Category:

Grain Belt Express Strikes Out - Denied by Missouri PSC for the Third Time!

8/16/2017

Citizens across Missouri are celebrating today in the wake of the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) denial of Grain Belt Express’s (GBE) application to build a high-voltage transmission line across the state. The application, GBE’s third, was unanimously denied at a PSC meeting this morning. The Commissioners stated that they are constrained by a recent court opinion that requires local county assent before the PSC can grant a permit.

Block GBE-Missouri President Russ Pisciotta stated, “This is a huge victory for the impacted property owners and property rights. We are so thankful to all that made this possible.”

Key to the landowners’ victory is the steadfast opposition to the project by County Commissions. A transmission project must receive the assent of the commission of each county crossed prior to approval by the PSC. In Ralls County, where support of the project was rescinded, Presiding Commissioner Wiley Hibbard says he will continue to stand with his constituents.

“I am very pleased that the local control of county commissioners was upheld by the PSC. Local officials have much better insight on how these projects will affect their counties. Please know Ralls County is not against green energy, in fact our Ralls Co. Electric Co-op has over 500 megawatts of wind energy currently available. Anyone interested in taking advantage of this clean energy opportunity without taking our land by force is welcome in Ralls County,” said Hibbard.

Caldwell County Presiding Commissioner Bud Motsinger said he has tried to reflect the opinions of voting constituents.

“I am very pleased that the PSC has listened to the public comments and public opinion. It is very important for local citizens to express opinions on issues that concern them and their county. This is an example of community involvement protecting the future of Caldwell County,” said Motsinger.

Block GBE-Missouri believes that offshore wind is a viable option for the east coast, without disrupting and clear cutting thousands of acres halfway across the country in the Midwest. Offshore wind is a reliable and consistent supply because it blows during peak times, when terrestrial wind often cannot produce. Block GBE believes distributed and locally sourced renewables provide economic development to the area that will use the energy produced, and keeps energy dollars at home, where they provide local jobs and tax benefits.

Block member Jennifer Gatrel stated, “It was never about whether or not the energy was renewable, but about disruption and loss of production for the many family farms, as well as reduced property values and permanent hazards for landowners in GBE’s path. Use of eminent domain to coerce cooperation, and poor compensation, did little to convince landowners to sacrifice their wellbeing for the benefit of consumers in Missouri cities and other states far away.”

During oral arguments on the issue earlier this month, GBE’s attorney shared with the Commission that if the project was dismissed, it was dead.

“Farmers are long term thinkers. We plan in decades, not years. We will fight this as long as it takes. Property rights are worth protecting,” said Block GBE spokeswoman Jennifer Gatrel.

BACKGROUND: Grain Belt Express was a 780-mile high-voltage direct current transmission proposed to run from Kansas to Indiana to move wind energy from the Great Plains to the East Coast.

5 Comments

Todd Burns: Liar? Or Just Stupid?

8/10/2017

5 Comments

It's one or the other. Let's contemplate this...

When I asked Todd Burns what his company's return on equity was, he appeared confused. He didn't know what a return on equity was. It was only after I explained what it was that he finally remembered that Transource's return on equity for this project is "10 to 11 percent" something like that. FACT: Transource has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 10.9% ROE. The matter is currently in settlement discussions, with an administrative hearing possible if a settlement is not reached.

I met a handful of the Transource guys and gals the other night. Most attempted to be personable and avoid direct lies while trying to answer my increasingly hard questions. And then I worked my way up to Todd Burns.

He also had trouble admitting that Transource has received an incentive from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that allows the company to file to recover all its sunk costs from ratepayers in the event that PJM decides to abandon this project.

So, do the lawyers and bean counters at "Transource" (really utility giant AEP, because Transource has no employees of its own) not share basic information, such as return on equity and who pays if the project is abandoned, with Todd Burns? Todd needs to hustle home to Columbus with great alacrity and find out about all this stuff! Otherwise, he looks rather stupid to a public who does know about it. Or maybe he looks like a liar who was pretending to be uninformed so he could avoid the question? As if that could happen.

Todd Burns also seemed to be confused about a lot of other facts during an interview with the Waynesboro Herald Record. Despite that, the reporter managed to write a great, balanced article. The Herald Record has the best coverage of this issue that I've seen (other media take note!) What was it that Burns said?

Burns said some of the negative feedback is based on misinformation about the project. “There’s a lot of confusion and a lot of things being said that aren’t accurate,” Burns said.

I blame you, Todd. I think most of the "misinformation" is coming from you. Please, allow me to demonstrate...

“Burying lines causes problems,” Burns said. “If a line fails and it’s underground, it can’t be located and fixed immediately. That’s what happened recently on the Outer Banks.
“The environmental disturbance is greater to trench and bury a line than to run it overhead. And it’s ten-times more costly to do it underground.”

It is NOT "ten times more costly" to underground lines. In fact, it's only twice as costly, roughly. AEP has been claiming undergrounding is "ten times more costly" for years, along with a whole bunch of other excuses for taking the cheaper and easier option of aerial lines. And the technology does exist to determine where a fault is on an underground line. And you probably can mark an underground line to prevent all by the biggest idiots from pile driving onto it. I'm not buying the environmental disturbance thing, either. I've seen what transmission companies do to rights of way when building overhead lines. So, let's update these excuses, because they sort of sound like a lie to me.

As well, who cares how much it costs to underground lines? If the landowners require undergrounding, then that is the cost of fixing this "bottleneck." Are you saying that unless you can build this cheaply that all the savings for the DC-Baltimore elite will evaporate? A more expensive project doesn't clear a cost-benefit analysis? Then, obviously, this project isn't worth doing. It is not incumbent upon Pennsylvania and Maryland landowners to sacrifice by allowing the cheapest project you can build in order to move cheaper power to the city. If you want them to sacrifice for the cities, then the landowners need to have input into how the final project looks on their property. And by having input, I mean actually making the determination -- I don't mean having an opportunity to toss comments down a black hole at Transource where they are completely ignored. The only way a landowner can have effective input is when eminent domain is not an option. Anything else is coercion, not negotiation. Which brings us to...

“I’ve heard people are concerned about land use and whether they will be able to use their properties,” Burns said. “People will still be able to work under the power lines, although obviously there would be a limit on building underneath them. The land is still useable.”
Burns said property owners would be compensated for the easements through their land. “We’re going to be acquiring easements from the landowners and compensate them for it. They will retain the rights to certain activities,” Burns said.
He said property-owners shouldn’t be worried about the threat of eminent domain. “Our approach is we negotiate fair market value for anything that has to be acquired,” he explained. “We use eminent domain less than three percent of the time.”

If you want to see how landowners can still work under high voltage transmission lines, carefully watch the AEP videos on this page. Nuisance shocks, EMF, and big brother monitoring your activities on your own land? What's not to like? But wait, there's more... like aerial spraying of the right of way with chemicals to keep growth down, or power line workers coming on your property for maintenance or repairs and leaving gates open, driving large equipment through your fields, and disturbing the soil. The truth is that you will have picked up a parasitic tenant on your land... in perpetuity.

"Compensation" for property taken may be less than you'd expect. After all it is a value created by an out of state company, that will never even lay eyes on your place, from market studies of similar land sales of property in your county. It is Transource's idea of the value of your property, not yours. As well, you may only be paid for the property in the right of way, when the right of way itself devalues the rest of the parcel. Payments for damages will be argued over in court for years... at your expense, if you don't accept what the company wants to give you.

I'm pretty sure Transource land agents will use the threat of eminent domain 100% of the time in order to coerce the landowner to sign on the dotted line. That isn't negotiation, that's coercion.

Burns said he is confident the Independence Energy Connection will save customers money not just in the greater metropolitan areas south of here, but locally. “The driver is to give customers in this area access to lower costs,” he said. He said it is too early to estimate what the cost savings might be, or whether local, independent energy companies will pass the savings on to customers. “They may have other initiatives that will affect your bill,” Burns said.

Perhaps Burns needs to talk to his underlings, who have readily admitted that the lion's share of the savings is for customers in the DC/Baltimore area. And PJM agrees with that. That's why 80.52% of the cost of this project will be paid for by DC, Baltimore and Northern Virginia Customers.

Those who receive the benefits (in this instance cheaper power) pay the costs. That's how PJM works. Any savings for the project area (benefits) are not commensurate with the cost to the community and the individual landowners. Their costs are much greater than any benefit they may receive.

And I hate to let Burns know, but one of his underlings actually confirmed that market efficiency projects perform a leveling of costs across the region. If power is cheaper in the cities, the cost of it must rise somewhere else. All that cheap power "bottlenecked" in PA and MD and unable to reach the cities? Those are the prices that are going to go up once the "bottleneck" is removed.

And then Burns admits he has no hard evidence of how (or even if) this project will lower local electric bills. Then he supposes that local electric companies may keep any savings that develop for themselves. Of course... always thinking ahead, that Todd, to explain now why bills will never go down after this project is built.

Todd is not telling the truth about project benefit. But he may not be the only one with a penchant for prevarication. Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster made up a whole bunch of satisfied and happy landowners out of thin air.

Despite the many negative comments exchanged from person to person around the packed community center, Transource officials said there was also positive feedback.
“We found in this area, people understand the greater need for infrastructure,” said Abby Foster, community affairs representative for Transource Energy. “Everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property.”
Foster said the positive comments she heard came from residents who see the financial benefits of easements on their properties as well as the benefits of costs savings on energy bills.
She said some residents don’t like the exact location of the proposed line across their properties but are willing to have it shifted to a different location on their properties.
“There’s a lot that has shifted because of public input,” Foster said.

Why are there no quotes from these people? Why didn't the reporter talk to any of them? Is that because they don't exist? These must be the mysterious folks who have requested monopoles, because those people are just as elusive. What it seems more like is that Transource is making up a mythical landowner who is pleased because Transource is altering its plans to suit Mr. Mythical. A company that presented its public image as "take it or leave it" would be seen as unfavorable by the public. One that pretends it is bending to the will of the people may curry more favor. But when there are no happy people in reality, it's all an illusion. Nobody wants this transmission line on their property.

And as far as that “everyone here benefits from something being on someone’s property” line, puh-leeze. I heard that from one of the Transource people at the open house. It was the tagline of the night. And it sucks. It doesn't work on the public, just so you know, Transource. Other companies have tried it before you. It is met with anger and confusion. It has no relevance for affected landowners. Just because we use eminent domain and rights of way to take property for public use does not mean that everyone should gladly sacrifice for the selfish needs of others. And that's what this is... rural sacrifice for urban benefit. This project isn't needed to keep the lights on. It's only "need," according to PJM, is to make power cheaper in the cities to the south. Those cities like to keep their pretty skylines lit up all night long. There's no reason at all to keep an office tower lit inside all night. Maybe if the cities quit wasting so much electricity, they wouldn't need to call older, more expensive plants to generate during peak load a few days out of the year. And then we wouldn't "need" gigantic transmission towers in Pennsylvania.

Let's wrap up with this...

“We’ll look at a route that strikes the best balance,” Burns said, mentioning recreational activities, historic value and land use concerns. “You rarely come up with one that’s gonna satisfy all those things. Ultimately, it will be at the state level to decide where it goes.”

It is up to the state to decide WHETHER it goes, not just where. Opposition to this project is huge and gathering mass every minute. Loud, forthright opposition kills transmission projects. Todd Burns is going to need to get himself educated quickly! Or else quit lying. He's not very good at it.

5 Comments

Grain Belt Express's Worst Nightmare

8/8/2017

2 Comments

Legal transcripts contain an index. The transcript of last week's Missouri Public Service Commission Oral Argument in the Grain Belt Express case includes the word "nightmare."

There was a bit of debate regarding exactly what constitutes Grain Belt Express's worst nightmare. PSC Chairman Hall thought issuing a non-appealable favorable finding (but not a permit) for GBE to use as leverage for assent of county commissions would create GBE's "worst nightmare" of hanging in limbo forever. However, GBE's attorney was quick to correct him. He said dismissal of the application was GBE's "worst nightmare," because dismissal means the project is dead. Chairman Hall started to disagree, then changed his mind. I still think a dead project is better than a limbo project, at least it has finality and stops costing the investors money that maybe they don't want to invest anymore.

Chairman Hall thought GBE's idea that a "favorable finding" by the PSC would convince the counties to give assent to the project "naive."

CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes, I have a few. I want to start with your alternative argument that
the Commission go through the Tartan analysis, determine that Grain Belt has met each of those factors, but then withhold issuing the certificate. Would that be an appealable decision?
MR. ZOBRIST: I think it would be because if you construe Neighbors United to say that you cannot issue a CCN, you're making these other findings and you're simply withholding it at that point. To be honest, I really haven't thought through that. It may be -- it depends on what your language is. I think if you say that this part is final, you view it as appealable, that that might be something for us to take a look at because it may not be an appealable order until either --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think that would be your worst-case scenario. Then you're sitting in limbo here and you can't take the order up. MR. ZOBRIST: Well, I'm being the optimist, Chairman. I'm assuming we get favorable factual findings on the public convenience and necessity. We'd use those to go to the county commissions and say the Public Service Commission has weighed in and says the public is not going to be harmed and you should issue your county assents and then we'll be back. Now, if you -- if you deny it, if you dismiss it, then I think --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, that's --
MR. ZOBRIST: Pardon me. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALL: That, to be perfectly blunt, seems a little naive to me that this commission's decision on public interest is going to sway the county commissions, and so --
MR. ZOBRIST: Like I said --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think the reality is that that would be almost your worst nightmare because then the case just sits in limbo here and you can't take it up on appeal.
MR. ZOBRIST: Well, let me put it this way. The nightmare is if you just dismiss it out of hand because then the project's dead. The
problem --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I would say that's better than this because at least then -- oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm with you now. Keep going.

The transcript also contains derivatives of the word "baffle." As in

I mean, I completely understand Mr. Zobrist's argument. I'm baffled by yours.

So said Chairman Hall regarding MJMEUC's argument that the ATXI decision supports the issuance of a conditional permit for GBE.

I'm thinking that the hearing did not go well for GBE. Chairman Hall did not seem to be buying the arguments that the ATXI decision wasn't relevant to the GBE case. In order to declare the ATXI decision inapposite, GBE would have had to distinguish itself from ATXI, and it completely failed to do so. Instead it put forth arguments that were "naive" and "baffling" that urged the Commission to defy the courts and issue a CCN with language that tells the court their ATXI decision was wrong. If the Missouri Supreme Court declined to do so, it's not the place of the PSC to attempt to re-interpret the law. The law is clear, and the courts have spoken. Done.

And speaking of specious arguments, the attorney for the Sierra Club and other parties really stepped in it. He told the Commission,

We've also raised the possibility of a county veto being in violation of federal law, and this is based solely on my general knowledge, but it seems that local interference with interstate commerce and electricity would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal Power Act gives FERC authority over interstate transmission lines. The state still has authority to regulate the siting of interstate transmission lines, but they're otherwise preempted.

This guy's "general knowledge" is flat out wrong. The Federal Power Act only gives FERC authority over interstate transmission RATES. It does not give them permitting or siting authority. FERC cannot approve transmission projects. The states have complete jurisdiction over the siting and permitting of interstate transmission lines and are not "preempted" from acting. With this kind of stellar legal analysis, can we believe anything this guy says? The Sierra Club needs to mind its own business and stop trying to interfere in state transmission permitting cases. They only succeed in making themselves irrelevant.

So now it's up to the Missouri PSC to decide what to do with this case. The ATXI decision does preclude the issuance of a CCN for GBE. Any attempt to go around it, as suggested by GBE and its sycophants, will most likely be struck down by the courts. GBE's attorney has to recognize this. He seemed nearly hysterical in his anger and frustration when it appeared that he failed to convince the Commissioners to go along with his "path forward." Remember, the nightmare isn't keeping this case in limbo, but in dismissing it. While logical thinking says that limbo is the worst thing that could happen, for some reason GBE is looking forward to it. It's almost as if GBE is already hanging in limbo, unable to unlock enough cash to continue operations unless it receives some sort of "favorable" opinion from the MO PSC. It doesn't seem to matter if the favorable opinion hangs the project in legal limbo, or results in a future court vacating the favorable opinion. It's all about having that piece of paper right now.

The Missouri Public Service Commission holds the key to the Clean Line money vault. Without it, the project is dead... and likely the other Clean Line projects as well. In the wilds of Mayberry, an animal so injured it cannot recover is put out of its misery. It's a kindness to end its suffering. GBE is suffering. It cannot be saved. It's time...

2 Comments

Clean Line Wants Taxpayer Bailout for its Transmission Projects

6/30/2017

14 Comments

Building five ginormous transmission projects totaling thousands of miles of new merchant lines was a pipe dream. Utility experts said it couldn't be done. They were right, it can't.

Teetering on the brink of failure after spending more than $200M of investor cash on his impossible dream, Clean Line Energy Partners CEO Michael Skelly now suggests that the federal government bail out his investors.

The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests.

“All the ideas come down to a temporary underwriting of the project so you can get these things over the top, or some sort of tax mechanism.”

Skelly has finally given voice to his frustration in an interview with Recharge News.

Skelly suggests that the federal government should buy capacity on his transmission project in order to get it over some imaginary hump that will allow him to start construction. The federal government isn't in the business of buying unnecessary transmission capacity in order to prop up commercial projects that cannot stand on their own two feet. While federal power marketers do occasionally purchase needed transmission capacity, they are not forced to do so merely to support the building of bridges to nowhere. And if the federal government legislated the purchase of transmission capacity by its federal power marketers, it would be creating captive customers to shoulder the risk of this speculative transmission idea that cannot get off the ground on its own merits. As a merchant transmission project, Clean Line has pledged to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that its investors will shoulder all the risk for its projects and that it does not have a captive ratepayer stream of funding. Merchant projects succeed or fail based on their economics. If a merchant project is useful, customers will voluntarily purchase its capacity, and the project will come to fruition. If there are no customers, a merchant project cannot succeed. Suggesting that the federal government pour taxpayer money into Skelly's projects would create an artificial "need" and economic basis for the project. Participation by a government customer would not be voluntary. That's not how merchant transmission works.

Clean Line has no customers. Despite Skelly's claim:

Plains & Eastern is “pretty much fully developed at this point”, Skelly says. “We’re now in the commercialisation phase, matching chippers – that is wind developers – with utilities in the southeast.”

He turns around in his next breath and suggests that the federal government be forced into being a customer through legislation or executive mandate. Obviously, Skelly's efforts to match his chippers with customers isn't working. It's been 18 months since the U.S. DOE got involved in his project in an attempt to usurp state authority and claim federal eminent domain authority to site the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, and Skelly still doesn't have a customer. When the DOE agreed to participate in the project in March, 2016, Skelly claimed that he would have his customer agreements sewn up in a matter of weeks, but that has not panned out.

Skelly's other taxpayer bailout idea is federal investment tax credits. This would give a direct tax credit to project investors, which they could use as cash to pay down their own corporate tax debt. Let's see... ultra rich 1% Democrats who invested in a renewable energy scheme supported by a Democratic White House want the current Congress to bail them out with tax credits.

A tax credit is taxpayer-funded cash for its owner. By eliminating its own corporate tax debt, the investor would have more cash to invest in Clean Line Energy Partners. Essentially, it's free government money for Clean Line that the investors wouldn't spend otherwise. It's a way to prop up Clean Line's failing business model with taxpayer funds. Clean Line's investors pay less taxes? You pay more to make up the difference.

Where does the federal government get its money? Out of your pocket. Every.last.dollar. There's no such thing as "free" government money.

So Clean Line has been posturing to the Trump Administration for months now, suggesting it is a prime candidate for the President's great, great Infrastructure Plan. Trump has posited that private investors can belly up to the bar and fund billions in new infrastructure projects in exchange for ownership that creates a revenue stream, or tax credits that allow publicly-owned projects to be built.

Except Clean Line isn't a publicly-owned project. Clean Line's rich investors will own the project and the revenue stream, and charge the public a fee to use it. There's no benefit for the public. It's nothing short of taxpayer-financed private industry, and it cannot be included in an infrastructure package designed to get infrastructure like roads and public works projects built. And furthermore, Skelly wants the federal government to be the "private sector investor" who gets his project over the finish line! I'm pretty certain that's not what Trump had in mind.

Once certain that his transmission projects would be marketable under a Democratic administration, Skelly now fantasizes about a Republican-led taxpayer bailout to prop up his failing company.

“It’s still a bit early to tell exactly what the administration will do to stimulate more infrastructure investment,” Skelly says. “But in terms of the things they’re talking about, with private-sector-led projects, it forms a pretty nice Venn diagram with transmission.”

What kind of a guy uses the words "Venn diagram" to prop up his unsuccessful ideas in the media?

Is Skelly's dream even logical, or is the stress getting to him? Why would the federal government fund an infrastructure project that's supposed to be "led by private investors?"

The idea that our current Congress will pour buckets of taxpayer dollars into a wind energy transmission project that has no customers in order to bail it out of its current financial crisis is insane.

14 Comments

Missouri Supreme Court Dashes Hope for Grain Belt Express

6/29/2017

1 Comment

The Missouri Landowners Alliance and Block Grain Belt Express are optimistic that the Public Service Commission must again deny Grain Belt’s application, in the wake of a Missouri Supreme Court decision yesterday. The Court denied a petition to review an opinion of the Western District Court of Appeals regarding county commission assent for new transmission lines to cross local roadways. The case, Neighbors United Against Ameren’s Power Line vs. Public Service Commission of Missouri and Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois, earlier this year vacated a conditional permit for Ameren’s Mark Twain Transmission Project that was issued by the PSC before Ameren had received the assent of counties crossed by the project.

Earlier this month, Grain Belt Express, and other supportive parties, had urged the PSC to issue a decision on its transmission line application after the Commission discussed putting the case on hold until the Ameren matter was cleared up by the courts. Grain Belt Express, like Ameren, has not produced county assents from the eight Missouri counties it proposed to cross. The Court of Appeals made it clear that county assent must be submitted to the PSC before a certificate of convenience and necessity may be issued. Without Supreme Court review, the Appeals Court decision is final.

“We celebrate with Neighbors United for their incredible victory for property rights. We would also like to thank all the County Commissioners who have stood with us in our battle for our way of life and against eminent domain abuse,” commented Jennifer Gatrel, spokesperson for Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri.

The citizens’ groups hope the PSC will now quickly proceed to dispose of the Grain Belt Express matter, allowing the people to resume their work and plans for the future, albeit a little lighter in the pockets than before the threat of Grain Belt Express reared its head. The three landowner’s organizations say they have spent approximately $350,000 altogether defending private property rights from the speculative transmission project.

Russ Pisciotta, President of Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri said, “The people impacted by the proposed line have repeatedly spoken out loudly and clearly against the ill-conceived, unnecessary interstate transmission line and now we are watching democracy in action and the system is working.”

Grain Belt Express had initially obtained assents from all eight counties before notifying landowners about its project, however, Caldwell County’s assent was later overturned in court because it violated the sunshine law. Five of the eight counties have also since rescinded their assents, and county commissions have remained steadfastly on the side of local property owners.

“I am very glad that the Missouri Supreme Court has upheld the Appeals Court Decision. This decision gives the County Commissions in our State the right to guard our communities and way of life,” said Wiley Hibbard, Ralls County Presiding Commissioner.

1 Comment

Missouri Sticks a Fork in Grain Belt Express

6/28/2017

6 Comments

Yesterday, the Missouri Supreme Court denied a petition to hear Neighbors United Against Ameren’s Power Line vs. Public Service Commission of Missouri and Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois. The opinion of the Western District Court of Appeals is now final.

Grain Belt's last great hope in Missouri is dashed.

The company has been trying to convince the MO PSC that the Ameren decision wasn't final or binding while trying to extract a favorable decision to issue a permit without county assent. Now, that just can't happen.

The controversy: Missouri law requires a transmission company proposing a new line to acquire the assent of each county commission to cross county roads, and to submit those assents to the PSC before a permit may be issued. That's the law. In the case of Ameren's Mark Twain Transmission Project, the company had failed to acquire and submit the required county assents. But the PSC issued a conditional permit that allowed the company to submit the assents later, before it began construction. Transmission opposition group Neighbors United challenged the timing of the assents under Missouri law, contending that the assents must be obtained before the PSC can issue a permit. The Western District Missouri Court of Appeals agreed with Neighbors United, and vacated the permit issued by the PSC. The PSC and Ameren petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court to hear the case, and yesterday the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The opinion of the Western District Court is final.

Grain Belt Express finds itself in the same boat as Ameren. It does not have all county assents needed for a permit. Grain Belt Express first suggested that the PSC issue it a conditional permit, just like Ameren's, and it would acquire the assents before construction. The PSC did not take the suggestion, and put the case on hold pending resolution of the Ameren matter in court. GBE has also taken the position that its project is somehow different than Ameren's and that it does not need county assent. It has been met with stony silence from the Commission. The same arguments were made to the Missouri Supreme Court in the Ameren petition, and the Court didn't take the bait, so obviously those arguments aren't valid.

So, the MO PSC doesn't have a lot of options on Grain Belt Express. It could issue a conditional permit based on GBE's faulty legal arguments, only to have that permit vacated in another expensive and time consuming court battle, or it could give Grain Belt Express a period of time to produce the county assents, and if they can't, dismiss the application. Or it could yank off the bandaid and deny or dismiss the application right now. None of these options are any good for Grain Belt Express.

It is highly unlikely that GBE can obtain needed county assents, even if given eternity to perform the task. The battle lines have been drawn and the majority of the county commissions have taken an entrenched position firmly behind their constituents. Unless the constituents change their minds, the commissions aren't budging.

It's hopeless.

Maybe GBE wishes it had treated affected landowners with more respect. Maybe GBE wishes it had given a little more deference to the county commissions. But it was blinded by its own sheer arrogance that the people and local governments of Missouri didn't matter and that GBE could simply use state law and political clout to run right over Missourians.

Alea iacta est... the die has been cast.

6 Comments

Columbia Missouri Should be Renamed NIMBY City

6/13/2017

3 Comments

When the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife...

The City of Columbia, Missouri, made a big announcement earlier this month that it has reached an agreement to purchase wind energy from Kansas, but that the agreement was contingent upon the Missouri Public Service Commission approving a new transmission line cutting clear across the state.

The Columbia City Council approved an agreement with Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission to purchase wind energy from Kansas-based Iron Star Wind, LLC during its Monday meeting, but the means of receiving the energy — a transmission line that still needs to be constructed — needs the OK from the Public Service Commission.

The Grain Belt Express project is a 780-mile transmission line that will start in southwestern Kansas and cut through Missouri and Illinois, providing energy to those states and Indiana. The direct-current line will go to Hannibal, where a substation will convert the direct current to alternating current, the type of current used by Columbia’s electric system, said John Conway, chairman of the Water and Light board.

The Grain Belt Express is asking the PSC for eminent domain authority to condemn and take land from resistant landowners in order to build its project. The proposed route of the project travels through private property, and affected landowners say the lines run too close to homes and schools, and many fear adverse health effects from the electric lines overhead.

The City of Columbia supports the building of Grain Belt Express on rural properties outside of its own borders.

However, the City of Columbia has spent years opposing a new transmission line in its own city because, "the lines ran too close to homes and schools, and many feared adverse health effects from the electric lines overhead."

So, when a transmission project Columbia thinks it needs to fulfill its environmental goals is in someone else's backyard, it's okay to run it close to homes and schools, but don't try that in Columbia's own backyard. In Columbia, a transmission line is unacceptable. NIMBY = Not in my backyard. Don't build a transmission line in Columbia's backyard, build it in someone else's backyard.

Hypocrites.

If Columbians don't want a new transmission line in their backyard, neither does any other Missourian. You're really not that special, Columbia. I think I shall rename you NIMBY City.

3 Comments

Trump's Infrastructure Plan: Maybe Not What Clean Line Bargained For

5/24/2017

3 Comments

Who hasn't laughed over Michael Skelly's recent news show commentator appearances where he's tried to spin his projects as part of Trump's great (really great, believe me, the greatest of all time, it will be great) infrastructure plan?

Well, laugh some more, little Schadenfreuders,* because not only does Trump's plan not include a project list, it actively neuters Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. For years, Clean Line has used Section 1222 as its trump card (heh, the jokes just won't stop here) to threaten states with losing jurisdiction over its projects if they fail to approve them. Clean Line even went to far as to go all the way with the DOE on its Plains & Eastern project, spending millions of dollars to secure the "participation" of one of DOE's federal power marketers in that project, with the idea that would allow federal eminent domain authority where Arkansas failed to grant it.

Whoops. Whoops. Whoopsie!

Trump's budget includes a plan to sell the transmission assets of three of DOE's federal power marketers, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Western Area Power Administration, and, yes, the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA).

SWPA is the federal power marketer that is supposed to "participate" in the Plains & Eastern project, and use its federal eminent domain authority to condemn and take property in Arkansas for transmission right of way. In order to do that, SWPA must "own" the right of way and the project assets in Arkansas.

Except Trump wants to sell off all SWPA's transmission assets to private industry. Setting aside the fact that Clean Line doesn't have the assets to buy its own project back from the government, once they are no longer owned by SWPA, there is no federal condemnation authority!

Section 1222 authorizes:

The Secretary, acting through WAPA or SWPA, or both, may design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining, or owning, a new electric power transmission facility and related facilities (“Project”) located within any State in which WAPA or SWPA operates...

Without WAPA and SWPA owning transmission facilities, any eminent domain authority the DOE currently thinks Section 1222 authorizes collapses. Once PMA transmission assets are no longer held by the federal government, federal eminent domain authority ceases.

Is that what you thought being on some fake infrastructure list was going to buy you, Michael Skelly? Seems to me that Trump's infrastructure plan only further complicates Plains & Eastern. Who would want to sign a contract to purchase capacity on a non-existent transmission project that is in danger of being sold to the highest bidder? Trump's plan to sell PMA transmission assets makes Plains & Eastern more risky and uncertain than ever!

But, the idea to sell PMA transmission is unlikely to happen. However, it could, hypothetically speaking. The uncertainty is likely to stall PMA transmission plans for the foreseeable future. It's not like the idea to divest PMA assets is new. It's been floated several times in the past and been defeated. Already, legislators and users of PMA transmission are up in arms about the proposal, and for good reason. It's a really stupid idea.

But it's Trump's really great idea. And it's going to cripple any PMA transmission projects for now.

I hope Clean Line didn't actually think getting on a list was going to solve its problems, or else someone is going to be crying himself to sleep tonight. Boo. Flipping. Hoo.

Ding-Dong! Karma calling!

*Making up new words is really great, believe me!

3 Comments

Iowa Law Prohibits Eminent Domain for Overhead Merchant Transmission Lines

5/19/2017

8 Comments

Third time's the charm for Iowans battling the Rock Island Clean Line merchant transmission project. The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance has been working with legislators for the past three years to put meaningful legislation in place that would release them from the threat of eminent domain taking of their property by an overhead merchant transmission project.

PRIA recently announced:

Today is a day to celebrate!! It is a historic day for property rights!

Governor Branstad signed a bill into law forbidding merchant high voltage transmission lines such as RICL from having condemnation power to take private property by eminent domain. Click here to read Senate File 516: an Act relating to state and local finances by making appropriations providing for legal and regulatory responsibilities, concerning taxation, and providing for other properly related matters, and including effective date and retroactive applicability provisions. This bill passed the Iowa House on April 21, 55-39 and the Iowa Senate on April 21, 27-13. Read the lanquage related to merchant transmission lines beginning on page 18 of the bill.

This means that even if RICL decides to try and come back into Iowa they CANNOT take your property by use of eminent domain. This is a huge win.

A very dedicated and amazing board of directors donated their time, energy and talents to continue this mission for nearly 4 years.

Many people across Iowa and outside the state spent endless volunteer hours and contributed money to assist PRIA legislators in making this possible.

We need to also remember the leaders in private property rights in other states who provided leadership and guidance as they continue their fight!

The legislation prevents the use of eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission lines in the state of Iowa. If Clean Line wants to construct its private purpose transmission line across the state, it's going to have to purchase easements in a free market, where the true cost of hosting a ginormous transmission line for the use of other states will be realized.

Third time was not the charm for RICL though. The company has tried multiple times to get the Iowa Utilities Board to grant it public utility status and eminent domain authority ahead of any actual application for the project. The IUB stood firm, however, and refused to allow a birfucation of its transmission application process that would coerce landowners to grant easements before the project application was even filed. RICL tried to do this because filing requirements in Iowa require the company to produce a packet of information at the time of filing for each property it may take via eminent domain. RICL complained that was too expensive, and too difficult, and wanted eminent domain authority to wield against landowners so that they would grant easements before application, saving RICL the trouble of creating the information packet for the majority of the properties.

Iowans refused to make it that easy for RICL. They did something amazing instead... they stood together and refused to negotiate easements with RICL. To stand together against a company waving their checkbook around is something that doesn't happen every time. Iowans demonstrated the power of community by sticking together. And they demonstrated backbone by continuing their fight, both at the IUB and in the legislature. RICL was never about providing electricity to Iowa. It was a one-way highway to ship electricity out of state for private profit. That's not something that should be granted eminent domain authority.

And this is precisely the argument heard by the Illinois Supreme Court this week. Why RICL continued trying to reverse the appeals court's decision to vacate their permit granted by the Illinois Commerce Commission, even after they were shut out of Iowa where their project was planned to begin, is anyone's guess. Pretty pointless, but so is everything Clean Line does anymore.

A while ago, I compared Clean Line's permitting debacle to a game of whack-a-mole. Every time the company wacked a mole and received a permit, more moles popped up as impediments to its projects. And everyone knows how a game of whack-a-mole speeds up at the end, where it's impossible to whack all the moles that pop up, and then you lose. Clean Line's whack-a-mole game is running double time. Clean Line was shut out of Iowa before Illinois even heard its appeal. What now, Clean Line? What now? RICL needs to be re-routed to another state, or abandoned altogether. The project is dead. Please just admit that.

Congratulations to PRIA and the Iowans who came together and fought so hard to protect their communities from out-of-state profiteers! They are an example to emulate in other transmission battles.

8 Comments

A Good Day at the Illinois Supreme Court

5/18/2017

5 Comments

Landowner opponents of the Rock Island Clean Line transmission project hoped that the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday would be the last they will see of Clean Line Energy Partners. They could be right.

Clean Line arrived overly confident, conflating the Court's desire to hear the case with a desire to reverse the decision of the Third District Appellate Court.

Hans Detweiler, vice president of Clean Line Energy Partners, Rock Island's Houston-based owner, said he's "encouraged" that Illinois' high court will review the case and hopes it "will recognize that privately funded infrastructure projects" like Rock Island "serve a public purpose."

But softball questions and encouraging smiles were not to be had from the Supreme Court Justices yesterday. The Justices asked a plethora of questions regarding how RICL could legally be for "public use."

In response they got a whole bunch of complicated explanations on physics, Open Access Transmission Tariffs, and the idea that FERC's rules on a non-discriminatory auction process satisfied Illinois law regarding a utility's non-discriminatory service to the public. It's quite unfortunate for RICL that they decided the ICC's attorney should go first with his argument that the ICC is entitled to deference in how it interpreted Illinois law. The Justices didn't seem too interested in that, instead asking Matthew Harvey questions about how RICL could legally be a public utility. Poor Mr. Harvey... his answers did not satisfy RICL's bevy of attorneys in the first few rows and drew skeptical faces and negative headshakes from them. I was afraid that if Owen McBride's eyebrows knitted themselves any closer together whether he'd go cross-eyed. Despite this superior attitude from RICL, I can't say RICL's attorney fared any better before the judges than Mr. Harvey. RICL's attorney met the justices' questions with complicated circular answers and lots of smoke and mirrors that failed to shed any light on the issue.

When asked by a Justice if RICL's desire to be a public utility was for the sole purpose of acquiring eminent domain authority, RICL's counsel chose to deny it and blame the ICC for telling them they had to be a public utility. Really, now? I'm thinking that a straight up admission of how hard it is to build transmission without eminent domain authority would have served them much better than a ridiculous story nobody believed.

The appellees lead off with a strong argument defining "public use" that managed to answer all the Justices' questions that had remained basically unanswered after the appellants had their say. Matthew Price, representing Com Ed, was positively brilliant compared to the bombastic, uninspired arguments of the ICC and RICL. He explained public use so simply that it could be understood by anyone. Public use is a utility's obligation to serve all who want service. A public utility doesn't get to choose which customers it will serve in order to maximize its profit. RICL will pick and choose its customers in a way that maximizes its profits. A public utility must serve everyone, not just allow them to bid for service, or use service available when no one else is using it.

Mr. Price made it clear as a bell. And the Justices pretty much stopped asking the questions about public use, so I guess their questions were answered by Mr. Price. It's pretty clear to me that the merchant transmission business model doesn't comport with Illinois law. Price said something about a FERC-land determination of non-discrimination does not satisfy a determination in the Land of Lincoln. Right... because FERC is only looking at whether the auction process is fair. It does not concern itself with whether the merchant transmission company is discriminating against members of the public by only providing service to select customers. Just because FERC approves it does not mean it comports with Illinois law.

Mr. Price brought up the issue of RICL's refusal to expand capacity on its line if it gets more requests for service than it can provide. RICL claims it has to stick with the original plan because that's the project in its application. Maybe it could build another line if it had multiple requests, but why bother with that if it can increase its profits by limiting available capacity?

Price brought up the idea that RICL could pro-rate its available capacity at the auction, with each bidder receiving a share, instead of trying to maximize its profits by selling only to the highest bidders. And then the most humorous thing happened... in rebuttal, RICL's counsel decided it could pro-rate its capacity to auction bidders. I've never heard anything about this from RICL before, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in their FERC application for negotiated rate authority. Nor was it in the Order of the ICC granting the CPCN. So now the Court is supposed to believe RICL has fundamentally altered its auction process on a whim? Way to admit you're wrong, RICL!

The ILA presented a short, cogent argument about how eminent domain is basically procedural once a CPCN is issued. And got snotty looks and smirks from the RICL attorneys for their trouble, along with an arrogant rebuttal that attempted to minimize and disparage landowner concerns. RICL showed the Court that it doesn't give any consideration whatsoever to the landowners it wants to get into perpetual easement partnerships with.

So, now we wait for the Court to issue its opinion. Some people say that you can tell which way a court is leaning by the questions its judges ask during oral arguments. Hans Detweiler better not count his chickens before they hatch. He's no constitutional scholar. Commerce Clause. Heh.

5 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Grain Belt Express Strikes Out - Denied by Missouri PSC for the Third Time!

Todd Burns: Liar? Or Just Stupid?

Grain Belt Express's Worst Nightmare

Clean Line Wants Taxpayer Bailout for its Transmission Projects

Missouri Supreme Court Dashes Hope for Grain Belt Express

Missouri Sticks a Fork in Grain Belt Express

Columbia Missouri Should be Renamed NIMBY City

Trump's Infrastructure Plan: Maybe Not What Clean Line Bargained For

Iowa Law Prohibits Eminent Domain for Overhead Merchant Transmission Lines

A Good Day at the Illinois Supreme Court

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