Why would a company spend a whole bunch of money (and we're talking millions here) engineering a route for a transmission project when it doesn't yet have construction and routing approval from all states along its path? Seems like the cart has overtaken the horse at Grain Belt Express since Invenergy bought the struggling project.
Invenergy says that it's not changing the project's route. But when you dig a little below the surface, there are changes that have been made. Why? Why are these changes necessary in order to execute the same project Clean Line had envisioned?
Let's take a look at the most recent regulatory filing Invenergy made in a state along its original route. In order to complete the sale from Clean Line to Invenergy, the following was required:
Invenergy says that it's not changing the project's route. But when you dig a little below the surface, there are changes that have been made. Why? Why are these changes necessary in order to execute the same project Clean Line had envisioned?
Let's take a look at the most recent regulatory filing Invenergy made in a state along its original route. In order to complete the sale from Clean Line to Invenergy, the following was required:
Supposedly the transaction closed and Invenergy became the owner of GBE at the end of January, 2020. That means that all these things must have occurred. The Kansas and Missouri permits transferred successfully to the new owner. The Indiana permit transferred successfully to Invenergy by Order of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission on January 2, 2020. But what about Illinois? In its Indiana application, the company stated, "Grain Belt Express intends to seek regulatory approvals for the Project in Illinois after Missouri, Kansas and Indiana processes have concluded." Those three processes concluded with the Indiana Order on January 2. In an April 16, 2020 status report to the IURC, Invenergy stated, "As is discussed in more detail below, as of January 2, 2020, all of the conditions precedent required to close the Transaction under the MIPA were met, and Invenergy closed the Transaction on January 28, 2020." Invenergy closed the sale even though it had not received Illinois approval (or even applied for it). Invenergy stated on April 16, "Grain Belt is currently evaluating its options to continue pursuit of its Illinois CPCN." But it wasn't supposed to close the sale until it had "permits necessary or materially desirable for the project from the ICC." I guess that means that a permit from Illinois is not necessary or materially desirable for the project, no matter how much Invenergy ruminates on its "options" in Illinois. Sounds like a bunch of smoke and mirrors to me because none of this adds up. Invenergy closed on its deal with Clean Line despite the fact that it had no permit in Illinois. And take a look at how that stipulation is worded... Kansas and Missouri are required, but the Illinois and Indiana approvals use weasel words like "necessary" and "materially desirable." Maybe GBE doesn't plan to build its power line through Illinois or Indiana at all? Or maybe it plans to build it in phases, with the Illinois and Indiana portions not "necessary" at this time? Maybe GBE wants to connect somewhere else? Remember, GBE lost its MISO interconnection position a couple years ago, along with its option to purchase a site for its Missouri converter station. One thing's for certain... without Illinois, GBE is a puzzle with one huge section missing. It can't connect to Indiana without going through Illinois, and it doesn't seem to be in any hurry to do that.
What else changed? In its original Indiana permit issued in 2013, GBE was required to transfer functional control of its transmission line to MISO or PJM. However, in its most recent permit from Indiana, Invenergy has asked for and been granted permission to also transfer functional control of its project to SPP. Invenergy said this was necessary so it would have, "the flexibility to transfer this control to SPP, should SPP prove to be a better fit for Grain Belt's facilities and plans than PJM or MISO." A better fit for GBE's plans? What plans would those be? Clean Line didn't need the option to transfer control of its project to SPP, but Invenergy does. Why? Why would it be "better" to have a transmission line delivering the bulk of its energy to Indiana controlled by the RTO serving generators a thousand miles away?
Invenergy was also granted a change to the information it must file in annual reports in Indiana. Clean Line was required to "File annually with the Commission information about any affiliates that own or control electric generation resources in the MISO or PJM regions." Clean Line didn't own any generation. But now Invenergy wants to "streamline" its reporting by eliminating this requirement pertaining to affiliates, and replace it with a static list of its affiliates in PJM and MISO (but not SPP, keep that in mind). Here's Invenergy's list of affiliated generation in PJM and MISO.
What else changed? In its original Indiana permit issued in 2013, GBE was required to transfer functional control of its transmission line to MISO or PJM. However, in its most recent permit from Indiana, Invenergy has asked for and been granted permission to also transfer functional control of its project to SPP. Invenergy said this was necessary so it would have, "the flexibility to transfer this control to SPP, should SPP prove to be a better fit for Grain Belt's facilities and plans than PJM or MISO." A better fit for GBE's plans? What plans would those be? Clean Line didn't need the option to transfer control of its project to SPP, but Invenergy does. Why? Why would it be "better" to have a transmission line delivering the bulk of its energy to Indiana controlled by the RTO serving generators a thousand miles away?
Invenergy was also granted a change to the information it must file in annual reports in Indiana. Clean Line was required to "File annually with the Commission information about any affiliates that own or control electric generation resources in the MISO or PJM regions." Clean Line didn't own any generation. But now Invenergy wants to "streamline" its reporting by eliminating this requirement pertaining to affiliates, and replace it with a static list of its affiliates in PJM and MISO (but not SPP, keep that in mind). Here's Invenergy's list of affiliated generation in PJM and MISO.
Could Invenergy sell transmission service to its own generation and give them preference over other generation owners? Could Invenergy simply decide not to sell service to others at all and use GBE as its own exclusive highway to serve its own generation in PJM, MISO, or SPP? Sure, why not? The only trouble with that would be that such a transmission line would not be for a "public purpose" and would have trouble using eminent domain to acquire property. I guess Invenergy needs to hurry up and secure all the private property it needs under its current eminent domain authority before it makes even more changes to its plans.
Invenergy's intentions for the Grain Belt Express project are about as clear as mud, and the words coming out of one side of its mouth don't agree with the words coming out of the other side. Or, as Judge Judy says...
Invenergy's intentions for the Grain Belt Express project are about as clear as mud, and the words coming out of one side of its mouth don't agree with the words coming out of the other side. Or, as Judge Judy says...
RSS Feed