Category:

Landowner Express Steams Into Missouri Capitol

4/17/2019

Hundreds of landowners rallied at the Missouri State Capitol yesterday to support HB 1062, according to this article. Grain Belt Express, meet Landowner Express! Following the rally, the bill was perfected by the House, with an amendment, and passed in a preliminary vote. It will go for a final vote on Thursday before passing to the state Senate.

HB 1062 would prohibit the use of eminent domain by a private entity to construct above-ground HVDC merchant electric transmission lines without substations at least every 50-miles. As amended, a private entity is defined as "a utility company that does not provide service to end-use customers or provide retail service in Missouri, regardless of whether it has received a certificate of convenience and necessity from the public service commission under section 393.170." HB 1062 has been enthusiastically endorsed by landowners and property rights supporters, and yesterday was further demonstration of the popularity of this bill.

The legislation is attracting a lot of attention in the media, with many stories framing it as the death knell for Grain Belt Express. Does this mean that Grain Belt Express does not really want to fairly negotiate easements with landowners in a genuinely free market? The company has been saying that it would negotiate fair prices for new easements, but when the coercion of eminent domain to reach agreements comes off the table, GBE doesn't want to play anymore. It wants to grab its ball and go home. I'm sure no one will miss them.

The proposed legislation helps GBE build a better project, one that does not unjustly enrich itself through the loss of others who receive no benefit from the project. GBE could put its project underground. It is possible. It could also route its project on existing public easements. The only thing the legislation prevents GBE from doing is sacrificing private property for its own financial benefit.

GBE is not a public utility deserving of the state's eminent domain authority to take private property for a public use. It's a privately held company that plans to make a huge profit exporting pretend "clean" energy through Missouri to the highest bidders other states. The less the company spends acquiring land in Missouri, the greater its profits. Pretending to deliver energy to its supporters in Missouri (while simultaneously exporting an equal amount of energy from Missouri) doesn't make it a public utility. There's no need for the project except for the profit motives of its owner. Saying there is a need is purely a political move.

The Missouri PSC's decision to find a "need" for the project was purely political, an attempt to favor certain kinds of energy. The PSC's order was full of political ideals, such as...

There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources. We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”

That's politics. And if the MO PSC, ostensibly an impartial regulator, wants to play politics, the Missouri Legislature can play that game better. In fact, politics is their job. So, for all those whiners who think the legislature is out of line weighing in on this matter, it's a simple matter of just desserts. Tit for tat.

The dominant argument in favor of blocking eminent domain is that the right to private property shouldn’t be infringed upon by a private company.

“This is just another attempt by private companies under a government commission to limit our personal liberties,” bill sponsor Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, said as he introduced his bill.

There were also concerns about how the power line could negatively affect property value and how it could damage farming land. The lawmakers also questioned why an out-of-state company should have this power.

Why, indeed. Is it because it offered below cost service to some Missouri municipalities? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, fellas! Your free lunch causes sacrifice for your neighbors, who receive nothing in return. And they're not going to stand for it.

“We’ve been told that these people will be well-compensated and it’s going to do so much for the economy and so these poor counties — I come from a poor part of the state — and those things matter, but there ends up being more important overarching values,” Rep. Jeff Shawan, R-Poplar Bluff, said.

Because it is a very slippery slope.

It's been quite amusing watching the arguments of the opponents of HB 1062 shift day-to-day. Obviously they're not good arguments if they fall on deaf ears and are subsequently replaced with others. The latest is that the legislation is "an attack on green energy." When are the "dark money" claims going to start? Comparing an electric transmission line to an oil pipeline is a losing game. How many strawmen can they pile on the blaze?

And then there's this comment:

“For an awful long time, we’ve subsidized oil, and we don’t seem to have a problem with that,” Rep. Deb Lavender, D-Kirkwood, said. “So why do we suddenly have a problem with subsidizing wind?”

So, allowing GBE to use eminent domain is "subsidizing wind", is it? And who would be doing the subsidizing? The landowners who lose property, that's who! Thanks for that reason for passing HB 1062!

The siren call of mad calliope music draws attention to the antics of angry, dark money finger pointer James Owen, who popped up to make some ridiculous comments in this article.

James Owen, executive director of Renew Missouri, dismissed the eminent domain legislation as a tactic that will only “add to the litigation that’s been attempting to halt this job-creating project for five years.”

“Ultimately, it won’t stop it for many reasons, but leaders think this frivolous legislation will score points with some noisy constituents,” Owen told The Missouri Times. “So it’s another hurdle to creating jobs and bringing low-cost energy to Missouri. Disappointing, but misguided.”

Frivolous? Ineffective? Dear, dear, James.... similar legislation was passed in Iowa several years ago to protect landowners there from eminent domain takings by a different "Clean" Line project. The law is still on the books, Clean Line is gone, and a better project that doesn't require the use of eminent domain has been proposed. It intends to create jobs and bring low-cost energy without the use of eminent domain! And all the "noisy constituents" in Iowa are pleased and thankful to be released from the threat of Clean Line. And, really, James, who do you think the legislature serves if not for "noisy constituents?" The profit goals of out-of-state corporations? The legislature is elected by and serves its constituents, noisy or otherwise. If, as you say, the legislation does nothing, why are you so angry? Your furious insults are quite unseemly. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar!

Like this:

“We have tremendous outpouring of leadership in the House and the Senate,” Gary Marshall, CEO of the Missouri Corn Growers Association, said. “We just felt it was important to be here to show them how much this legislation means to us.”

Onward, constituents and legislators! You're awesome!

3 Comments

Rally in Missouri Tomorrow!

4/15/2019

0 Comments

A rally to support Missouri HB 1062 will take place at 2:00 tomorrow at the Capitol Rotunda in Jefferson City. I hope everyone who can make the trip will attend. I hear there's even going to be free pie and ice cream for participants who arrive between 12 and 2. Free pie? Sounds like a delicious idea!

HB 1062 would prohibit the use of eminent domain by private entities to build an overhead merchant HVDC electric transmission lines which does not provide for the erection of electric substations at intervals of less than fifty miles. It's just that specific. It won't interfere with AC transmission, buried transmission of any kind, or any other kind of linear infrastructure. The bill has received wide support and sailed through committee hearings. It is supported by Speaker of the House Elijah Haahr, who penned this op ed last week.

That's not to say the bill has no opposition, however it is weak and based on exaggeration and misinformation, such as the exaggerated claims of "tax benefits" from Grain Belt Express. Exaggerated promises of future tax revenues rarely come true. Any revenues realized are usually much less than figures touted during the approval process, and must be balanced against tax revenue losses experienced by the counties. Lowered property values caused by new transmission produce a drop in assessments and property tax collected. In addition, new transmission affects farm yields and profits, lowering taxes paid by local business. This impact also spreads to agricultural support businesses. During construction, the transmission line would produce costs for the counties, such as traffic control, security, and road maintenance/repair. Another thing to consider is the very nature of utility taxes, which are controlled by the state. The state may skim off a portion of the taxes to pay for state programs or to distribute to other counties. The actual amount received by individual counties will be much less, and when lowered taxes and additional costs are factored in, may produce very little revenue for affected counties, or result in a net loss. The arguments against HB 1062 are increasingly facile and shallow.

The supposed "significant" savings on electricity prices could, at most, produce a 3% or 4% savings. How much would that really be on your electric bill, if you take service from one of the municipalities who decided to support Grain Belt Express and throw their rural neighbors under the bus for their own financial benefit? Just a couple bucks... not enough to truly make any difference in a consumer's financial situation.

Granting eminent domain authority to a private entity so that it may take private property cheaply in order to increase its own profits is the start of a very slippery slope. How soon we've forgotten the lessons of Kelo v. City of New London, which sparked national attention on the issue of eminent domain for corporate gain. Show me, Missouri, that you support private property rights by attending tomorrow's rally!

0 Comments

When Nerves Overtake Truth and Logic

4/10/2019

2 Comments

This article says city utilities are "nervous" about new legislation that would prevent the use of eminent domain for above ground HVDC merchant transmission facilities. Apparently their attack of nerves is so severe it has short-circuited their brains. Or maybe they are merely attempting to defeat the legislation with fearmongering. Pretty much none of what it has been reported that these "cities" said on a conference call organized by the Missouri Public Utility Alliance is even remotely likely, and some of it is just plain old not true.

Such as this bit of fearmongering:

“My fear of that is the precedent it would set within the state of Missouri for any future developments,” Klusmeyer said.
Any utility system in the state, whether it’s water, sewer, electric or telecommunications, has the power of eminent domain, Klusmeyer said. The bill could be construed to limit the use of eminent domain for “pretty much any utility in the state,” he said, even though it’s limited to “above-ground merchant lines.”
“That can trickle down into just about any type of utility expansion that’s done, whether it’s through Missouri American, or maybe even Ameren or Associated (Electric Cooperative),” he said. “That’s my fear of what it’s going to do to any type of infrastructure improvement or expansion in the state.”

Your fear is baseless, Dennis. In fact, it's completely manufactured. The legislation is specific to private entities constructing above ground, high voltage direct current, merchant transmission lines. It does not apply to buried merchant transmission lines (and, hey, this is a thing now!), water, sewer, telecommunications, or even any other electric transmission lines proposed by public utilities, such as Ameren. The kind of project affected is specifically named in the legislation, and no in-state public entity will be affected in the least, now or in the future. No utilities in the state are building above ground high voltage direct current (HVDC) merchant transmission lines. The inclusion of HVDC pretty much limits its application to a certain kind of electric transmission line used mainly to transmit electricity long distances without intermediate connections to communities through which it passes. HVDC has to be converted to AC power before it can be connected to the existing grid, and each DC/AC converter station costs hundreds of millions of dollars, making interconnection with this type of project cost prohibitive. This legislation cannot apply to AC electric projects, buried DC electric projects, DC electric projects owned by public entities, DC electric projects owned by anyone that erect substations at least every 50 miles along the route, and any water, sewer or telecommunications project. It says so right in the legislation:

Private entities shall not have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purposes of constructing above-ground merchant lines. For the purposes of this subsection, "merchant line" means a high-voltage direct current electric transmission line which does not provide for the erection of electric substations at intervals of less than fifty miles, which substations are necessary to accommodate both the purchase and sale to persons located in this state of electricity generated or transmitted by the private entity.

Statutes don't "trickle down" to apply to something not mentioned in the statute. The final arbitrator of how a statute is applied is a court, and courts limit their opinion to what a statute actually says. Courts do not add or substitute language or meaning to a statute. There's simply no way this statute could ever apply to water, sewer, telecommunications, or other kinds of electric transmission projects. It appears that Dennis's fearmongering is intended to incite opposition from entities to whom the statute would never apply. Nice try, but I think people are smarter than that, especially utilities like Ameren and Associated.

There was also a lot of bogus information in that article that it's not clear was attributed to Dennis Klusmeyer, but was interspersed with quotes attributed to him, such as:

The bill, introduced by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, would prohibit taking easements by eminent domain to make way for the Grain Belt Express, a planned $2.3 billion transmission line, which Chicago-based Invenergy bought last year. The line would carry electricity from the Iron Star wind farm in southwestern Kansas, across Missouri and Indiana, and into Illinois. The line would cross eight north Missouri counties, including Monroe and Ralls, which are represented by Hansen.

Targeted at the Grain Belt Express, the bill would also apply to similar projects. It bans all private entities from using eminent domain to acquire easements to build “above-ground merchant lines” if less than 12 percent of the power will be consumed by Missouri customers.

The bill wouldn't prohibit eminent domain or prevent a buried HVDC transmission project. If GBE was buried along existing rights of way, it would not be affected.

Chicago-based Invenergy did not buy the project last year. It signed a contingent contract to purchase if certain conditions are met. Invenergy does not yet own the project.

The line is proposed to carry electricity from a proposed converter station in southwestern Kansas, although no specific wind farms have signed on to be customers. Any wind that wants to connect would have to sign a contract to purchase capacity. That hasn't happened yet. In addition, the project has no clear path through Illinois to Indiana, so it is not guaranteed to connect to anything. GBE does not have a permit to construct the project in Illinois. In fact, it has not even applied for one.

There are no other "similar" projects.

And that 12% figure is not in the legislation, but came from legislative public hearings where proponents of the bill mentioned that less than 12% of the electricity planned for this project could possibly be for sale to Missouri utilities. The legislation contains no such threshold.

So, what was the point of spewing misinformation such as this to news reporters on a conference call?

Fearmongering.

And then there's this logic bender:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to regulate transmission, not the state legislature, said Mark Petty director of Kirkwood Electric. Every transmission project can be difficult for landowners to grapple with, which is why they are considered by a commission rather than elected officials who haven’t been reviewing all the facts, he said.

“It’s easy for an entity that objects to want to do an end run, even after all the other facts have been presented and laws been interpreted and reviewed,” he said.

So, let me get this straight, Mark. You believe that FERC considered Grain Belt Express, interpreted and reviewed the laws, and "regulated" it? I'm frightened to think you're the director of anything electric. FERC jurisdiction extends only to the rates of interstate transmission. FERC only regulates transmission RATES, which has nothing to do with Missouri law or HB 1062. States have jurisdiction to site and permit electric transmission projects, in this case the Missouri Public Service Commission. Where does the MO PSC get its authority? From state laws. Who makes state laws? The legislature does. The MO PSC is a creature of statute and must operate within the laws created by the legislature. The MO PSC exists at the will of the legislature. It defies logic to believe that an act of the legislature is an "end run" around a commission that only exists by legislative grace. The commission does what the legislature says, not the other way around. If the legislature is prevented from acting on GBE because it is FERC jurisdictional, then the MO PSC would also be prevented from acting. I'm not sure what FERC has to do with this anyhow, because it has no jurisdiction over state eminent domain laws. Federalism, it's a thing. Look it up, Mark.

Mark also said this:

Since the electricity is still coming to customers through public utilities, customers will have the same low rates and price stability, Petty said. The wind electricity from the Grain Belt Express is also cheaper than the alternatives, and Kirkwood could save up to a third of what it currently pays for electricity, Petty said.

A non-public utility selling service (and we are talking about transmission capacity here, since GBE does not sell power) to a public utility does not make the non-public utility a public utility for eminent domain purposes. A public utility buying service (and electricity from a non-public utility generator) can use any savings realized for any purpose, such as making system improvements, or giving themselves a raise. All "savings" are not guaranteed to show up on consumer electric bills. And if they did, Mark wants you to believe it will cut bills by 1/3. That's a pretty high number, Mark. So, if someone's bill is ordinarily $100, it will only be $67 if GBE uses eminent domain to build its project? Who has been purchasing power for your city, Mark? That person hasn't been doing a very good job. Perhaps Mark was a bit confused about the actual dollar amount of the savings, and this guy tried to pull him out of the fire...

Cities served by the public energy pool will also see savings, but not as large as Kirkwood. Each city would save about 3-4 percent, said John Grotzinger, vice president of engineering operations and power supply at the Missouri Public Utility Alliance. Those savings would be passed on to ratepayers, he said.

Three to four percent. But in Kirkwood it's 33.3%? That's so ridiculous it can't be true. Let's see... 3% of a $100 electric bill is a savings of... $3. That $3 isn't going to change anyone's life. However, using eminent domain to take land for GBE will take farmland out of production and impact yields, which directly translates into increased food costs for everyone. Any "savings" from GBE are minuscule compared to the consequences of using eminent domain to increase the profits of non-public entities such as GBE.

HB 1062 has incredible support. Use of fearmongering and misinformation to prevent its passage is a losing game. Or maybe these city utilities and public energy pool folks really believe their own nonsense and have been taken for a ride by out-of-state investors seeking to increase their own profits on the backs of Missourians? When someone offers you something at below their cost to supply it, there's always a catch. Perhaps this is the real reason cities are nervous? Their golden goose is on the chopping block!

May truth, logic and good sense prevail!

2 Comments

Missouri Legislators Act

4/3/2019

0 Comments

Missouri legislators are working feverishly on legislation that would close a gaping hole in state eminent domain law that allows the taking of private property by private enterprise, for-profit, electric transmission companies that seek to increase their profits by using eminent domain to build cheaper, overhead high voltage direct current transmission across the state in order to export power to eastern states. HB 1062 will add a new section to Section 523.262, RSMo, that prohibits the use of eminent domain for the purposes of constructing above-ground merchant electric transmission lines. The new section reads:

Private entities shall not have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purposes of constructing above-ground merchant lines. For the purposes of this subsection, "merchant line" means a high-voltage direct current electric transmission line which does not provide for the erection of electric substations at intervals of less than fifty miles, which substations are necessary to accommodate both the purchase and sale to persons located in this state of electricity generated or transmitted by the private entity.

Missouri landowners enthusiastically support this legislation. Why should a private business proposal be given legal authority to impact existing businesses against their will in order to increase its own profits? The construction of overhead transmission lines across existing agricultural businesses causes loss that cannot be adequately compensated with one-time land value payments, and provides no benefit to the existing businesses.

Marilyn O’Bannon of Monroe County says she will lose farmland and room to till:

“When do you give the right to somebody to take their business across your business. I’m going, as a landowner, to give up a lot of income. I’m not talking a few dollars here, a lot of income to allow something to come across my property that I will get no value from.”

Although the legislation has some opponents, opposition is coming from those who stand to profit from just such a proposal, the Grain Belt Express (GBE) merchant transmission project. The right to own and use land should be sacred, not subject to the whims of out-of-state investors or electric customers who want to save a few cents on their electric bills. In order to realize their profits, these entities propose taking from the profits of others. And it's not as if there is no other way to route GBE across the state. High-voltage direct current merchant transmission projects buried along existing rail and road rights-of-way are now technologically possible and have been proposed in other states. However, they cost more. A higher cost to construct the for-profit transmission line eats away at GBE's profit, essentially putting a landowner's property loss directly in the pockets of Chicago-based Invenergy, who proposes to buy GBE if the sale can be approved by Missouri and Kansas. Why should struggling farmers be saddled with additional loss that turns into additional profit for a private company?

There must be a lot of money at stake to get Invenergy and its lobbyists to Jefferson City, along with a host of others who all stand to make money from killing this legislation. And isn't it funny that a whole pack of new lies have surfaced? If that's the way these opponents of the legislation make their case, they're on the express train to Loserville. Lies? Certainly. I'm talking about this:

The Public Service Commission ruled that the landowners would have to be compensated for use of the land and caps the amount of agricultural land used for each tower.

There is no "cap" on the amount of agricultural land used for each tower. I've read the PSC Order thoroughly and no such "cap" exists. As written, GBE can use and control the entirety of its 200-foot wide approved right of way across the state. The origin of this lie seems to come from perhaps the most bogus statement in the PSC's Order: that only 9 acres of agricultural land will be used for the entire 200 mile route across the state. This presumption is flawed and based on a straight up math equation that doesn't translate into real life. Some genius calculated the actual footprint base of each transmission tower into a total acreage number. This "9 acres" includes only the footprint of each tower, as if a farmer could work right up against the base of the tower using huge pieces of farm equipment, and as if there would be no other agricultural impacts from the disturbance of a 200-foot wide, 200-mile long, linear strip of land. The truth of the matter is that the entire right-of-way will be disturbed during construction, along with miles and miles of new access roads across productive agricultural land. Chances of top soil being replaced perfectly and other damage to the land not affecting future operations are slim to none. Moreover, there is no legal significance to the 9-acre lie. It is not a cap, not a limit. It's nothing more than weasel words from someone trying to minimize the actual impacts. It's going to be a lot more than 9 acres.

And then there's this:

But the Public Service Commission on this past March voted unanimously to give Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC a “certificate of need and necessity.” Former Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon argued on behalf of the company.

Not before the PSC, he didn't. GBE only used Nixon to grease their way through the Missouri Supreme Court. But, really, what difference does it make who the company's lawyer was? Are they trying to insinuate this is nothing but a political battle? Well, in that case, I guess the fight is on -- elected legislators with enormous power against former governor with no actual political power. Who should win?

Here's another:

The proposed line promises to deliver 3,500 megawatts of renewable energy from western Kansas to southeastern Missouri and into Illinois, and Indiana where it would connect to a grid that supplies energy to heavily populated northeastern states.

Reality check. The energy on the line could come from anywhere. There's plenty of wind in the Midwest, including new owner Invenergy's stranded "Wind Catcher" project in the Oklahoma panhandle. Won't Kansas look surprised if it permits (and abates property taxes for) a transmission line that moves wind from Oklahoma through Kansas for benefit of other states? If that happens, Kansas gets nothing from this project. And there are no promises about where this power would be "delivered" either. GBE has no permit to cross Illinois, and without that there is no connection to eastern states. Invenergy could sell capacity to anyone, who could then sell the power to other states... maybe Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma? It could go any number of places if it doesn't go through Illinois.

Here's another misconception:

Peggy Whipple, who argued on behalf of Clean Line before the Missouri Supreme Court and the PSC, says the commission decision legally deems the company to be a public utility, answerable to local regulators.
“We have legal control over this company that will develop this line for everything that we could hope to have it for, other than rates only.” Rates would come from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and must be just and reasonable, she says.”

Peggy, Peggy, Peggy, this is why we have courts. Just because the PSC deemed the company a "public utility" does not mean it is. That question is one that will be answered by a court. The PSC's decision will be appealed. As an attorney, you should know this well. However, it looks like your working knowledge of FERC might be lacking. Just and reasonable rates, FERC-style, includes strict rules against self-dealing and market power. What do you suppose would happen, Peggy, if FERC revoked GBE's Negotiated Rate Authority? Who would pay for GBE then? And how would that affect its public utility status? And, just one more thing... who is "we," Peggy? "We have legal control..."? You represent the regulated, not the regulator. How much regulatory capture is going on at the MO PSC anyhow?

And this guy:

Small cities and their utilities spoke against the bill, saying they need the new power lines. Carroll County Commissioner Bill Boelsen:
“My previous job before I took on this job was high-voltage electricity. I traveled the entire United States working on substation transformers. This country’s infrastructure is crap anymore. It’s 70, 80 years old at least.”

My, my, my, it's a wonder the lights stay on at all, isn't it? Fact: We have reliability mandates and laws that keep the electric grid reliable. New additions and improvements to the system happen all the time under the supervision of regional planning organizations. None of these organizations have found GBE to be a necessary addition for reliability, or any other purpose. Exaggeration and fear mongering like this isn't helpful. People are smarter than that. The electric grid is not "crap." Your exaggeration, though, is crap.

Another crappy opinion shot down:

Stephen Franke, a businessman from Hannibal says they’ve been promised energy a third cheaper than the open market.
“Two cents a kilowatt-hour an entire third cheaper for a community with 20 percent poverty rate. That’s substantial. In addition, a 25-year contract, we’re locked in which means we can do capital planning, we can do reserve planning. We’re not exposed to the risk of an open and volatile market.”

So, we're robbing from the rich (farmers) to give to the poor (communities with 20% poverty rate). Robin Hood you're not. The PSC Order revealed that municipalities who may "save" with possible price benefits may not even pass this "savings" on to customers. The municipalities may use this "savings" to improve their systems, or give pay raises to their executives. There's no guarantee that any "savings" will find its way to customers. And, really, with the "savings" numbers being bandied about applied to millions of customers, the actual maximum monthly "savings" parceled out to any one of these people living below the poverty level wouldn't amount to the price of a cup of coffee. It's not going to raise these unfortunate souls above the poverty level. Your glittering generality is absurd when logic is applied.

Support for HB 1062 by Missourians will be crucial. Let your legislators know that you support this bill today! And be on the lookout to lend your support to upcoming grassroots lobbying efforts at the legislature! Allowing private enterprise to condemn and take private property to increase its profits affects everyone in the state. Next time, it could be you. Let's close this gap now and require for-profit electric transmission to pay its own freight to get across the state without burdening agricultural businesses!

0 Comments

Ye Canna Change The Laws Of Physics, MO PSC!

3/29/2019

1 Comment

What would you rather write about on a dreary Friday afternoon? FERC's transmission incentives or the MO PSC Grain Belt Express Order? Choices, choices. Need coffee.

The MO PSC Order was bad. Not so much in the decision they made, but in the way they tried to get there. They could have just said "we like wind energy for political reasons" or "we approve this project because the company offered to sell service to Missouri municipalities at rates so low the project wouldn't be economic if those same rates were offered to all customers." So much subjective reasoning, when objectivity was called for. Therefore, here's a summary of the dumbest things written in the order.

The Missouri converter station will have bi-directional functionality, allowing Missouri utilities an additional means to earn revenue from off-system sales of up to 500 MW of excess power into the PJM energy markets.

This is one of the great lies about the environmental "benefits" for Missouri. Presuming the power on the line when it gets to Missouri is "clean," 500 MW is offloaded for Missouri's use, then 500 MW of "dirty" coal power produced in Missouri is going to be loaded onto the line for the ultimate destination of PJM. C'mon, I think P.T. Barnum had better lines! This is virtual hogwash. The same 500 MW of power that was fed into the line in Kansas (or wherever this thing terminates on the west end) will be offloaded in PJM, on the east end. The only thing that happens in Missouri is that customers make payments. The old dirty coal power will still be used in Missouri. You can't segregate dirty and clean electrons on the grid. Electricity is source neutral. So how stupid would it be to divert 500 MW off the line and then divert 500 MW onto the line, when it's all the same 500 MW? And if we want to talk about "environmental benefits" in Missouri, cranking up the coal plants to produce an additional 500 MW of excess power for sale to PJM only increases emissions in Missouri. Sorry, GBE is going to do nothing to clear the air in Missouri.

The HVDC technology of the Project is the most cost-effective and efficient way to move large amounts of electric power over long distances and can transfer significantly more power with lower line losses over longer distances than comparable AV lines.

What's an AV line? And, btw, what's efficient or cost-effective about moving large amounts of power over long distances? The cheapest, most reliable system is the one where source and sink are close. See Scotty above.

The Project is a participant-funded, “shipper pays” transmission line. Grain Belt would recover its capital costs by entering into voluntary, market-driven contracts with entities that want to become transmission customers of the Project.

Under FERC requirements, Grain Belt must broadly solicit interest in the Project, the rates negotiated must be just and reasonable and without undue discrimination or preference, and the service must not impair regional reliability and operational efficiency.
FERC has specifically found Grain Belt’s process to select customers and allocate capacity to be “not unduly discriminatory”.

But that was before Grain Belt Express was purchased by a generation owner. What approved procedures are in place to prevent self dealing by Invenergy, where it "negotiates" with itself to pay a price much lower than it negotiates with other customers? Exactly none. Trouble ahead...

The easement agreement limits the landowner’s legal rights and use of the easement property, including prohibiting any landowner activity that would interfere with Grain Belt’s use of the easement.

And this is one of the facts supporting approval in the public interest?

In 2021, MoPEP’s contract with Illinois Power Marketing Company providing 100 MW of coal energy and capacity to MoPEP will expire. MJMEUC’s agreements with Grain Belt and Iron Star would help MoPEP to replace the energy from Illinois Power Marketing Company with more affordable renewable energy.

Oh, so now in addition to changing the laws of physics, we're also instituting a time warp. There's absolutely NO WAY GBE will be operational in 2021. So I guess MoPEP is going to turn off the lights in 2021 and not turn them back on until GBE is in service? Time to open a candle store, Missouri entrepreneurs!

The annual cost savings to MJMEUC member cities that participate in the Project will be dollar for dollar and will likely be passed through to their residential and industrial customers in the form of rate relief or invested in deferred maintenance to their electrical distribution systems.

Likely? So you mean that MJMEUC members could actually use the "savings" for other things and the actual "public" customers may not see a dime of savings?

Grain Belt has a transmission service agreement with an Illinois load-serving entity called Realgy, which has agreed to buy 25 MW of transmission service for delivery to Missouri and 25 MW to PJM.

See what I mean? The only thing Realgy is going to do is collect cash from the price differential between Kansas and PJM. At least they're not pretending to offload "clean" power and upload "dirty" power. This is all just one huge money making scheme.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has established aggressive and significant renewable energy goals, including: (1) to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, and (2) by 2025, to be supplied by 50 percent renewable energy. Additionally, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has set a science-based target to reduce emissions in its operations by 18 percent by 2025 through the deployment of energy efficiency and consumption of renewable energy.

What? (1) and (2) are conflicting goals. Is it 100% or is it 50% by 2025? Just stop shopping here. This store is part of the problem.

Grain Belt currently has no employees.

Grain Belt has cash on hand, but not enough to complete either the development phase or construction of the Project.

Invenergy is not obligated to close on the Purchase Agreement unless (1) this Commission has approved the transaction proposed in the Purchase Agreement and has granted Grain Belt a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Project, and (2) the Kansas Corporation Commission has granted at least a 5 year extension of its certificate to Grain Belt and approved the change in ownership in the Purchase Agreement.

And this is the reason for granting a permit to Grain Belt Express? Is this permit void if Kansas doesn't approve an extension? I don't see that anywhere.

An interregional transmission line allows for low cost energy to be imported from a region with an excess of generation resources to a region with higher demand. The Grain Belt Project provides this benefit by moving wind power from Kansas (where there is an abundance of wind) into Missouri, MISO, and PJM, which will increase the supply of low- cost power in those markets.

Power prices in PJM are generally $10.00/MWh higher than prices that would be paid for the 500 MW of energy sold over the Project into the MISO market in Missouri. There is a very strong corporate demand for renewable energy in PJM, which contributes to Grain Belt being able to charge higher prices for that energy in PJM.

Where's the "demand" in PJM? Grain Belt Express has no customers in PJM!

The wind industry will not need the federal production tax credit after 2023 because of continuing technology improvements.

Well, this is my personal favorite, bogus, unsupported statement in the whole Order. It's footnoted to stuff Skelly said at hearing, which was nothing but his opinion and a whole bunch of malarkey. Since when does Michael Skelly speak for the entire wind industry? He hasn't worked in the wind industry in more than a decade. And, obviously, his incorrect assumptions about the wind industry cost his investors $197M over the past decade. Whoopsie! The wind industry feeds off tax credits. My opinion (just as good as Skelly's btw) is that once the tax credits sunset, the wind industry will blow out of town so fast it's going to make everyone's head spin. When there's not a pot of taxpayer-financed gold to be had, the wind industry will no longer be interested in building wind.

The generation of electricity from wind energy results in no emissions, in contrast to traditional fossil fuel-fired generation. Grain Belt’s Project will provide an additional option for utilities to reduce their emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide), hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury), and carbon dioxide by purchasing cleaner renewable power for delivery on the transmission line in lieu of using existing or constructing new fossil fuel-fired generation assets.

The renewable energy delivered by the Project will reduce emissions in the Eastern Interconnection by displacing thermal generation, which emits sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide, and will decrease water usage, all to the benefit Missouri’s environmental and public health.

Except when they fire up the coal plants to generate off system sales to PJM. In fact, they may do more of that than using "clean" power from Kansas, since coal plants run when called and wind power runs when it wants to. This is garbage.

The Project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.

How so? Did MISO order it for reliability purposes? No? Well then what use is additional "reliability" to a system that is already reliable? And, really, how much reliability can be had from a transmission line that can only deliver 500 MW (while simultaneously exporting 500 MW from the same substation)? HVDC is not compatible with AC, so there's only one possible interconnection. Garbage, again.

Approximately $14.97 million in easement payments will be made in the first year of Project operation.

So, wait, you're telling me that easement payments to landowners won't occur until the first year of operation? How many years could GBE be using people's land for free during construction before making any payments? What if construction never gets completed, but land has been taken? Does the landowner never get paid for what is taken from him?

Grain Belt developed the Missouri Landowner Protocol as part of its approach to right-of-way acquisition for the Project.

That's right! The fox designed the security system for the hen house. What protection is that to the chickens?

Grain Belt’s compensation package is superior to that of most utility companies.

I don't seem to remember any evidence of other utility company compensation packages being in the record. What is this based on? Someone's opinion again?

If Grain Belt obtains an easement from a landowner, the property will still belong to the landowner and can be utilized for activities such as farming, recreation, and other activities that do not interfere with the operation of the transmission line. After construction of the facilities, the landowner will retain the ability to continue agricultural production on the entirety of the easement area except for the relatively small footprint of the structures, which typically occupy less than 1% of the total easement area.

Except for that mega tower in the middle of the field that the farmer has to continually work around for eternity. And except for anything Grain Belt says he can't do. Seems more like Grain Belt would be in control of the ENTIRE easement, although the landowner would still pay taxes on it.

If Grain Belt and a landowner have reached agreement on the form of easement but are unable to reach agreement on the appropriate compensation, then at the landowner’s request, Grain Belt will submit the issue of landowner compensation to binding arbitration under Missouri law. The option of binding arbitration typically costs less, has more simplified procedures, and results in a final decision more quickly than circuit court litigation.

Quicker and costs less, you say? Who would benefit from this? Not the landowner. Who pays for eminent domain suits? Not the landowner.

Out of the 206 miles that the Project will traverse in Missouri, no more than nine acres of land would be taken out of agricultural production as a result of the structures installed for the Project in cultivated lands.

Who did your math here? Certainly not a farmer. I'd bet your math included merely the footprint of the towers, as if farming could occur right up to the structure without any safety margin. This is just absurd.

Grain Belt has created the Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocol, which establishes standards and policies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any negative agricultural impacts that may result due to transmission line and converter facilities construction and operation.

Again, fox designing the security system for the hen house. What does Grain Belt know about agriculture? Does it fit in a thimble?

Grain Belt witness Richard J. Roddewig testified credibly that based on published research and Mr. Roddewig’s own research, transmission lines do not have a significant adverse impact on farmland prices and values.

The scientific weight of evidence does not support the conclusion that electric and magnetic fields cause any long-term adverse health effects, and the levels of electric and magnetic fields associated with the Project do not pose any known risk to human health.

And the scientific weight of evidence doesn't rule it out, either. Both of these statements are industry propaganda. Nobody in their right mind believes this.

Missouri courts have stated that for a company to qualify as a public utility, the company must be devoted to a public use for the general public. The evidence showed that when the 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. The hallmark of a public utility is the offering of utility service to the public without discrimination. Grain Belt will offer indiscriminate transmission service through an open access transmission tariff that will be filed and subject to the jurisdiction of FERC. While the Commission only has authority over facilities that are devoted to public use, an entity 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. The Commission concludes that Grain Belt’s Project will serve the public use, and Grain Belt qualifies as a public utility.

Well, would you look at that? The PSC has created new precedent! If a private utility sells its product to a public entity, that automatically makes them a public utility? I don't think so. I don't think that is part of any existing precedent, so the PSC has nicely set this up for appeal like a set of bowling pins. Great job!

I've long been of the opinion that regulatory decisions are not the product of careful evaluation of competing facts that lead to a conclusion. Instead, it happens backwards, with the conclusion shaped by political factors, and then supported by a sifting of the evidence to find only the facts that support the previously reached conclusion. This decision by the MO PSC is a prime example of this kind of political regulation. How very disappointing.

1 Comment

Kansas Wants Invenergy To Put Up Or Shut Up

3/27/2019

6 Comments

That's the nice idiom. There's also another appropriate here... use whichever floats your boat!

Yesterday was the deadline for the staff of the Kansas Corporation Commission to file their report and recommendation in the acquisition proceeding to transfer GBE to Invenergy. While a lot of it was unsurprising dreck, there were a few gems in there, along with a few new recommended conditions.

First, a revelation:

Of the 1163 affected land tracts, GBE has made 582 written easement offers to Kansas
landowners but only secured signatures from 129. Because of the regulatory uncertainty
in other states, GBE stopped pursuing easement agreements in 2015 and eventually
released 122 of the signed agreements rather than pay the final balance due on the
easement agreements.

As noted earlier in my testimony, GBE has acquired easements from only seven of the
affected tracts of land. At one time it had 129 signed agreements but stopped actively
pursuing easements in 2015 and eventually released 122 of the easements.

Seven. 7. Lucky number 7. That's how many easements GBE owns in the entire state of Kansas. Only 1,156 to go!

And why is this important?

What impact has the delay in acquiring easements had on the affected Kansas
landowners?

Because of the approved routing, I assume the landowners are aware the transmission line
will cross their property. But they have no indication of when or if it will occur, and they
have not been compensated for the easement across their property.

Would you expect the approved route to affect land values of the landowners?

In my opinion, the impact on land values is unknown. However, I believe knowledge of
the pending transmission line easement would need to be revealed in any land sales
transactions, which may affect a potential buyer's decision to purchase.

Has GBE kept in contact with the landowners to keep them apprised of it plans regarding the GBE Project?

As per the conditions in the 13-803 Docket, GBE is required to file quarterly updates with the Commission on it progress. However, all of those updates are filed confidentially with Staff and not available to the public or interveners in the 13-803 Docket. In the past, GBE has sent newsletters to those that have requested to be on a list to receive updates. However, GBE... *** Whoopsie! Confidential Information ***

GBE what? Went belly up? Was consumed by its own hubris? Not sure why this is confidential... anyhow...

The only benefit that can be attributed to the landowners affected by the approved route
of the GBE Project would be the certainty of the line's impact on their property and
compensation for the line easements. In this case, certainty can be provided by the sunset
provision dismissing the approved route, or by GBE or its successor completing the purchase of the necessary easements through Kansas.

So the staff recommended this condition to approval of the acquisition:

If the Commission approves the acquisition and agrees to extend the sunset provision in the 13-803 Docket, I recommend the Commission require Invenergy to make
preliminary payments or acquire the easements necessary to construct the Kansas portion of the GBE project regardless of its success in resolving its regulatory issues in the other affected states.

Invenergy shall make preliminary easement payments to all Kansas landowners affected
by the line siting within 12 months of a decision to extend the line siting sunset provision found in Docket 13-GBEE-803-MIS (13-803). If the sunset extension is not approved and Invenergy requests approval of a new line siting route, Staff recommends the Commission require Invenergy to make preliminary easement payments within 12 months of gaining approval for a new line siting.

Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud... new line siting route? Where did this come from? Why would staff bring that up and include it as a condition for approval? If we're just talking about possibilities here, why not include one about a meteor falling from the sky and crushing Invenergy's Chicago headquarters, what would Invenergy have to pay Kansas landowners in that instance? So... a re-route is a remarkable possibility. In fact, it looks like it may be a distinct possibility.

And now that we're over the Freudian portion of my comment... Invenergy is going to have to shell out a lot of money within one year of approval. If it later decides not to go forward with the project, it's not getting any of its money back. And only one year to acquire 1,156 easements and make initial payments... while the uncertainty of approvals in other states still hangs in the balance. This is impossible.

Put up or shut up, Invenergy.

This staff person also recommends, "When the GBE Project and/or AC Collector System become operational, Invenergy will maintain sufficient personnel in the region of the facilities such that it can provide adequate emergency response to any portion of its Kansas operations within one hour of being notified of an emergency."

Looks like there's going to be lots of little Invenergy offices across Kansas, with a skeleton staff sitting around waiting for an emergency to occur. Well, at least that will guarantee a handful of permanent jobs.

However, this is only a staff person's recommendation. What the Commissioners will eventually do is anyone's guess.

My guess is that Invenergy is screaming and having a big ol' tantrum today.

Too bad Missouri doesn't care for its landowners this way. How bad do you have to be for Kansas to look good? At least someone seems to be looking out here...

6 Comments

"It is a tale told by an idiot..."

3/22/2019

0 Comments

Building into this week's Grain Belt Express fantasy are the off-base comments of potential new owner Invenergy. The company was slow getting off the blocks, even though it probably had the inside skinny on the pending approval. In the wake of the decision, there was a resounding silence from Invenergy, which created a media void that others stepped right into. This shaped a news stream laced with healthy amounts of skepticism. It just didn't work out that the PSC's press release adequately filled the void of silence from Invenergy.

When pressed for comment, Invenergy responded with a bunch of glittering generalities and inconsequential trifle, like this:

“Invenergy is grateful for the thoughtful and thorough consideration given to the Grain Belt Express transmission project by the Missouri Public Service Commission and we are pleased with the Order granting Grain Belt Express a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity,” Conley said Thursday.

Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley praised the PSC’s action and said Invenergy put the project on solid financial ground.

“The order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for Missouri,” Conley said. “Invenergy looks forward to the next step in the regulatory process before the PSC and to bringing low-cost power, quality jobs and new tax revenue to Missouri.”

“The Grain Belt Express is important because it is a transformative infrastructure project that will provide access to more low-cost renewable power to American consumers and communities,” Conley said.

“Today’s order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for the state, and a good project is made stronger by Invenergy’s participation and we’re excited for what this means,” Conley said.

"The Order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for Missouri. The Grain Belt Express project is made stronger through Invenergy’s participation because of our strong record of project execution, strong financial position, community partnerships, and landowner relationships," company spokeswoman Beth Conley said in a statement.

As Shakespeare's Macbeth said, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

But what about Illinios, Invenergy? You're not doing anything in Missouri without an approved route in Illinois, right? I mean, what would be the point of building the project in Missouri if there wasn't a clear, connecting path through Illinois that enabled Invenergy to reach the PJM Pot 'O Gold?

The company is now focused on the separate regulatory matter of having its acquisition of the project approved in Missouri and Kansas, said Beth Conley, an Invenergy spokesperson.

Though Missouri had long been the only holdout among the four states on the project’s path, another hurdle arose last year in Illinois, which rescinded its approval on the technicality that Clean Line did not have a physical presence in the state and therefore could not qualify as a utility. Conley said there was still “no existing regulatory approval in Illinois” and “nothing pending,” as well.

Grain Belt Express also no longer has the OK to be built in Illinois after a state appeals court last year reversed the approval of the Illinois Commerce Commission. Conley said Thursday that “there is no pending regulatory case for the project in Illinois.”

Clean Line had been working on the proposed direct-current power line since 2010 and had said last year that it still hoped to bring the project online by 2023 or 2024.

Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley said that timeline has not been changed by the proposed sale of the project. The power line would be the largest transmission project undertaken by Invenergy.

2023? Isn't that a little optimistic for a company that still needs regulatory approval in Illinois? It took Clean Line's Rock Island project several years to get through permitting in Illinois, only to have its permit snatched away by the courts a couple years later. And that's not counting the appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which added another couple years. So we're talking 6 years, just for clear regulatory approval in Illinois, if things go swell (which they won't). Even if Invenergy filed an application in Illinois today, it would be 2025 before it could possibly work its way through the Illinois system. How long would the project take to build, once it had approvals? 2 to 3 years. We're getting a lot closer to 2030 than we are to 2023. Beth's timeline isn't realistic, nor even logical. It sounds more like a costume for a farce, a scene in an improbable drama. But it really tells the public nothing about what's about to happen next.

Instead, Invenergy wants the media to focus on other fairy tales, such as this:

Invenergy has experience building similar projects globally, and spokesperson Beth Conley said that background will help navigate challenges with residents.

“Invenergy has built more than 140 sustainable-energy projects around the world, and we’ve done that by really executing on our reputation as being a company that is committed to the communities that host our projects,” Conley said.

Conley, the Invenergy spokeswoman, said the company has established good relationships with landowners and community leaders in building its more than 146 worldwide projects and the company will bring “that same level of dedication” to stakeholders in the Grain Belt project.

Similar projects? What's "similar" to a 780-mile merchant transmission line with eminent domain authority? Not the short, private generation tie lines Invenergy builds through voluntary agreements with landowners. Not gigantic wind farms and other generation plants that lease land from willing landowners. Invenergy has ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE building and operating a merchant transmission line of this magnitude with negotiated rate authority using eminent domain.

Invenergy has no background using eminent domain to acquire land. Negotiating voluntary agreements with absentee landowners who like the large cash royalties that come with wind leases is about as far as you can get from negotiating a transmission line easement under threat of eminent domain with a hostile landowner who sees no value in low, one-time payments or cheesy yearly pittance payments for a perpetually burdensome easement. I'm afraid Invenergy's "experience" is of little use in this situation and could actually become detrimental if they become inebriated at the fountain of power fueled by eminent domain authority.

And as far as those landowner relationships Conley brags about? I think there's more to be revealed by the way Invenergy is hated by numerous communities it has invaded.

Such as Rhode Island.

Wisconsin.

Minnesota.

Oklahoma.

Colorado.

Kansas.

Indiana.

New York.

Oklahoma, again.

California.

Pennsylvania.

South Dakota.

Iowa.

Need I go on? In state after state, citizens oppose Invenergy projects planned for their communities. The stories are chock full of accusations of public official bribery, lawsuits against local government, detrimental health effects, property devaluation, and pitting neighbor against neighbor which causes community upheaval.

The real story is told by what is not said by Invenergy spokespersons. I've got my

on you, Invenergy.

0 Comments

Debate About Grain Belt Express Is Alive and Well

3/21/2019

2 Comments

The Missouri PSC issued an order granting a CCN to Grain Belt Express yesterday. What does that mean for the viability of the project? In the grand scheme of things... not much. Grain Belt Express, as presented to the MO PSC as a 780-mile transmission line from southwestern Kansas to Indiana, is still never going to happen, IMO. The reasons are myriad, and hopefully I'll get to most of them over time. More garbage has been generated than fits in one trash truck, ya know.

Let's start here. Permitting whack-a-mole. This is an old one, but still very much appropriate. Grain Belt Express just can't whack all the moles and win this game. The biggest, baddest mole standing in its currently proposed way is Illinois. Based on prior court decisions in that state, GBE just can't be permitted. Pretending it can is unrealistic. Is GBE lying to us, or is it lying to itself?

And then there's the ridiculous garbage the PSC generated yesterday. We'll get to the actual Order later. First, let's look at the press release the PSC issued.

The PSC is a regulator, not a politician, not a public relations agency. It's supposed to deal in facts. Its decisions are legal opinions. It should not have to "sell" them to the public.

Mission Statement
We will:
ensure that Missourians receive safe and reliable utility services at just, reasonable and affordable rates;
support economic development through either traditional rate of return regulation or competition, as required by law;
establish standards so that competition will maintain or improve the quality of services provided to Missourians;
provide the public the information they need to make educated utility choices;
provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally.

You failed, MO PSC. Any respect I used to have for the MO PSC is now gone. No, it's not that they issued a decision I don't agree with. That happens a lot from all kinds of regulators. It's the way they went about it. Even a regulatory decision you don't agree with contains facts and logic, sometimes a bit of opinion, but there's usually a sufficient amount of legal reasoning that forms a platform upon which the decision was made. You may not agree with the decision, but you can clearly see how it was created. The MO PSC's decision happened inside a black box. And it reeks of politics.

First thing to come out of the box is the press release.

The Commission granted a CCN to Grain Belt determining: 1) there is a need for the service; 2) Grain Belt is qualified to provide the proposed service; 3) Grain Belt has the financial ability to provide the proposed service; 4) Grain Belt’s proposal is economically feasible; and 5) the service promotes the public interest.

The Commission says it issued a CCN to Grain Belt, but it really issued one to Invenergy. Invenergy has the financial ability and is qualified to provide the service -- Grain Belt has no employees and no money. Neither Grain Belt nor Invenergy has a proposal that is economically feasible. There's only 2 customers, one of which was documented to be paying below cost rates. These customers cannot financially support the proposal. There are no other customers. Potential customers don't pay the bills. Supplying below cost service to one customer is Missouri does not promote the interests of the entire public.

The Commission stated the evidence in the case demonstrated that the Grain Belt project will create both short-term and long-term benefits to ratepayers and citizens of the state. In addition, the project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.

Benefits to citizens? Where? What citizens? What benefits? This statement is created out of thin air. As far as "reliability" goes... a transmission line contracted to serve only select customers with unreliable wind power is not "reliable." Wind cannot be called to produce when needed. It's not an open access transmission line that will serve all customers equally, and Missouri may only receive 500 MW, although contracted amounts are much, much less. This is not a "reliability" transmission asset. It's a private driveway for select customers to receive special, supplemental wind power so they can pretend to be clean and green and all sorts of peripheral things. As if electrons can be segregated by color.

There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources,” said the Commission. “We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”

Whaddya mean there can be no debate? Of course there's debate. There's a HUGE debate going on in this country and around the globe. Wind energy is not the solution to our energy woes. It's just a gluttonous industry that has been greenwashing America for years, and stuffing its pockets with our tax dollars. It's not affordable, it's not sustainable. It's not safe for the people who have to live around its generation plants. And it's certainly not reliable. Wind is not a baseload source of power. It cannot be controlled to ramp up and down to meet need. Wind does what it wants, and those who depend upon it for a source of electricity are the ones whose electric use ramps up and down to follow the wind. Who wrote this garbage? Was it the wind industry?

The Commission noted that any negative impacts of the project on the land and landowners will be mitigated by: 1) a landowner protocol to protect landowners; 2) superior compensation payments; 3) a binding arbitration option for easement negotiations; 4) a decommissioning fund-a fund for this type of project would be the first of its kind in the country; and 5) an agricultural impact mitigation protocol to avoid or minimize negative agricultural impacts. Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of project structures, and the proposed route does not directly impact the operation of any existing center pivot irrigation systems.

“Many of the landowners’ concerns will be addressed through carefully considered conditions placed on the CCN,” said the Commission.

Landowner concerns have NOT been addressed. Landowners are still extremely concerned. The PSC's conditions did nothing to ameliorate them. The "landowner protocol" and "agricultural impact mitigation protocol" were created by Grain Belt, not the landowners, therefore landowners concerns are not addressed. These documents address only the company's concerns. Landowners were not consulted in the creation of these documents. It's nothing more than the fox designing a security system for the hen house. It's worthless and does nothing to satisfy landowners. The decommissioning fund is also so much nonsense. It has no substance, no rules, and is completely unworkable. It's just more glittering make believe.

Superior compensation payments? Superior to what? Receiving nothing? Since the PSC's land is not subject to eminent domain, and the PSC has never been subject to condemnation and eminent domain taking, it's opinion that the compensation payments are "superior" is just so much hubris. In fact, it's completely insulting to landowners. It's disrespectful.

And speaking of disrespectful, here's the pinnacle of propaganda: only 9 acres of land will be taken out of agricultural production. Just 9 acres! Across 206 miles of 200-foot wide linear right of way. The PSC has deemed every square inch of the proposed right of way to be agriculturally workable right up to the base of the tower. I guess none of these folks have ever tried to drive a huge piece of farm equipment right up to a transmission line pole. And they've never had to fly around a transmission pole to apply pesticide or fertilizer. And they've never had to try to grow something along a strip of land that no longer has top soil. And they're certainly not going to accept liability for any farmer who tries to farm right up to the base of the transmission tower and has an accident. This is absolutely absurd. And, ya know, it's something Hans Detweiler used to tell farmers in Illinois... that only 12 acres of land would be taken out of use for the entire Rock Island Clean Line project.

Gotta wonder, who wrote that stunningly bad press release? I hope that person's food and farm goods will be supplied solely by that compromised 9 acres in the future.

We're only getting warmed up here... more to come...

2 Comments

Landowners Vow To Appeal Grain Belt Express Decision

3/20/2019

0 Comments

Two landowner groups in the bull’s-eye of the recently approved Grain Belt Express (GBE) high voltage electric transmission line say their fight will continue. The Missouri Landowners Alliance (MLA) and Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance (EMLA), whose membership encompasses the entirety of GBE’s 200-mile route across Missouri, have decided to appeal the decision of the Public Service Commission to the Missouri Court of Appeals. The groups say that GBE is not a public utility under Missouri law, and as such does not possess the solemn power of eminent domain to take land for its line.

"A public utility has the obligation to serve everyone within its service territory, and to charge the same rate to all similarly situated customers. On the other hand, as a non-public utility, Grain Belt has the right to negotiate the best deal it can get with individual utility and other customers, and to negotiate with those who are most likely to pay it the highest price and different prices for the same service. This is discriminatory and does not meet public utility requirements under Missouri law,” said Phil Brown, an attorney with EMLA.

GBE’s own studies show that Missouri already has excess generating reserves. And GBE would not help any utility in the state to meet Missouri’s renewable energy requirements. GBE could slow down the development of renewable energy resources in Missouri by replacing them with imported renewables from other states. Landowners also point out that GBE has yet to attract commercial interest. No investor-owned utility or rural electric co-op has signed on with Grain Belt. Without customers paying sustainable rates, GBE is not economically feasible and cannot be built.

The battle now also shifts to counties crossed by GBE, who have authority under state law to deny GBE from crossing the counties.

Wiley Hibbard, Presiding Commissioner of Ralls County said, “Ralls County has put a hold on granting assents until the development of our 229.100 application process is complete. Knowing that the commissioners of each county have the most thorough knowledge and understanding of how these projects will affect their counties, the Missouri Association of Counties (CCAM) has again passed a resolution advising members of the Missouri Legislature to protect and preserve Mo Rev. Statue 229.100.”

The Missouri legislature is also taking action on GBE. Rep. James Hansen has introduced legislation, House Bill 1062, to prevent the use of eminent domain by non-public utilities.

“I remain committed to Missourians in ensuring that eminent domain is not used by non-public utilities for profit,” said Rep. Jim Hansen. “I have introduced legislation that will close this gap in existing law and will work expeditiously to shepherd it through the legislature,” he continued.

The project still faces many hurdles before it can be built. The Missouri PSC is investigating whether to approve the sale of the project to Chicago-based Invenergy. Kansas officials are engaged in a similar process. The cases are not expected to be resolved until mid-summer, or later.

GBE must also re-apply for a permit to cross Illinois, after having an earlier permit revoked by an Illinois appeals court, which ruled that GBE was not a public utility under state jurisdiction.

“Given the uncertainty of the project in Illinois, we wonder if Invenergy actually intends to build this project across Kansas, Missouri and Illinois to a connection point in Indiana that ties into lines that serve east coast states,” Jennifer Gatrel, spokeswoman for Block GBE-Missouri. “Invenergy has been very mysterious about its intention.”

“We urge landowners and opponents of GBE to circle the wagons and gain strength from each other during this period of uncertainty,” said Russ Pisciotta, president of Block GBE, a statewide organization of opponents of GBE.

Pisciotta said they are working on an information packet for landowners that aims to provide some guidance on possible future steps, as well as a review of landowner rights under the law on GBE wanting to take their land. Landowners who do not receive a packet are urged to contact Missouri Landowners Alliance, Block GBE, or Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance.

“This is far from over,” said Marilyn O’Bannon, spokeswoman for EMLA. “This battle is young yet. Anything can happen. Landowners are urged to exercise great caution when interacting with GBE’s representatives.”

MLA and EMLA recommend that landowners not sign any document related to an easement on their property without first reviewing it carefully, preferably with advice from an attorney.

0 Comments

Signals of Subterfuge?

3/1/2019

1 Comment

Missouri regulators signal readiness to OK Grain Belt Express transmission project

Does that look anything like this?

"Signal" is today's popular, but sadly overused and misused, journalistic punt. It drives me nuts to see all this "signaling" going on, and any journalist who thinks they are clever or original by using it is actually just a lazy imitator. Please remove this idiotic word from your stories.

Now that I'm over the headline, what "news" does this story give us? Couple of things, well beyond what a thinking public might surmise about possible conspiracy within the Missouri government.

First, there's this:

Invenergy has told the Missouri PSC that it plans to begin construction in 2020 and complete the project in four years.

That's right, it did. It also told the PSC at hearing that it would begin eminent domain proceedings against 700 landowners immediately after receiving any permit from the PSC. The witnesses' reasoning was that it must quickly begin surveying and core drilling to finish engineering of the line and landowners would not willingly give permission for that work. Company mouthpiece Hans Detweiler told the PSC that the only remedy for uncooperative landowners was to take the right of way using eminent domain so it wouldn't need permission to enter for testing.

Hans, you dope! Maybe you actually believe that (in which case you're demonstrating how very little you know about actually building transmission), but real transmission companies never do that. Under most state laws, an entity with eminent domain authority has the right to enter property to perform testing prior to initiating a take. AEP has been using this bully tactic recently, filing for court orders preventing landowners from interfering with entry and testing. Except the landowners were not interfering in the first place. The landowners simply refused to grant permission voluntarily and sign company release forms. A court cannot force a landowner to sign a permission form. It can only order the landowner not to interfere (something they were not doing in the first place). The transmission company may risk getting on the wrong side of a local judge, but they'd probably get worse by pretending a take was necessary to perform simple surveys.

Does Invenergy have money to burn? Why would it be spending bundles acquiring property and testing it to microsite a route when it doesn't have permits in all four states? Until all permitting and siting is completed at the regulatory level, Invenergy would only be guessing and hoping the money it spent in Missouri would allow a route that would be contiguous with unapproved routes in other states. And even within Missouri, Invenergy does not have a converter station site. The option it had in Ralls County has expired and the landowner did not renew it. As well, Invenergy does not have an approved interconnection in Missouri where it can tie into the existing transmission system operated by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator. In fact, Invenergy isn't even in MISO's queue for study of a proposed interconnection. Therefore, any final routing through Missouri would simply be a very expensive guess at this point... unless Invenergy doesn't plan to connect in Missouri at all and simply pay off MJMEUC and deliver nothing at all.

Is the Missouri Public Service Commission this gullible? After nine years of Clean Line baloney before the Commission, are we supposed to believe they don't smell anything at all suspicious? I don't believe it. Not for a second. I wonder what the MO PSC, elected officials, and government agencies know that they're not saying?

There's simply no way GBE will begin construction next year. No way at all.

GBE does not have a permit in Kansas. GBE does not have a permit in Illinois (and even if it applied today, it would be years and years before any decision would be made). Essentially, GBE has done nothing to support a connection to PJM, and nothing to support a connection to MISO in Missouri. GBE is an empty extension cord that doesn't connect to anything. Who spends money building that?

And then there's this:

A company spokeswoman didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

Right. A company ready to begin construction on a transmission project it's been trying to permit for years receives "signals" that approval is imminent, and it has no comment. Invenergy has failed to say much of anything in the media lately, and has refused to share any future plans. Is it because Invenergy's REAL plan may signal something that Missouri can't permit? There's more here than meets the eye and the only signals being emitted are a bunch of obscuring smoke.

No matter. There's still this:

In the meantime, a landowner group says it’s not giving up its fight to block the transmission line.

“We remain committed to defending property rights,” said Jennifer Gatrel, a spokeswoman for Block Grain Belt Express.

Gatrel said there’s strong local government opposition to the project along the planned route and she believes many of the eight county commissions will refuse to sign off on needed assents allowing construction.

So, what do all these "signals" indicate? Nothing new. Grain Belt Express is still impossible. Landowners are not backing down and won't be intimidated by new owner Invenergy.

This isn't over yet. Carry on.

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

Landowner Express Steams Into Missouri Capitol

Rally in Missouri Tomorrow!

When Nerves Overtake Truth and Logic

Missouri Legislators Act

Ye Canna Change The Laws Of Physics, MO PSC!

Kansas Wants Invenergy To Put Up Or Shut Up

"It is a tale told by an idiot..."

Debate About Grain Belt Express Is Alive and Well

Landowners Vow To Appeal Grain Belt Express Decision

Signals of Subterfuge?

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