My name is Michael Skelly and I am founder and CEO of Grid United, an early stage transmission development company. I have spent the last 25 years developing a wide variety of energy projects. I got involved in the US wind industry in the late 90’s, and helped put together thousands of megawatts of new wind projects. In 2009 I started a company called Clean Line Energy which focused on interstate power lines to move renewable energy around the country. We successfully permitted a three-state high voltage, direct current transmission line. We sold off our projects several years ago to other developers who are carrying them forward. Indeed, our Western Spirit project is now under construction in New Mexico.

A decade ago, we as a country did not have such a fantastic opportunity set in front of us. However, in the ensuing years, both utilities and independent developers have been sorting through the nettlesome siting, permitting, cost allocation and grid connection challenges.

Transmission plays a role in replacing the carbon and other pollution in these population centers with renewable sources of energy, thereby improving air quality for residents, and addressing long-standing environmental injustices.

While not a perfect policy tool, an Investment Tax Credit can make up for this deficiency in the planning process. The ITC would have the effect of lowering the denominator in the benefit to cost test. More lines would make it through the planning process, and we will end up with a lower carbon grid.

The other type of transmission lines that get built are called “merchant” lines. These are typically built outside the conventional planning process, and their economics rely on generators paying the developers of merchant lines to deliver their power across long distances to get to market. An ITC will help reduce the cost of the transmission service, and therefore more lines would get built, and more renewable energy projects will follow.

Among other indications that Grain Belt now intends to materially change the original project are these additional, unequivocal statements from their press release:
● “Invenergy Transmission, the owner and developer of the Grain Belt Express transmission line project (‘Grain Belt’) today announced plans to increase local clean energy access and accelerate billions of dollars in economic investment in Kansas and Missouri.” The statement does not say Respondents “might” or “are considering” those plans. It says they are hereby announcing them.

● “Economic recovery and long-term economic competitiveness in Kansas and Missouri depend on new investment, more jobs, and tapping into low-cost, homegrown clean energy, which Grain Belt is moving full speed ahead to deliver, said Kris Zadlo, SVP [with Invenergy] .... Grain Belt is proud to increase our investment in Kansas and Missouri to rebuild the economy, deliver billions of dollars in energy cost savings, and meet growing renewable energy demand.” (emphasis added). No ambiguities there.

● “As the new owner of Grain Belt, Invenergy Transmission plans to increase the project’s delivery capacity to Kansas and Missouri to up to 2,500 megawatts of the line’s 4,000 megawatt capacity .... Previously, 500 megawatts of the transmission line’s capacity was slated for delivery to Missouri.” (emphasis added). Again, Respondents’ plan to increase delivery of power to these two states was expressed in unequivocal terms.

● ”Grain Belt will provide critical power infrastructure to the region benefiting residents for decades to come.”

● Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas is quoted in the press release as stating that “[t]his impressive project is the latest example of Kansas’ place as a wind energy leader in our region and beyond.”

● According to the Kansas Secretary of Commerce, “the unwavering commitment from Governor Kelly to further support renewable sources is paying off in many ways, including this tremendous step forward in the Grain Belt Express.” He is further quoted as saying that the revised project “will deliver a significant economic boost to our rural communities in particular. The news couldn’t come at a better time.”

Clearly, these statements from the two Kansas officials would have been authorized for inclusion in the press release only if those individuals had been convinced that Respondents actually plan to move forward with the changes announced in the press release. Had Respondents told them that the revised plans were merely under consideration, the reaction from the Kansas officials would no doubt have been different from what they are quoted as saying in the press release.

● A representative of Renew Missouri is quoted in the press release as saying that “the benefits of Grain Belt have only grown with billions of dollars of added savings ....” Again, this statement is nonsensical unless the speaker had been led to believe that Respondents are committed to moving forward with the changes announced in the press release.

● Perhaps the clearest commitment by Respondents to materially change the original project is the following statement from the press release: “With increased delivery to Missouri ... Grain Belt will double its overall economic investment in Missouri to $1 billion .... Grain Belt will now make available as much as half or more of the project’s total capacity for Missourians.”

The importance of this statement lies in how this additional $500 million is to be spent on the project. As Mr. Zadlo acknowledged, the additional $500 million announced in the press release represents the added cost of increasing the capacity of the Missouri converter station by five-fold: from the original 500 MW to 2,500 MW.35 One could hardly argue that this change is not material.
And Respondents did not state that they were merely “considering” or “contemplating” the additional $500 million investment, which was earmarked for quintupling the size of the Missouri converter station. Instead, the press release states unequivocally that the new plans for the project “would” double the investment in Missouri to $1 billion.
In addition to the press release, in a letter sent from Respondents to landowners just this past December, Respondents included the following statements, again made unequivocally and with no hint that the plans announced therein were anything short of a firm commitment:

● “As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project’s delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.”
● “Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt’s 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers .... This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri.” Again, Respondents do not equivocate. The new plan “requires” the expansion of the Missouri converter station. As it turns out, it requires a five-fold increase in the size of that converter station. ● “Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan.” Again, this is a firm commitment to proceed with the project as modified by the announced changes. If Respondents had not already committed to making these changes, there would be no need to state that they “will be seeking regulatory approval” for the changes. This statement also recognizes that the changes being made are “material” enough to require Commission approval under the terms of the CCN decision.

● The letter also states that Respondents will be seeking approval to begin construction of the line prior to obtaining approval for the Illinois segment of the project. This statement confirms the description of the new project in the press release as constituting a “phased construction plan.”

And as counsel for Respondents conceded, “if phasing was to occur so that the Missouri and Kansas portion of the line was built before the Illinois and Indiana portion of the line, then we would likely consider that a material change and be before the Commission.” So the newly announced phasing plan definitely constitutes a material change to the project.

● A series of emails shown at Exhibit 6 indicate that a woman named Kimberly, acting on behalf of Grain Belt, was soliciting comments from the Governor of Kansas to be used in the August 25 press release. In an email of August 6, she informed a number of Kansas officials that “The project is moving into its next phase and the company plans to announce this development.” (emphasis added). She did not tell the Kansas officials that the project might be moving into a new phase. Instead, she unequivocally assured them that the project “is” moving into the next phase.
● Finally, in his response to Data Request No. 8, Mr. Zadlo simply answered “yes” to the following question:
Do Respondents presently plan to eventually seek regulatory approval from the Missouri Commission for the changes described in the press release attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint in this case, assuming no other significant changes are proposed to the project as originally approved?

This answer says, plainly and simply, that Respondents do in fact “presently” plan to seek Commission approval for the changes they announced in the press release. Mr. Zadlo did not say they might do so, or that they were considering that as an option. He said they will be seeking approval for those changes, which necessarily means they have already decided to make the revisions announced in the press release. It follows that Respondents have abandoned the project as approved in the CCN case.
The press release also mentions that Grain Belt will seek regulatory approvals “to the extent necessary” for the revised project. That of course is a given. Respondents have no choice but to seek regulatory approval for what amounts to a new transmission project. But that fact has no bearing on the question of whether they have already decided, as they have said, to move “full speed ahead” with the revised project. And again, the statement reinforces the fact that Respondents themselves consider the proposed changes to be “material” enough to require Commission approval.

In attempting to explain away their answer to Data Request No. 8, Respondents claim that the revisions announced in the press release are merely “contemplated changes.” But that explanation misses the point. As of today the specifics of the new plan may well be in the “contemplated” stage, with final details still to be determined.

However, that does not mean Respondents have not already committed to building the project in accordance with the announcements in the press release, as opposed to the project approved in the CCN case. In fact, they have as much as promised officials in Kansas that those changes will be forthcoming.
Perhaps at some point Respondents realized the potential consequences of their announced changes to the project. But taking them at their word up to that point, they have clearly stated they are already committed to making material changes to the project originally approved by the Commission. For Respondents to now dismiss the press release as nothing more than “a marketing exercise” simply demonstrates a complete lack of transparency and credibility.

The same holds true for their after-the-fact attempt to dismiss the press release as merely announcing the supposed benefits of the line and “an openness by Grain Belt to increase the converter station and dropoff in Missouri.” That document goes well beyond that characterization. In fact, the additional consumer benefits would materialize only if the chances announced in the press release were implemented.

The more credible statements from Respondents concerning this project are those made before the Complaint was filed here. Assuming Respondents were not deliberately misleading Missouri landowners, public officials, and the general public up to that point, those statements can only mean that they have already decided to materially alter the project approved by the Commission.
Based on the foregoing, the design and engineering of the project presently being pursued by Respondents is materially different from that approved in the CCN case.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Soon enough, eminent domain policies will have to evolve to align with renewable energy policies in order for a complete overhaul of the grid system to be attainable. State and federal lawmakers will eventually have to address the issue by having to revise the definition of “public use” to account for transmission lines transporting renewable electricity.

Financing large-scale, interregional transmission can be particularly challenging for merchant developers, said Shashank Sane, senior vice president and head of transmission at Invenergy.  “The beneficiaries of these projects can be diverse, and so in order to monetize the value of those lines, we have to find the stakeholder who is willing to pay for a certain benefit and create those links,” Sane said. “That’s really not the right model.”

For example, he said, Invenergy’s Grain Belt Express project now under development is aimed at bringing wind power from Kansas across Missouri, Illinois and ultimately to Indiana, providing a connection to MISO and PJM.

“The ITC is the key tool that will enable [the project] because it addresses the cost allocation problem and paying for those multiple benefits a single beneficiary is not willing to pay for,” Sane said.

The tax credit would stimulate both of the main types of transmission projects—regulated rate- based projects and “merchant” lines whose costs are recovered through negotiated or market- based capacity reservations. In the case of regulated lines, a utility or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) would allocate the costs through a state or federal (FERC) regulatory process across a set of wholesale or retail customers. In that case, the tax credit would reduce the costs paid by those customers and make the cost allocation and approval process easier so more projects can move forward. In the latter case of merchant projects, the transmission capacity reservation costs that developers need to recover from wholesale customers would be reduced by the tax credit. This would allow the transmission developer to offer a more attractive price to customers, increasing the odds of success.

By reducing the cost of electricity, a transmission tax credit can significantly reduce the burden of electricity costs on lower-income Americans. Electricity costs are regressive in that they hit the lowest income Americans disproportionately hard. Electricity accounts for 3.7 percent of total household expenditures for lower-income Americans, versus only 1.4 percent for the highest-income Americans. This is because electricity is a necessity for many aspects of modern life, so the poorest Americans can only reduce their electricity consumption to a limited extent. Unlike other products, it is not possible to use a lower-cost substitute, as a kiloWatt-hour used by a lower-income family is the same and costs the same as one used by a higher-income family. In addition, lower-income Americans have less ability to invest in cost-saving energy efficiency upgrades. As a result, those in the highest 10 percent income bracket only spend twice as much on electricity as those in the lowest 10 percent bracket; for other goods, those in the top 10 percent spend nearly six times as much.In contrast, the federal taxes used to offset the cost of a transmission tax credit are much more progressive, with the top 10 percent of earners paying 60 percent of total federal taxes, and the bottom 30 percent paying negative tax rates due to policies like the earned income tax credit. As a result, a transmission tax credit that moves costs from utility bills to tax bills is very progressive.

Developers of the Grain Belt Express say the massive transmission line remains on track to open up by 2025, connecting wind power in western Kansas with voracious demand in the East.
The 800-mile project promises to add more reliability to the electric grid — all the more enticing since rolling blackouts in February left millions of Americans without power. While the $2 billion overhead transmission line aims at exporting wind energy from Kansas, it will also be capable of moving electricity both directions, which could have helped mitigate the electricity crisis that hit the United States earlier this year.

Zadlo understands the opposition to the project. But he said the benefits for people here and across the United States are immense. Just like railroad cars transport coal from mines to refineries, the Grain Belt will move a much-needed resource to customers, while also strengthening the electrical grid.

"Reliability benefits all people, right? Increasing the reliability of the grid is a good societal impact," he said. "Whether you're in the city or in rural areas, you will benefit from the increased reliability that Grain Belt will bring."

Updating the grid is going to be expensive: at least $150 billion of investment and probably closer to $200 billion. That’s a lot of coin, but here’s the good news: These investments will earn 9 to 11 percent because that’s the regulated return on transmission assets. This is what’s allowed under the regulatory compact that was first laid out in the Binghamton Bridge Supreme Court case of 1865 because transmission is a natural monopoly. This isn’t like the deregulated power generation market; there’s actual competition there so independent power producers like Calpine Corp. can — and do — go bankrupt. Investors can lose everything. Not here — these returns are guaranteed.

The formula is pretty simple. I won’t bother to explain it:

Total revenue requirement = rate base × allowed rate of return + expenses

Biden just unlocked private investment in the grid. It is the most fundamental infrastructure there is — a giant power cord that connects supply with demand. These are valuable assets so the private sector should be lining up to invest. David Swensen made his reputation by championing investment in novel asset classes, and this one is sitting right in front of us: X marks the spot. Pensions and large companies like Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon are sitting on mountains of cash that should be jonesing for private finance initiative projects to build transmission for the federal government, give operational control to a regional transmission organization, and receive the approved return from ratepayers. Do more than consume the power — bank the returns!

One of the most urgently needed policy changes, several clean energy experts and transmission developers argue, is an investment tax credit specifically for transmission projects, which would allow developers to deduct a certain percentage of their costs from their federal taxes. A bill establishing a tax credit for transmission lines has already been introduced by Senator Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, and the concept also appears in Biden’s major infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan. 

Whereas utilities know they can recover the cost of new transmission lines from the ratepayers they already serve, private developers need to confirm that at least a portion of the energy they transport will be purchased, whether it’s by utilities themselves or large corporate energy users like data companies. Many developers, Gramlich said, are ready to begin building, but don’t have quite enough customers to comfortably pull the trigger on construction. A tax credit would help the “project economics pencil out,” he explained, boosting transmission projects over the hump toward completion. 

Joe Kalin in News-Press Now

Joe Kalin has fond memories of growing up in the Buchanan County countryside.
His father came from Switzerland and turned 87 acres near Faucett, Missouri, into a successful dairy farm, where Kalin lived and worked with four brothers and a sister. Before passing it to the next generation, Kalin’s father instilled a deep appreciation for the land and its productive capacity.
“My parents both come from the old country,” said Kalin, now 84. “My father, he loved to farm. It was given to us boys as an inheritance. We were always told to take care of it, that it would care of us.”

It’s a 780-mile, high-voltage transmission line that threatens to cut through the land that brought John Kalin to America in the 1920s. The project, known as the Grain Belt Express, seeks to transfer wind power from western Kansas to population centers east of the Mississippi River.

For his part, Kalin said he isn’t against green energy but opposes being forced to pay the price while others reap the benefits. He doesn’t want to look out the window and see 150-foot power poles where his father once saw a landscape reminiscent of an alpine meadow.
“I don’t like the government telling people what they can do and can’t do with their land,” he said.

“DOE is making financing available for projects that improve resilience and expand transmission capacity across the electrical grid, so we can reliably move clean energy from places where it’s produced to places where it’s needed most,” said Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm.

Observing the report’s map, Skelly said, “If you squint a little bit, you can see the beginnings of what would be a nationally connected system. Obviously, there are plenty of gaps here, but … if these lines get done, then we have the beginnings of a something” that could “grow organically into a national grid.”

Among the projects are a few originally proposed by Michael Skelly’s defunct Clean Line Energy Partners, including the Grain Belt Express and the Plains & Eastern Clean Line.

“The reason we put these projects on the list is because they’re sited, and they’ve got interconnect agreements, and they’ve got studies; they’re ready to go,” said Skelly, now a senior adviser at Lazard, who joined ACEG Executive Director Rob Gramlich and several representatives of the listed projects’ developers in presenting the report.

Given the scale of transmission need discussed above, other policies to enable large-scale expansion of transmission over the longer-term are also needed.

Anchor Tenant

Legislation could be enacted to direct the federal government to directly invest in new transmission lines as an “anchor tenant” customer, and then re-sell that contracted transmission capacity to renewable developers and others seeking to use the transmission line. This would help provide the certainty needed to move transmission projects to construction and overcome what is called the “chicken-and-the-egg problem,” in which renewable developers and transmission developers are each waiting for the other to go first due to the mismatch in the length of time it takes each to complete construction.

FERC Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation Reform
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has authority over how transmission is planned and paid for. FERC can use that authority to break the transmission planning and cost allocation logjams that are preventing large regional and inter-regional lines from being built. Legislation to direct FERC to use that authority could also be helpful.

Streamlined Permitting
While most authority for permitting transmission lines is held by states, federal agencies have authority over lines that cross federal lands. Steps can be taken to streamline and expedite that process, which can currently take a decade or more.

Community opponents of the highway expansion said TxDOT’s only solution to ease traffic problems and congestion is to build more highways, which, besides allowing more cars on the road, also covers more city area with asphalt and concrete. This has considerably increased flooding in areas surrounding highways, many of which have suffered disproportionately since Hurricane Harvey in August 2017, they said.
Michael Skelly, a local activist with the Make I-45 Better Coalition, said TxDOT has consistently ignored residents’ input on project design despite several public hearings. “In 2015, a few of us residents got together and submitted our comments to TxDOT on a 2017 draft project,” he said. “It soon became clear they were not going to commit to anything.”