Missing Buyer Syndrome

Say what?  "Missing buyer syndrome?"  That's not a "syndrome," that's a capitalism fail.  If someone offers a product or service that nobody wants to buy, it's not a "syndrome" that can or should be cured.  It simply means that the product or service offered is not marketable, not needed, and not beneficial to targeted customers.

Except what if the seller wants to force the purchase of its product or service because it sees an opportunity to make a lot of money if someone buys the product or service?  Then it's a "syndrome" that must be cured through government intervention.  That's absurd.  Why don't we call it what it is... government-facilitated corporate greed?

"Missing buyer syndrome" is the bastard child of greedy corporations who want to make a bundle of money building new wind farms in the Midwest and huge new transmission lines to move the electricity generated to population centers.

The proposed Chokecherry Sierra Madre wind energy project could face challenges selling power in the desert southwest, officials told lawmakers in Casper last week.

The energy generated from the proposed 1,000-turbine site will be carried along a high power transmission line to California and the desert southwest.

California, however, is being difficult.

“We have a huge issue in California in that Californians would like to keep all of the development and buy all of their power from within their borders,” she said.

“We call it the missing buyer syndrome. The need is still there … we believe the market is there, but we are right now caught in a limbo.”

Ah, sweetcheeks, if your buyer is "missing" then there is no market.  There is no need.  There is no "limbo."  It's simple supply and demand.  Economics 101.  It's not up to Wyoming, or Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind, to determine what energy suppliers in other states buy.  Nobody cares what you think, especially because you're driven by greed.

And here's another "missing buyer" for a greedy company that also found there was no demand for its service.

Clean Line Energy Partners, a Houston-based company that proposes to bring wind-generated power from Oklahoma and Texas to the Southeast along a $2.5 billion transmission line, says it could deliver power to TVA at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.

But the utility has yet to commit to buying any of the 3,500 megawatts of wind-generated power Clean Line Energy will bring to the western edge of TVA's territory along its 720-mile transmission line from near Diamond, Okla. TVA said it doesn't need more power generation because of the stagnant demand for electricity in its seven-state region, and Johnson said TVA still would have to maintain or build other generation capacity to make up for the Clean Line energy when the wind doesn't blow.

"The price [from Clean Line Power], in and of itself, is a good price for wind," Johnson said. "But it actually costs us a lot more to import it and to make sure we have gas plants running or capable of running in case the wind doesn't show up."

Johnson estimates having the additional capacity to make up for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine typically adds at least 2 cents per kilowatt-hour to the quoted price of such renewable energy.

"At the moment, we have yet to conclude that [buying power from Clean Line Energy] is the right fit for what we are doing," he said.

"But I am mostly pro consumer, so we want what is the best price, the most reliable and the cleanest power for the consumer," he said. "Given our demand projections, we actually don't need any additional generating capacity at this time."

But yet environmental groups continue to sing and dance at each quarterly TVA board meeting, and certain news outlets continue to eat it up and present it to the public as if environmentalists are better at planning and running the TVA system than the slate of professional economists and engineers employed by TVA.  Unlike urban environmentalists, TVA professionals plan its resources based on need and economics, not some pie in the sky environmental goals.  TVA is "pro consumer."  Environmentalists are "pro environment," no matter the cost.  Clean Line and other wanna be transmission developers are "pro profits."  The only one in this menage a trois who is looking out for consumers is the TVA.

And how do these greedy corporations think they can cure "missing buyer syndrome?"

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.”

This one wants to force the federal government to take the place of the "missing buyer."  And if the federal government became the "missing buyer" then its customers would be forced to shoulder economic risk and financially support corporate greed through higher electric rates.

The Anschutz Corp. wants state governments to force "missing buyers" to purchase its product and service through legal mandates.  It's all the same corporate greed looking for a government bailout for bad investments in renewable energy and electric transmission.

While these investors thought they saw a financial opportunity to use government tax credits to build something that's only needed through forced mandates, their gamble has not paid off.  The government mandates are shifting and there's a new call to keep energy local.  While the industrial wind industry thought it could exploit windy states to produce energy for export, the target importing states have a greed of their own to keep their energy dollars in state.  This creates the mythical "missing customer."

If a state can choose between local economic development and sending those same dollars out of state to develop the economy elsewhere, the choice is simple.  But what about those states that think they can develop their own economy becoming an exporter?  They're selling themselves short.  Instead of becoming an industrial wasteland in exchange for a few jobs and tax dollars, those states should be marketing themselves as a cheap energy mecca.  Instead of exporting energy, perhaps they should try importing energy-intensive businesses?

And what about all those "fly over" states caught between states that want to export renewable energy and their "missing customers?"  They're getting nothing in the deal and they're not going along with it.

Dozens of developers are competing to offer Massachusetts the best price for long-term contracts to supply clean energy to hundreds of thousands of homes. But many of the projects face a challenge: convincing residents of northern New England that it's in their interest to host the Bay State's extension cord.

I think it's pretty clear.  Those corporations who gambled that they could make a lot of money developing remote generators and transmission lines to connect the generators to demand centers made a bad investment.  It was a bad idea fueled by greed.  We've all made bad investments in our lives, from  huge market-crashing bad deals to the weekly waste of buying lottery tickets that never win.  But when we lose, we realize we can't demand a government bailout to save us from our own bad decisions.  And that's the difference between us regular folk and the one percent, who aren't used to taking responsibility for their own losses.  Nobody cares how many millions Philip Anschutz, National Grid, or the Ziff brothers have poured into these bad renewable energy ideas.  They made a bad decision and they no more deserve a government bailout than the guy on the corner who is holding a worthless lottery ticket.

Remote renewables are dead.  Stop throwing good money after bad.  Local renewables are on the rise.  Quit wasting the remaining years of the production tax credit on bad ideas.  Here's the next great thing:

Offshore wind is still a relatively costly technology, but here's one advantage: You can build ocean-based windmills pretty close to the demand centers, and avoid all those long transmission lines.

Because aerial transmission lines on private property are the problem.  There would be no need to "work closely" with regulators, governments, or landowners if you were creating partnerships and providing value for customers.  "Working closely" is another euphemism that needs to go.  "Working closely" means "we're lobbying them intensely but they're not buying our bullshit."

Instead of trying to beat everyone into submission, perhaps you should offer a product or service that people like, want, and need?  That would turn your "missing customer" into "eager customer."  Unless you just really like swimming upstream, against the current. There are smarter and easier ways to make money.  Some days I wonder how you rich people got that way in the first place...