Propaganda and Puffery: Need for Cardinal Hickory Creek Evaporates

Really great article in the Wisconsin State Journal this week profiling the devastating effects the Cardinal Hickory Creek project will have on small businesses in its path.  A farm operation that supplies beef to some of  Wisconsin's best restaurants, an award-winning cheesemaker, and an event center are just some of the small businesses in the bullseye of a new transmission line whose need seems to have evaporated since it was cooked up in 2011.  That's nearly 8 years ago!  In the fast-paced world of electric transmission, that's a whole different era.

Interspersed with the interviews of business owners and community group representatives is the opinion of Cardinal Hickory Creek project owner ATC's spokeswoman.

The utility companies say the project, which they want operational by 2023, could provide Wisconsin customers with “net economic benefits” of between $23.5 million and $350 million over its expected 40-year life. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the regional electric grid operator, has endorsed the project as one of 17 across the region that will improve the reliability of the electric system, provide economic benefits to utilities and consumers, and support the use of renewable energy by delivering low-cost wind energy from Iowa to population centers where the power is needed.

“Those drivers have not changed for the project. Those have been consistent since the project was announced,” Freiman said.

But have they?  Have they really?  Here's something Freiman probably hopes you don't find out.

Transmission planning was a recent topic of discussion at a meeting of the  Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the electric grid planner for the region, and creator of the 8-year old "need" for the project.  RTO Insider's coverage of that meeting revealed that MISO members are questioning the "business case" for further transmission expansion in light of current system needs and increased transmission costs.

Multiple stakeholders said another possible crop of MVPs, if any, will need a new business case process, especially considering the fleet change that has occurred in the intervening years and the transmission cost allocation plan MISO will file at the end of the year.

By the time MISO has gotten to the end of its 2011 MVP portfolio of new transmission, the "need" for such projects has evaporated.  It's time to jettison old ideas and concentrate on today's needs.  Cardinal Hickory Creek isn't one of them.  Utility regulators need to quit rubber stamping old ideas.

Opposition to MISO's MVP transmission project portfolio has also entered a new era.  The people simply aren't going to stand for more unneeded transmission that destroys local communities.

“What if customers have had enough of transmission expansion? What if they’re tired of having transmission lines going across their farms, yards. … They have more options to bypass us completely. You can talk about MISO’s value until you’re blue in the face. What customers see is rising bills,” Madison Gas and Electric’s Megan Wisersky said.

She said customers might be better served by a reinforced distribution system than more transmission projects.

“We have to remember that these transmission lines do impose on communities,” said Coalition of Midwest Transmission Customers attorney Jim Dauphinais, who agreed that overbuilding transmission will result in more expensive bills.

That's right, customers have had enough!  The revolt isn't just on the horizon, it's here now.

So, what do the people want?

Opponents say the line is not needed and would damage important conservation areas, disrupt the scenic beauty and harm agricultural businesses dotted along the routes. They argue Wisconsin consumers would be better served by energy efficiency and local renewable-energy projects. And they have no desire to advocate for one route at the expense of those along the other.

This message was also aired at the MISO meeting.

Alliant Energy’s Mitchell Myhre said he didn’t think MISO would need an entirely new transmission planning playbook but that it should analyze transmission project alternatives and engage in conversations about them. He said more analysis on transmission project alternatives may have lessened the late-stage disagreements over at least two projects in this year’s Transmission Expansion Plan. (See related story, MISO Board OKs Full MTEP 18 Over Stakeholder Complaints.)

“We ask that those conversations [about alternatives] happen at the front end of the process so they don’t come up in the back end of the process,” Myhre said.

Engage in conversations?  What does that mean?  Is it so MISO can say it considered alternatives and rejected them?  Is this all about scheming up ways to plug the holes that developed in MISO's last MVP debacle?

“We think there needs to be a study; we think there needs to be a process” to see if a long-term regional transmission plan makes sense, Missouri Public Service Commissioner Daniel Hall agreed.

Sigh.  This guy.  The one who wants to toss Missouri taxpayers under the bus by giving the power of eminent domain to a wind generation company.  He wants to concoct some malarkey "study" to back up MISO's transmission expansion aspirations.  Many of the comments in the article supporting another MISO MVP portfolio are all about finding ways to make new projects seem needed.  These interests include an effort to build infrastructure for Big Wind at the expense of MISO ratepayers.  That's what this is all about, at its most basic level.  It's about Big Wind proposing generation projects and stacking them in MISO's interconnection queue.  When faced with new generators wanting to connect to its system, MISO wants to provide service.  But how many of these new wind projects are intended for export outside MISO?  And should MISO ratepayers fund the transmission infrastructure that enables big wind generation companies to get their product across the MISO region so that it may be used by others outside the region?  If these were merchant projects, they'd have to demonstrate a commercial need before being financed and constructed, and only the committed customers would pay for them.  Instead, MISO has expanded its transmission system based on where it believes Big Wind wants to build, without any consideration for who will ultimately purchase the electricity.  And it has done it on the backs of ratepayers who will see little, if any, benefit and perhaps not even use the electricity transmitted.  These are captive ratepayers, not free market customers.

MISO's planning director doesn't seem to want to pursue another MVP portfolio.  He says the costs to connect every Big Wind project in the queue will be uneconomic. 

MISO’s transmission queue contains 483 projects totaling about 80 GW. Executive Director of Resource Planning Patrick Brown said MISO may be reaching an economic “break point” where the costs of network upgrades render projects uneconomic, especially in the wind-heavy western portion of its footprint. “The general cost of network upgrades is going to drive them out,” Brown said.

I guess it's time to jettison this idea, not prolong the agony with bogus studies, business cases, and "need" scenarios.  It's simply not cost effective, something the opposition has been saying for years.

However, Kevin Murray, representing the Coalition of Midwest Transmission Customers, said a strong business case can’t be built on a speculative information about where resources might be constructed.

“We need to avoid the ‘build it and they will come’ sentiment. And we’ve seen hints of that in the past,” Murray said. He said some transmission projects might be more appropriately funded by interconnection customers for planned generation.

It's way past time for MISO to put down the cape of climate hero Big Wind that it has been carrying for the past 8 years.  The bleeding of MISO ratepayers for benefit of Big Wind profits has to end.

And it ends at Cardinal Hickory Creek's doorstep.

And what did Big Wind have to say for itself?

Clean Grid Alliance’s Beth Soholt said her company will continue to support the Cardinal Hickory Creek line project in Wisconsin, which she said had a “solid as ever” business case.

Soholt suggested that MTEP 15-year future scenarios should account for sustainability goals beyond renewable portfolio standards.

Hmm... that sounds eerily similar to what Kaya Frieman said in the State Journal article.  You don't suppose Big Wind and ATC are in cahoots, do you?

Keep up the good work, CHC opposition!  Big Wind's ball of string seems to have started to unravel...