That pretty much sums up the demeanor of the Grain Belt Express witness and counsel yesterday during the Missouri Public Service Commission Hearing on a complaint filed by Missouri landowner groups. The complaint alleges that GBE has materially changed the design and engineering of the transmission project that was approved by the Commission in 2019.
Grain Belt brought this on itself by its big announcement last summer that it was changing its project to deliver not just "up to" 500 MW of electricity to contracted customers in Missouri, but that it would deliver 2500 MW of electricity to consumers in Kansas and Missouri, a 5 fold increase.
The MO PSC Staff witness also seemed quite evasive and quarrelsome, taking forever to answer complainant's questions and concocting non-answers. If there was nothing untoward going on here, the staff witness should not have had any trouble communicating and answering questions. After all, he's supposed to be impartial, right? Working in the best interests of Missourians, right? Why did he sound like he'd just consumed a whole bunch of
Grain Belt brought this on itself by its big announcement last summer that it was changing its project to deliver not just "up to" 500 MW of electricity to contracted customers in Missouri, but that it would deliver 2500 MW of electricity to consumers in Kansas and Missouri, a 5 fold increase.
The MO PSC Staff witness also seemed quite evasive and quarrelsome, taking forever to answer complainant's questions and concocting non-answers. If there was nothing untoward going on here, the staff witness should not have had any trouble communicating and answering questions. After all, he's supposed to be impartial, right? Working in the best interests of Missourians, right? Why did he sound like he'd just consumed a whole bunch of
It wasn't just normal abnormal demeanor, because the demeanor changed when the judge was asking questions (but not necessarily the hedging and long thinking pauses).
Let's start with GBE's counsel who was just way too aggressive. Counsel objected to witnesses, objected to evidence, insisted public information was confidential, objected to questions, and kept asking to have the case dismissed before it could even be heard. Seems like odd behavior for a company who is doing nothing wrong, doesn't it?
Counsel told the PSC during its opening (38:33 on the video) that the design and engineering of the Grain Belt Express project would only be determined after construction. In that case, why even bother permitting it ahead of time? Let's just let transmission developers build whatever they want, however they want, and let them tell us about it after the fact. Iis GBE admitting it has no plan for its transmission project? That it's just building willy-nilly without a plan? It seems like GBE had a definite plan for design and engineering of its project at the time it filed an application back in 2016, and it had a definite plan when that project was approved by the Commission in 2019. Now we learn that GBE apparently isn't following ANY plan whatsoever... just making it up as it goes along so that there is never a material change to its existing plan. If there is no plan, there's nothing to change, right?
GBE counsel also had a whiny moment around 42:00, when it bleated angrily about complainants raising money for lobbying at the state capitol. Nice to know that our contributions made GBE so angry, isn't it?
GBE counsel also made a change to stipulated facts submitted earlier. He explained that the stipulation that no construction has occurred was no longer true. GBE has begun construction, although he was really vague about it. Since there is no plan, and design and engineering for the route is only 30% complete, (Kris Zadlo, 2:51) what the heck are they doing? Constructing a single tower in each county, like a dog marking its territory? Are Missourians supposed to be intimidated by that? Or are they just symbolic "construction starts" meant to prevent the CPCN from expiring this year? Those wind companies sure know how to pretend to construct things that they're not actually constructing in order to qualify for tax credits from the federal government, don't they?
Let's start with GBE's counsel who was just way too aggressive. Counsel objected to witnesses, objected to evidence, insisted public information was confidential, objected to questions, and kept asking to have the case dismissed before it could even be heard. Seems like odd behavior for a company who is doing nothing wrong, doesn't it?
Counsel told the PSC during its opening (38:33 on the video) that the design and engineering of the Grain Belt Express project would only be determined after construction. In that case, why even bother permitting it ahead of time? Let's just let transmission developers build whatever they want, however they want, and let them tell us about it after the fact. Iis GBE admitting it has no plan for its transmission project? That it's just building willy-nilly without a plan? It seems like GBE had a definite plan for design and engineering of its project at the time it filed an application back in 2016, and it had a definite plan when that project was approved by the Commission in 2019. Now we learn that GBE apparently isn't following ANY plan whatsoever... just making it up as it goes along so that there is never a material change to its existing plan. If there is no plan, there's nothing to change, right?
GBE counsel also had a whiny moment around 42:00, when it bleated angrily about complainants raising money for lobbying at the state capitol. Nice to know that our contributions made GBE so angry, isn't it?
GBE counsel also made a change to stipulated facts submitted earlier. He explained that the stipulation that no construction has occurred was no longer true. GBE has begun construction, although he was really vague about it. Since there is no plan, and design and engineering for the route is only 30% complete, (Kris Zadlo, 2:51) what the heck are they doing? Constructing a single tower in each county, like a dog marking its territory? Are Missourians supposed to be intimidated by that? Or are they just symbolic "construction starts" meant to prevent the CPCN from expiring this year? Those wind companies sure know how to pretend to construct things that they're not actually constructing in order to qualify for tax credits from the federal government, don't they?
But, hey, guess what? That's not how real transmission developers build projects. They actually have checked and double checked design and engineering plans before they build anything. They have their substation (interconnection) sites nailed down before any route design. How could you design a route if you don't know the beginning and end point? Once a real transmission developer begins building, it's a continuous line. It saves the cost of transporting material and workers all over the place to construct random towers across the state. It also ensures whatever it builds lines up correctly. I'd hate to see how these guys lay tile... one piece here, one piece there, then hope you can fill in the empty spaces to complete the project?
But we really should give the evasive, defensive and quarrelsome trophy for the day to Invenergy's Kris Zadlo (or Zaldo, as the judge repeatedly referred to him). Whatever his name is, he's not somebody you'd ever want to find answering your questions.
Zaldo said the GBE's press release announcing changes to the project was "a marketing exercise" to indicate GBE's openness to exploring the potential of dropping off more power in Missouri. (2:20).
Dropping off? Like Door Dash or something? The only "dropping off" would be if a customer contracted to take delivery at that point, right? It's not like GBE is the Johnny Appleseed of free electricity. So, is Zaldo saying that GBE was just trying to drum up customer interest in Missouri? You'd think they would first want to sell the full 500 MW they first offered to Missouri, before trying to offer 5 times as much, right? This whole "marketing exercise" thing rings hollow. Maybe the judge should have asked him if his marketing exercise actually turned up new customers?
And, demonstrating just how argumentative he could be, Zaldo claimed just a minute later (2:21) that he never mentioned the press release. He also claimed there is no design for the converter stations at all, and then claimed that the only material difference between a 500 MW converter station and a 2500 MW converter station was that "it would be bigger." (2:27). This guy's pretending to be an engineer? I wouldn't let him build a lego set.
But perhaps the evasiveness reached its pinnacle when the questions about grid interconnections began. GBE's counsel used plenty of interruptions, objections, and claims of confidentiality to try to derail this line of questioning. Got something to hide, GBE? Your behavior gives you away.
Zaldo finally admitted GBE had "multiple" interconnection requests at MISO. When pressed to define "multiple" he said "about 5." (2:33:20). When asked if all 5 were located at the original interconnection point for 500 MW, Zaldo waved his special magic cape of confusion once again. (2:35). When asked if the other requests were significantly farther away... or at different places, Zaldo claimed they were not far apart because they're "all in Missouri." Uhh... sport... Missouri is a big, BIG, BIG place. Building a big converter station in Ralls County (original plan) is materially different than building a gigantic converter station in Randolph County (new interconnection request points).
Zaldo admitted GBE had "a couple" interconnection requests in PJM as well. He couldn't recall the capacity. (2:36) Is that because the PJM interconnections had shrunk in size from the original plan? Turns out GBE has only requested 2,000 MW of interconnection to PJM. Maybe, Zaldo isn't sure. The original plan called for 3,500 MW and counted on the higher prices in PJM to make the project profitable enough to construct. If GBE has cut its revenue from PJM by a significant percentage, does that mean that electric consumers in Kansas and Missouri would have to pay more in order to make the project marketable and profitable? I thought Kansas ratepayers were not allowed to pay for ANY of the project without permission from the panacotta-fueled KCC?
At this point, GBE's counsel attempts to hand Zaldo a "safe word" to get out of a really tough interconnection question by claiming confidentiality. (2:38) It didn't take long for Zaldo to use it. And off they all went to a confidential break out session.
Really, GBE? Your interconnection requests are public information on the MISO and PJM websites. It may not have your name on it, but who else is requesting to make large HVDC connections along the GBE route? We've known about your changing interconnection requests for quite some time. Interconnection requests are not cheap, and they not frivolous actions that can be made and withdrawn with great frequency. Changing interconnection requests indicate material change of plans. Perhaps the most important thing about a transmission project is its ability to interconnect to the existing transmission system. Without that interconnection, the project is nothing but a floppy extension cord not plugged in on either end. No wonder GBE was so defensive, evasive and quarrelsome about changing interconnection requests. That, perhaps more than any other evidence, demonstrates material change.
Parties will file post-hearing briefs by the middle of May, and the judge will make his recommendation afterwards.
Let's hope the PSC finally recognizes that Invenergy *could* be scheming to string the state along while it builds a completely different project. Maybe it could be a generation tie line for Invenergy's exclusive use to move its generation across Kansas and Missouri in order to sell it at a higher price? Why would the PSC allow Invenergy to threaten landowners with eminent domain takings for such a project? Why is Invenergy claiming to be constructing the project when it doesn't have all its easements? Why has Invenergy not yet filed any condemnations? Why is Invenergy hiding behind the old GBE project in order to use the threat of eminent domain against landowners? It's a mystery.
An evasive, defensive and quarrelsome mystery.
But we really should give the evasive, defensive and quarrelsome trophy for the day to Invenergy's Kris Zadlo (or Zaldo, as the judge repeatedly referred to him). Whatever his name is, he's not somebody you'd ever want to find answering your questions.
Zaldo said the GBE's press release announcing changes to the project was "a marketing exercise" to indicate GBE's openness to exploring the potential of dropping off more power in Missouri. (2:20).
Dropping off? Like Door Dash or something? The only "dropping off" would be if a customer contracted to take delivery at that point, right? It's not like GBE is the Johnny Appleseed of free electricity. So, is Zaldo saying that GBE was just trying to drum up customer interest in Missouri? You'd think they would first want to sell the full 500 MW they first offered to Missouri, before trying to offer 5 times as much, right? This whole "marketing exercise" thing rings hollow. Maybe the judge should have asked him if his marketing exercise actually turned up new customers?
And, demonstrating just how argumentative he could be, Zaldo claimed just a minute later (2:21) that he never mentioned the press release. He also claimed there is no design for the converter stations at all, and then claimed that the only material difference between a 500 MW converter station and a 2500 MW converter station was that "it would be bigger." (2:27). This guy's pretending to be an engineer? I wouldn't let him build a lego set.
But perhaps the evasiveness reached its pinnacle when the questions about grid interconnections began. GBE's counsel used plenty of interruptions, objections, and claims of confidentiality to try to derail this line of questioning. Got something to hide, GBE? Your behavior gives you away.
Zaldo finally admitted GBE had "multiple" interconnection requests at MISO. When pressed to define "multiple" he said "about 5." (2:33:20). When asked if all 5 were located at the original interconnection point for 500 MW, Zaldo waved his special magic cape of confusion once again. (2:35). When asked if the other requests were significantly farther away... or at different places, Zaldo claimed they were not far apart because they're "all in Missouri." Uhh... sport... Missouri is a big, BIG, BIG place. Building a big converter station in Ralls County (original plan) is materially different than building a gigantic converter station in Randolph County (new interconnection request points).
Zaldo admitted GBE had "a couple" interconnection requests in PJM as well. He couldn't recall the capacity. (2:36) Is that because the PJM interconnections had shrunk in size from the original plan? Turns out GBE has only requested 2,000 MW of interconnection to PJM. Maybe, Zaldo isn't sure. The original plan called for 3,500 MW and counted on the higher prices in PJM to make the project profitable enough to construct. If GBE has cut its revenue from PJM by a significant percentage, does that mean that electric consumers in Kansas and Missouri would have to pay more in order to make the project marketable and profitable? I thought Kansas ratepayers were not allowed to pay for ANY of the project without permission from the panacotta-fueled KCC?
At this point, GBE's counsel attempts to hand Zaldo a "safe word" to get out of a really tough interconnection question by claiming confidentiality. (2:38) It didn't take long for Zaldo to use it. And off they all went to a confidential break out session.
Really, GBE? Your interconnection requests are public information on the MISO and PJM websites. It may not have your name on it, but who else is requesting to make large HVDC connections along the GBE route? We've known about your changing interconnection requests for quite some time. Interconnection requests are not cheap, and they not frivolous actions that can be made and withdrawn with great frequency. Changing interconnection requests indicate material change of plans. Perhaps the most important thing about a transmission project is its ability to interconnect to the existing transmission system. Without that interconnection, the project is nothing but a floppy extension cord not plugged in on either end. No wonder GBE was so defensive, evasive and quarrelsome about changing interconnection requests. That, perhaps more than any other evidence, demonstrates material change.
Parties will file post-hearing briefs by the middle of May, and the judge will make his recommendation afterwards.
Let's hope the PSC finally recognizes that Invenergy *could* be scheming to string the state along while it builds a completely different project. Maybe it could be a generation tie line for Invenergy's exclusive use to move its generation across Kansas and Missouri in order to sell it at a higher price? Why would the PSC allow Invenergy to threaten landowners with eminent domain takings for such a project? Why is Invenergy claiming to be constructing the project when it doesn't have all its easements? Why has Invenergy not yet filed any condemnations? Why is Invenergy hiding behind the old GBE project in order to use the threat of eminent domain against landowners? It's a mystery.
An evasive, defensive and quarrelsome mystery.
RSS Feed