrastructure.  The cost of that infrastructure and the ones who pay for it is highly regulated, whether by state utility commissions, or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Enter speculative merchant, market-based, transmission.  Its rates aren't regulated in the same way.  Its rates are negotiated between willing buyers and willing sellers.  Nobody is forced to pay for anything they don't want to.  The regulators cannot say whether a rate is too low, or too high.  They rely on the market to do so.   If a price is too high, there will be no market interest.  Market rates police themselves (assuming they were negotiated in a fair manner without undue influence or preference).

Eminent domain is not a market based mechanism.  It is the government stepping in to effect the taking of private property at a "fair," not market-based price.  If the price paid for property was negotiated without any limit, that would be a market-based price between a willing buyer and a willing seller.  The sellers are unwilling in an eminent domain situation.

Using the market interference of eminent domain on a market-based transmission project is not only unfair to the unwilling seller, it unjustly enriches the transmission project owner, who is still operating in the realm of negotiated, market-based rates.  Its market isn't affected by the price it pays for property.  In fact, if it was truly market-based, the price of property necessary for the project should be based on the same voluntary, free market in which the project negotiates its rates.

It's a legal mismatch that uses the regulated utility's eminent domain authority to boost the earnings for a market-based project.  Many states, such as Iowa and Arkansas (and Illinois, too, although this happened at the state Supreme Court) have recognized this.  Missouri has also now realized it, and that's why its legislators want to remove eminent domain authority for market-based, merchant transmission projects.

It's not to "change the rules," it's to update the law to support new development while protecting the citizens of Missouri.  Grain Belt Express could still build its project.  It just would have to negotiate property prices in a market-based environment without the government-granted power of eminent domain to limit its acquisition costs, and GBE doesn't want to assume that responsibility or cost.

A project that is truly market-based has no need for eminent domain.  GBE and its supporters are simply complaining because legislators are intent on fixing the current legal loophole they slipped through.  With the loophole firmly closed, new transmission in Missouri will be better for ALL citizens, not just a few.
0 Comments

House Bill To Limit Eminent Domain Clears Committee in Missouri

1/14/2020

2 Comments

 
Good news this morning!  Representative Jim Hansen's HB 2033 to limit eminent domain for merchant transmission sailed through a committee hearing yesterday and was approved to pass this morning.

We're on our way! 

Lots of stuff got brought up in the hearing yesterday, and two very different news articles were posted.  One was good, and one was biased opinion cloaked as news.  Do we call that "fake news" these days?  At any rate, it gives me an opportunity to clear up some misinformation that got spread yesterday.

The bad article can be found here.  Does the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have a bias in favor of the project?  I'd guess they do, after reading the article, or maybe the reporter himself is just uneducated or too lazy to get information first hand and relied too much on opinion instead of fact?

The article starts out with an apparent misunderstanding of the three branches of government.  This is something I think I learned in elementary school, and perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Although judges and state regulators have given it the go-ahead, Missouri lawmakers are still trying to unplug a controversial electric transmission line.
State regulators are part of the executive branch of government.  They carry out laws as they exist.  Judges are part of the judicial branch of government.  They interpret laws as they exist.  Legislators, on the other hand, are part of the legislative branch of government.  They MAKE laws exist.  The legislature can change laws, or make new laws, that are then carried out by the executive branch, or interpreted by the judicial branch.  It doesn't matter what judges or state regulators did with existing laws, the legislature is in the process of making a new law.  Once it does, the regulators and judges will follow the new law.  This ostensible "justification" for GBE makes no sense, because legislators can change the law.  Legislators are not beholden to the opinions of judges or regulators.  Only legislators make laws!

And now let's skip to the reported malarkey spewed by Invenergy at yesterday's hearing.
A spokeswoman for Chicago-based Invenergy, which is spearheading the project, said the power line project will have a significant economic impact in the state.

“This project will create thousands of jobs here in Missouri,” said Nicole Luckey.
In addition, she said the company is prepared to pay more for land than its fair market value.
“We are committed to compensating landowners fairly,” Luckey said.

Invenergy says its structures will take up less than 10 acres of land throughout Missouri, not including land underneath transmission wires.

Jobs, jobs, jobs!  We've all heard this baloney before and we know that job promises rarely come true.  Their numbers are based on extrapolated numbers in a computer program, not reality.  In addition, most of the jobs will be temporary and filled with trained professionals from out of state.  Quit trying to push the "benefits" thing, nobody believes it.

And let's examine that statement about paying more than fair market value.  Who determines "fair market value" if a taking isn't challenged in the courts?  Invenergy does!  Invenergy's land agent subcontractor works to get "market study" data from past land sales in each county.  There could be some picking and choosing going on there that skews the numbers.  Then an "average" market value for land in that county is developed.  Once that figure is arrived at, individual property characteristics can be applied to either raise or lower it to arrive at a "fair" cost per acre.

We are committed to compensating landowners fairly?  Is this the landowner's idea of fair, or is it Invenergy's idea of fair?  Of course, it's Invenergy's, because they currently hold the power of eminent domain to take a property, even if the owner does not agree the compensation is fair.  There's nothing fair about this!

And, which is it, Invenergy?  Fair market value... or more than fair market value?  How much more?  Those statements, taken together, make no sense, which leads me to think that maybe the whole thing is just made up baloney.

Speaking of baloney... less than 10 acres?  So is that all that will be compensated across the state?  Why would Invenergy pay for land not taken?  The truth is that Invenergy is planning to take a 200-foot wide strip of land clear across the state, and they have to compensate landowners for all of it.  This claim is ludicrous.

This seems to be the only thing the reporter managed to come away with to represent the bill's supporters yesterday.
Landowners in the path of the transmission lines argue that a private company should not be able to condemn land in order to build the project.

I'm pretty sure there was a lot more said on this topic that perhaps was just too complicated for this uneducated reporter to grasp.

The difference between merchant transmission and regionally ordered and cost allocated transmission was explained rather succinctly.  Here's my version:

Regionally ordered and cost allocated transmission comes from independent regional transmission system operators.  They order new transmission for purposes of reliability, economics, or public policy.  When transmission is ordered, the transmission organization also assigns cost responsibility for the project to regional customers based on their use of the transmission line.  Most importantly, those customers assigned cost responsibility for the project only pay for the cost of the project, plus regulated return to the owner of the transmission.

Now, the difference of merchant transmission, like GBE.  No transmission organization ever ordered GBE.  Its costs will not be collected from regional customers.  Instead, GBE has federal negotiated rate authority.  It collects its costs through rates it negotiates with voluntary customers.  Whatever price GBE can agree to with customers is the amount those customers pay, regardless of what the project costs to build.  These are what is known as "market rates," where the rate charged is supported by a free market where each party comes to the table and negotiates the price without undue influence.

Therefore, GBE's rates are independent from the cost of the project.  If GBE saves money on land acquisition due to the use of eminent domain, then that profit goes in GBE's pocket.  It won't change the rate it has negotiated with its voluntary customers.  On the other hand, when a project is cost allocated to regional customers, they only pay for what it costs to build.  If the owner saves money on land acquisition through the use of eminent domain, those savings go to the customers who pay for the transmission project.

Bottom line:  Eminent domain would increase GBE's profits beyond its cost of service.  If GBE cannot use eminent domain to keep land acquisition prices low and must depend on free market negotiation to acquire land to build its project, that eats into GBE's profits.  There are no savings that go back to customers if land acquisition costs are limited by eminent domain.  This is why merchant transmission should never be granted eminent domain authority.  And this is why the Missouri Legislature wants to change the law to exclude its use for merchant transmission.

This article about yesterday's hearing is much more balanced.  This reporter paid attention and didn't try to apply bias to sway reader's opinions.  You should read it to get a complete picture of what was said by both sides.

And here's what that Invenergy lady had to say in this report:
The company in charge of the project, Invenergy, said condemnation of properties under eminent domain is more of a last resort.

“We are not seeking ownership,” Nicole Luckey, director of regulatory affairs at Invenergy, said. “We are seeking an easement over folks’ land. Landowners will retain full ownership of the land in an easement. They can continue to use it for agricultural purposes.”

Luckey said landowners would be paid 110% of the market value in an easement, plus a structured payment that can be taken in a lump sum or in an annual payment, which would increase every year.

More of a last resort?  More of a last resort to paying a price for land that is negotiated in a free market?  Eminent domain isn't a part of fair negotiation.  It's coercion, plain and simple.  It was also reported, although not in this article, that she claimed that if a landowner didn't want to negotiate with Invenergy, the company would simply route its project around them.

So, in that case, GBE's route may look like this:
Picture
I'm not buying it.

Easement.  Sure, that's where another party has a right to use a portion of your land for their own purposes, even if you object.  Of course, you still "own" it and pay taxes and insurance on it.

Oh! 110% of market value?  Is that "fair?"  Once again, who determines market value?  Invenergy does.  They're going to pay landowners 10% more than the value they determine is fair.  Garbage in, garbage out!

A transmission company's hired land acquisition company spends several months creating a plan before they hit the streets.  They do the market studies, then create a database containing a range of values for each property.  The lowest "fair market value" in the range is what a landowner is originally offered.  The value can increase when a landowner resists, dependent upon approval from higher ups.  What's the highest value in the range for your property?  Of course, they're not going to tell you.

I heard that the Invenergy lady also told a lovely story about the company's plan to hire land agents.  It will be very selectively hiring agents in January, training the agents in February, and then sending them out to the field in March.  BALONEY!  Transmission owners don't hire individual land agents off the street and then train them.  They contract with land acquisition companies that already have teams of trained agents, such as this one, which is said to train their agents in psy ops in order to get resistant landowners to sign agreements.  What happened to the land acquisition company Clean Line was using in Missouri?  Is Invenergy going to just toss out that database and start fresh?  In that case, how could it know what a particular landowner was previously offered to make sure it's new offer was at least as much?

She also allegedly said that Invenergy would gladly deliver all the energy to Missouri, if it could.  Still can't find any customers, Invenergy?
Picture
Missouri's energy needs are met, without any part of GBE.

So, now we see where this bill wanders next.  A companion bill in the Senate is set for Committee hearing on Wednesday.  Off to a great start!

What can you do?  You could dash off a Letter to the Editor of one of the newspapers reporting on yesterday's committee hearing, just to set them straight.  Or you could send one to your local paper, or any other paper in Missouri.  Need help?  Just ask!
2 Comments

Invenergy Will Benefit From GBE More Than Electric Customers In Missouri

1/10/2020

0 Comments

 
Great article in the Webster County Citizen!  Legislators discuss the problems with using eminent domain for Grain Belt Express, and the possibility that it will again become a legislative hot-topic this year.  In the wake of last year's proposed legislation, legislators are educated, aware, and ready to take action.
“The problem originates with it being a privately-developed line. To acquire the right-of-ways across the state, the developer would use eminent domain.
And this is the crux of the problem.  A privately-developed line... what does that mean?  Aren't all transmission lines not owned by a municipal or consumer owned utility "privately developed?"  No, they're not.  Most transmission development is proposed in response to orders from independent federally-designated regional transmission organizations.  These projects are ordered for purposes like electric reliability, or to lower regional market prices, or in some instances, in response to state public policy requirements.  Grain Belt Express is none of these.  It wasn't ordered by a RTO.  No RTO has ordered this project for any reason that serves the general public.  Instead, GBE was proposed by a private company as a profit center.  Invenergy, GBE's current owner, plans to make revenue by selling capacity on its line to generators or end users on the east coast.  It's all about the Benjamins!  It's not about serving the public.  It's about profit.

And in order to ensure its profit, GBE offered service on its proposed transmission line to municipal utilities in Missouri at a cost below market.  GBE offered the municipalities service at a loss leader price that didn't even cover its own costs to simply serve as a way to create an artificial "need" for the project in Missouri.  Being offered a free lunch was something the municipal utilities simply couldn't pass up.  So now they support the project, claiming that it would save their residents money on their electric bills.  How much?  A couple bucks, maybe.

In exchange for some residents of Missouri possibly saving a couple bucks on their electric bills, Missouri would toss another group of residents under the bus, subjecting them to eminent domain takings of their property.  These takings will occur on property that is in use as productive farm land, taking profit from the property owners.

When do the needs of one group become superior to the needs of another group, in the name of "public good?"  This is a tough issue to struggle with.  However, there's one group missing from this kind of equation... the owner of GBE, who stands to pocket billions if it can use state-granted eminent domain to acquire land for its for- profit transmission line.  This issue is only being debated in Missouri because GBE wants to use eminent domain for its own profit (but under the guise of "public service" to municipal utilities).  While the municipal utilities serve all their customers equally without a profit motive, the same can't be said for GBE.  Invenergy only wants to build the project for the purpose of its own profit.
“These wind farms that are not in our state, they are in Kansas, and that power, most of it is going to Boston or Philadelphia, they are going to drop it off to about 30 municipalities in Missouri. I want Farmington to get cheaper power, I want them to be able to take advantage of that, but I see this company dropping off a few municipalities for the purpose of trying to get by in Missouri.”
Just to get by... just to get over... just to take advantage of Missourians for Invenergy's own profit.  If big companies from out-of-state (or even out of the country) can manipulate Missouri law, and its regulators, for corporate profit, where does it end?  How many other companies will see Missouri as a smorgasboard of company riches, where eminent domain is routinely granted for corporate initiatives?  When are the rights of Missourians going to matter as much (or more!) than out-of-state corporate profit?
“My opposition to it, the way they got approval was going to create an environment where eminent domain was going to take on a new level and take away people’s property up in northern Missouri.
"The point was that a private entity was going to benefit from eminent domain more than the general public was. You use eminent domain because it will benefit the community as a whole.”
Eminent domain is a solemn power that should be reserved for only the most necessary situations, not handed out willy-nilly to ensure maximum profit for out-of-state corporations.

Here's the thing... removing eminent domain authority from GBE will not necessarily end the project.  The company could still build its project, however it would have to negotiate with each landowner in a free market without the ability to simply take property when negotiations get too expensive.  Eminent domain allows Invenergy to keep its land acquisition costs low by using the threat of eminent domain taking to force the landowner to sell cheap.  This benefits only Invenergy.  The municipalities have their price locked in.  It won't change if the project costs Invenergy more to build.  Lower land acquisition costs translates into lower project construction costs.  The cheaper GBE is to build, the more profit is in it for Invenergy. 

Unlike those RTO-ordered transmission projects that are paid for by all electric users at the cost of the project, GBE is a merchant transmission project that sells capacity on its project at auction.  GBE will hold the same auction for its service whether its costs to acquire land are small or large.  The prices negotiated will reflect the value of the service to the customer, not the actual cost of the project.  Invenergy's profit margin on this project comes from the difference between its actual costs to build and operate the project and the price negotiated with its customers.  If Invenergy's cost to build is lower because it uses eminent domain, its eventual profit margin will be higher.

Grain Belt Express' use of eminent domain to bolster its own profit must be stopped for the good of Missourians.
0 Comments

Missouri Court Avoids The Obvious

12/19/2019

0 Comments

 
The Missouri Court of Appeals issued its decision the other day in the matter of Missouri Landowners Alliance vs. the Missouri Public Service Commission.  The Court found that the PSC properly approved the Grain Belt Express project.  There were some pretty interesting arguments presented regarding a company's use of eminent domain for private profit, so I was interested in the court's basis for dismissing them.  I was sorely disappointed.

The Court's opinion pretty much skipped over the entire eminent domain issue, choosing instead to devote much of its opinion to other issues, such as evidentiary challenges, where GBE refused to show its challengers "confidential" information the PSC relied on to approve the project, and "need" for the line.  Little was said about eminent domain.  In fact, the words "eminent domain" are nowhere to be found in the Opinion.  Instead, "public utility" gets a scant mention.  The Court recognized that a public utility must be for public use.
Regarding “public utility,” the relevant statutory definitions contain no explicit requirement that an entity be operated for a public use in order for it to constitute a public utility. However, Missouri courts have held that such a “public use” requirement was intended.
Recognizing that, the Court found a "public use" for GBE that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of its HVDC technology and federal negotiated rate authority.  GBE is not a part of our transmission system for public use, it is a completely separate system that serves as a private extension cord for its select customers who pay the most for service.  The Court figured because one of those customers (who got a sweetheart deal below cost in order to provide an appearance of "public use") was a public utility that served all customers equally, that GBE must be offering a public service.  The Court transferred MJMEUC's public utility status to GBE, even though GBE is a private service for select customers only.  This completely fails.  GBE will serve other private customers.  In fact, GBE may never even serve MJMEUC at all because MJMEUC's service depends upon other private customers willing to subsidize the cost of the MJMEUC contract in order to make the project economic.  If there are no other customers willing to cover MJMEUC's costs, the project will fail and be scrapped.  This is the danger of allowing a customer's public utility status to filter up to the service provider.  MJMEUC does not make GBE a public utility.  See how the court did that?
Here, the evidence showed that when the Grain Belt project is constructed and begins operation, it will transmit energy from wind farms in Kansas to wholesale customers in Missouri. In the case of MJMEUC, those customers are Missouri cities and towns that serve as electric providers to approximately 347,000 Missouri citizens. An entity, such as Grain Belt, that constructs and operates a transmission line bringing electrical energy from electrical power generators to public utilities that serve consumers is a necessary and important link in the distribution of electricity and qualifies as a public utility.  Therefore, Grain Belt’s project will serve the public use, and Grain Belt qualifies as a public utility.
We should all be concerned that the Missouri court just set a horrible precedent for the use of eminent domain to benefit private companies and their select customers.

Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst gets it just right:
“We vigorously disagree with the court’s ruling upholding the Public Service Commission’s decision authorizing the use of eminent domain for the Grain Belt Express merchant transmission line. Grain Belt Express is not a public utility. Investors who want to negotiate rates privately and enter into contracts to sell electricity to the highest bidders should not be able to condemn land in order to build their dream project. Contrary to the court’s assertion, the Missouri Supreme Court has not suggested otherwise.”
Courts don't make laws, legislatures do.  Perhaps the law in Missouri needs a bit of an overhaul?  With all the time and effort devoted to opposing GBE at the PSC and in the courts, it can be quite liberating to realize that Missourians have had the power to kill it all along.
Block GBE-Missouri tells us:
One more potential obstacle that GBE faces is at the capitol. Legislation was recently pre-filed in both the Missouri House and Senate on our behalf. The House bill was filed by Representative Hansen and the Senate bill was filed by Senator Brown. We came very close to passage of the bill last session before time ran out. Since this year’s bills have been pre-filed in both houses with continued strong support from the Speaker of the House and other key leaders, we are optimistic the bills will be passed this session which begins at the first of the year. Stay tuned as we may be announcing a rally in Jeff City for the bills sometime this winter or early spring.
This battle is far from over.  The opposition is committed and will not give up.  I've seen this same commitment from transmission line opponents in Maine, who are gathering signatures to place a proposed fly-over transmission line on next year's ballot as a referendum.  That transmission project, the New England Clean Energy Connect, was approved by a captured state utility commission and politically supported by the state's governor.  The state legislature passed legislation last year aimed at the project, but the governor vetoed it.  Undaunted, the opposition has continued its push to give citizens a voice in the decision, no matter how hard corporate and political interests attempt to silence them.  I've seen this same spirit alive in Missouri during the nearly 10 years GBE has been futilely banging its head against the wall.  We can get this done!

GBE is no closer to being built after this court decision.  All the hurdles are still in front of it.  What killed the other Clean Line projects?  Legislation and the courts killed Rock Island Clean Line.  Lack of customers killed the Plains and Eastern Clean Line.  Whatever happens, I am confident that GBE will also fail.  Keep fighting!
0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Is Like Plugging Your Toaster Into An Outlet 800 Miles Away

12/6/2019

1 Comment

 
...because the toaster doesn't work without the cord.
Picture
Who plugs their toaster into an electrical outlet 800 miles away using an extension cord?  And who does that because they need toasted bread that congratulates them for being "green?"  Plug in your toaster in your own kitchen, Invenergy!

Apparently the propaganda hasn't gotten any smarter with the impending change of ownership for the GBE project.  In fact, it appears to have regressed, insulting the intelligence of a public who has been engaged on this project for more than 7 years.  Toaster.  Plug in your toaster 800 miles away using Invenergy's very expensive extension cord.

Michael Skelly tells us that GBE has made no progress in Kansas in his recent status report to the Kansas Corporation Commission.  Michael Skelly?  What's he doing still speaking for the project?  Turns out that Invenergy has not even officially purchased the project yet.  They "expect"  it to happen before the end of the year.  And, if it does, Invenergy stands poised to swoop in on landowners, like a drooling fox hiding next to the hen house.

What a surprise it's going to be when Invenergy gets every door in Kansas and Missouri slammed in its face.  I hope they don't get their fee-fees hurt (okay... yes I do!)

Blah, blah, blah, Invenergy has done nothing with the project except make the scheduled easement payments to the handful of landowners who signed early easements with Clean Line.  It's just treading water.

But, hey, wait a tick... Invenergy has been very busy schmoozing state and county elected officials.
Significant outreach events in Kansas in the third quarter of 2019 included representatives of Invenergy, on behalf of Grain Belt Express, meeting with various state legislators and county officials to discuss the Project; additional, similar meetings are planned for the fourth quarter of 2019. Further, a representative of Invenergy presented at the Kansas Renewable Energy Conference, hosted by the Kansas Department of Commerce, on October 4, 2019 to discuss the Project.
It's also been schmoozing "local business and community leaders."  Who are these people?  They're not landowners.  They have no stake in the project.  It's nothing more than a carrot on a stick to sell out their neighbors for personal profit.  Doesn't look like it was a public meeting... more like an invitation only ham dinner.

Skelly's report to the KCC was filed by his counsel, Cafer Law, formerly Cafer and Pemberton.  Hmm... what happened to Pemberton?  Terri Pemberton seems to have flown the firm.  Wonder where she landed?  At the Kansas Corporation Commission.  Isn't that cozy?
Isn't that where she came from before forming Cafer Pemberton?  Seems she was Litigation Counsel for the KCC back in 2010 as well.  Maybe it's a continuing legal education session before she jumps back into private practice as counsel for the entities she has been regulating?  Just a little value added...

Invenergy is behaving as if Grain Belt Express is just another one of its invasive wind farm projects.  If it schmoozes local governments enough and buys off the right people, sometimes it is successful in building wind farms on voluntarily leased private land.  That's a whole world away from fly-over transmission using eminent domain, especially on communities where opposition is firmly entrenched.  What a lesson Invenergy has coming to them!

Not everything is for sale!

Go away, Invenergy.  Nobody is fooled by this nonsense.
1 Comment
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.