I love a well-written motion (legal documents of all kinds actually). What you might at first glance dismiss as dry, boring and impossible to understand can become as enjoyable as a best seller if written by a lawyer with talent. Good writing skills are what set great lawyers apart from mediocre ones. And the snarky footnote is like finding cream filling in your cupcake. Snarky footnotes are true art. You can insult your opponent (and sometimes the court) but only if done in a very clever fashion. And that's why I love this Motion so much.
Now we all know that Invenergy's expert witnesses are gas lighting everyone, but rarely do they get called out on it, especially in a regulatory proceeding. However, in a Motion filed on Friday, Paul Neilan, attorney for one of the intervenors in the Illinois Commerce Commission case asked the ICC to strike portions of the testimony of two Invenergy witnesses that strayed a little outside their own "expertise" to make worthless promises and turn hearsay into "facts".
In the Testimony of Rolanda Shine, this non-lawyer witness promises the ICC that Invenergy won't charge Illinois ratepayers for the Grain Belt Express without first asking the ICC's permission. Except the ICC has no authority over whether or not Illinois ratepayers get charged. Only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can decide if Illinois ratepayers will be charged for a project whose rates are under its exclusive jurisdiction. As the Motion says,
Now we all know that Invenergy's expert witnesses are gas lighting everyone, but rarely do they get called out on it, especially in a regulatory proceeding. However, in a Motion filed on Friday, Paul Neilan, attorney for one of the intervenors in the Illinois Commerce Commission case asked the ICC to strike portions of the testimony of two Invenergy witnesses that strayed a little outside their own "expertise" to make worthless promises and turn hearsay into "facts".
In the Testimony of Rolanda Shine, this non-lawyer witness promises the ICC that Invenergy won't charge Illinois ratepayers for the Grain Belt Express without first asking the ICC's permission. Except the ICC has no authority over whether or not Illinois ratepayers get charged. Only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can decide if Illinois ratepayers will be charged for a project whose rates are under its exclusive jurisdiction. As the Motion says,
GBX’s undertaking to seek this Commission’s prior approval of any cost allocation within
Illinois is worth zilch, give or take bupkus. GBX Witness Shine offers to this Commission an agreement that would affect rates and charges for facilities that transmit electricity from one state for consumption in another. FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. 16 U.S.C. 824(a).
And I just need to pause here a moment to add a few comments. First of all, Invenergy has asked FERC to convene a technical conference to explore allocating a merchant transmission project's (like GBE) "reliability" and "resiliency" attributes to captive ratepayers. See FERC Docket No. AD22-13. In other words, GBE wants to charge all ratepayers in the region, including those in Illinois, for made up "benefits" provided by GBE. This is wrong on so many levels. One reason is that a merchant transmission project assumes all risk for its project. It cannot seek recovery from captive ratepayers. Another is that these made up "benefits" have not been found needed by regional grid operators. It's like your neighbor planting a flower garden and then making you pay for part of it because you looked at it. Do you need more "reliability" provided by GBE? No? Then why should you pay for something you don't need?
Secondly, Invenergy has recently filed a complaint against grid operator MISO asking that GBE be added to the regional transmission plan (where some network upgrade costs may be passed to ratepayers). See Docket No. EL22-83.
And third, Invenergy has stated that it plans to help itself to "government" sources of financing. These financial opportunities have been made available thanks to the recent Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Acts. One that Invenergy mentions would use taxpayer money to purchase capacity contracts on merchant transmission projects for the express purpose of financially propping up merchants that don't have enough customers to make their project economic. Don't the people of Illinois pay federal income taxes? Yes, yes they do. Therefore, would the ICC have to approve GBE's application for a capacity contract? I'm sure Ms. Shine didn't mean that. And even if she did, the ICC cannot control the federal government's giveaways.
Invenergy's promises are garbage.
The Motion also asks that a portion of the Testimony of Shashank Sane be struck due to impermissible legal conclusions and because it is hearsay.
In Sane's testimony (yuk, yuk, yuk, been looking for an opportunity to type that) he repeats an incorrect legal conclusion that he read in the Illinois Renewable Energy Access Plan. He repeats it like it is a fact. It's not. It's wrong as can be, as the Motion points out.
It's about time someone with knowledge of federal energy statutes and regulations steps up to put out the flame of Invenergy's little gas lantern. Sadly, we don't seem to be able to count on the state regulators to have this kind of simple knowledge... and that's probably why Invenergy keeps misinforming everyone. A knowledgeable attorney is a breath of fresh air!
Secondly, Invenergy has recently filed a complaint against grid operator MISO asking that GBE be added to the regional transmission plan (where some network upgrade costs may be passed to ratepayers). See Docket No. EL22-83.
And third, Invenergy has stated that it plans to help itself to "government" sources of financing. These financial opportunities have been made available thanks to the recent Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Acts. One that Invenergy mentions would use taxpayer money to purchase capacity contracts on merchant transmission projects for the express purpose of financially propping up merchants that don't have enough customers to make their project economic. Don't the people of Illinois pay federal income taxes? Yes, yes they do. Therefore, would the ICC have to approve GBE's application for a capacity contract? I'm sure Ms. Shine didn't mean that. And even if she did, the ICC cannot control the federal government's giveaways.
Invenergy's promises are garbage.
The Motion also asks that a portion of the Testimony of Shashank Sane be struck due to impermissible legal conclusions and because it is hearsay.
In Sane's testimony (yuk, yuk, yuk, been looking for an opportunity to type that) he repeats an incorrect legal conclusion that he read in the Illinois Renewable Energy Access Plan. He repeats it like it is a fact. It's not. It's wrong as can be, as the Motion points out.
It's about time someone with knowledge of federal energy statutes and regulations steps up to put out the flame of Invenergy's little gas lantern. Sadly, we don't seem to be able to count on the state regulators to have this kind of simple knowledge... and that's probably why Invenergy keeps misinforming everyone. A knowledgeable attorney is a breath of fresh air!
RSS Feed