Where do you suppose Sierra Club got their talking points for testimony opposing Missouri HB 1876? Was there an illogical talking points sale sometime last year? These talking points are not only dated, they're one-sided... and silly. Let's look.
The Missouri Sierra Club opposes HB 1876. House Bill 1876 is designed to stop the Grain Belt Express transmission line which would bring clean, inexpensive wind energy from southwest Kansas to Missouri. This bill would prevent the use of eminent domain for this particular project, while still allowing eminent domain for most transmission lines for utilities like Ameren, Evergy and Empire.
HB 1876 is designed to stop merchant transmission lines from using eminent domain without local community buy in. If GBE was a regionally ordered, cost allocated transmission line like Ameren, Evergy and Empire build, it wouldn't be stopped from using eminent domain or building GBE. It's not about GBE, it's about speculative merchant transmission vs. transmission found to be needed for reliability or economic reasons.
More legal barriers for wind energy transmission give an unfair advantage to the highly polluting fossil fuel industry. Electricity from the Grain Belt Express will be substantially cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal. That is why cities across Missouri have signed agreements and passed resolutions to purchase wind power from this line. Cheaper electricity means more money in consumers’ pockets!
This isn't about wind energy, either. It's about merchant transmission. BTW, Sierra Club, there is no such thing as "wind energy transmission." Electricity is agnostic as to fuel source. All the electrons are the same color. You cannot segregate the "wind" ones from the "coal" ones on a transmission line. First of all, Grain Belt Express doesn't sell electricity, second of all, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that taking service on GBE is "cheaper" than taking service on another transmission line. Transmission costs are constantly rising. The cost of electricity is something completely different. The "all in" cost of wind PLUS government subsidies is actually more expensive than coal-fired generation. In addition, the shorter the transmission distance, the cheaper the transmission. Wind energy from Southwest Kansas needs to travel farther to get to Missouri than coal-fired power generated in Missouri.
Cities across Missouri signed an agreement to purchase capacity on Grain Belt Express because GBE offered the capacity at a loss leader price. It costs GBE more to provide the service than the cities are paying for it. GBE plans to make up the difference with other customers. Except it doesn't have any other customers.
Cities across Missouri signed an agreement to purchase capacity on Grain Belt Express because GBE offered the capacity at a loss leader price. It costs GBE more to provide the service than the cities are paying for it. GBE plans to make up the difference with other customers. Except it doesn't have any other customers.
Grain Belt Express will deliver at least 500 megawatts (MW) of low-cost, clean energy to
Missouri. The power delivered along this line is expected to save dozens of rural Missouri communities more than $12 million annually.
No, Sierra Club. GBE said it would deliver "up to" 500 MW. Not "at least." There's a big difference. MJMEUC, on behalf of a bunch of cities it sources power for, signed up for only 200 MW of capacity. No other customers have signed up for the other 300 MW of available capacity. It's just transmission capacity, there's no actual energy involved. In fact, if you think GBE is so wonderful, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy the other 300 MW, Sierra Club? You can plan to re-sell it to someone else later... because you think it's going to be used and useful. But if you're stuck paying for a worthless contract for the next 40 years because you can't unload it, don't blame us.
About that $12M savings... it's at least 5 years out of date. It was based on high-priced contracts with Prairie State and other bad deals the cities got locked into years ago. However, those contracts have all since expired and been replaced with new ones. It's high time that the "savings" for the cities be recalculated using today's figures and contracts. You might just find that GBE is MORE EXPENSIVE than other options. What's the harm? Or are you not so sure GBE is even a good deal anymore? Do you expect that $12M to collapse? Is that good stewardship on behalf of the cities' ratepayers to bury your head in the sand about electricity prices for purely political reasons?
About that $12M savings... it's at least 5 years out of date. It was based on high-priced contracts with Prairie State and other bad deals the cities got locked into years ago. However, those contracts have all since expired and been replaced with new ones. It's high time that the "savings" for the cities be recalculated using today's figures and contracts. You might just find that GBE is MORE EXPENSIVE than other options. What's the harm? Or are you not so sure GBE is even a good deal anymore? Do you expect that $12M to collapse? Is that good stewardship on behalf of the cities' ratepayers to bury your head in the sand about electricity prices for purely political reasons?
Grain Belt is exploring and will be seeking additional regulatory approvals as necessary to provide up to 2,500 megawatts of the project’s 4,000-megawatt capacity to the Missouri converter station.
Sorry, Sierra Club! That was just some smoke GBE was blowing before it made new, unconstitutional laws in Illinois that are supposed to grease the skids for GBE to cross that state and connect to PJM. GBE no longer wants to sell more than half its capacity in Missouri because it can get more money for it by connecting with PJM. That idea is now off the table. Go ahead, ask them.
Wind energy creates more local jobs than coal energy.
Except when that wind energy is produced in another state, like Kansas, and shuts out coal-fired energy production in Missouri. In that instance, Missourians who are currently paid very well to operate those power plants will be out of work. GBE would actually cause Missouri to lose a lot of high wage jobs. GBE will not create any new, permanent, energy generation jobs in Missouri.
100% of the coal burned in Missouri for electricity generation is mined out of state. The Grain Belt Express will create jobs here, including: Kansas City - Construction jobs at PAR Electrical Contractors Centralia – Manufacturing jobs at Hubbell.
Except burning that coal actually creates Missouri jobs. Building a transmission line like GBE uses specialized labor from certain contractors across the country. The workers with these skills are shipped around the country to build transmission. It's rare that transmission in your state is built by local workers. GBE won't be picking up day labor in the K-Mart parking lot. Any manufacturing jobs are also for supplying transmission components on a nationwide level. However, many transmission components are manufactured overseas in places like China. Is there any guarantee GBE would use 100% U.S. components? Of course not. They will build this project from the cheapest components they can source because cost of building comes directly out of company profits. The less it costs, the bigger the profit! If GBE isn't built, no jobs will be lost. Hubbell will still be manufacturing for other projects. This isn't about jobs though. Everyone knows the jobs numbers are manufactured by a computer program and never resemble reality.
Not only would many small towns across our state benefit from lower electricity costs, rural communities would receive about $7.2 million annually in property taxes to supporting schools and police, in addition to payments to landowners. The project would expand broadband service to over 1 million rural Missourians, including 250,000 within 50 miles of the transmission line.
First of all, you haven't proven the lower electricity costs. The increase in property taxes will be ameliorated by lower property values. Besides, the tax payments are not guaranteed and utilities are notorious at cutting deals for lower taxes. Don't count your millions before they hatch. $7.2M in 8 counties. That's less than a million per county. How much would having GBE in the county cost? Increased road maintenance, first responder time and equipment are just some of the local budget increases. Are the counties really getting something here, or is it more like a handful of colorful beads?
The broadband promises are pie in the sky and most likely won't happen. That was just something GBE said to try to make the people of Missouri like them, much like buying cows and pies at the fair. There's nothing requiring GBE to provide broadband. But, even if it did, putting broadband capability on GBE doesn't bring service to your home. It's the "last mile" costs that keep you from having broadband, not the cost of building the backbone. You need a connection to the service. It's not wireless magic.
Payments to landowners are compensation for something that is taken from them. It is not a windfall or benefit.
So, that's it for Sierra Club. I'm left wondering why they even bothered? The committee isn't fooled by that outdated puffery. Sierra Club needs to do some REAL fact-finding and stop simply regurgitating last year's talking points. That's not helpful.
And speaking of not helpful... try to get through the testimony of Renew Missouri Advocates representative James Owen without laughing. I'm just going to wonder... how many bottles of wine were consumed by the end of that 2-page rant? It started out sort of coherent but the further you get, the more error-ridden and senseless it actually is. Did James just find out about "electrons colliding on transmission lines"? He explains it like a third-grader with a new toy. Hardly convincing.
Seems like Invenergy is hardly playing the game this year. It's like they don't even have to try. Why do you suppose that is?
The broadband promises are pie in the sky and most likely won't happen. That was just something GBE said to try to make the people of Missouri like them, much like buying cows and pies at the fair. There's nothing requiring GBE to provide broadband. But, even if it did, putting broadband capability on GBE doesn't bring service to your home. It's the "last mile" costs that keep you from having broadband, not the cost of building the backbone. You need a connection to the service. It's not wireless magic.
Payments to landowners are compensation for something that is taken from them. It is not a windfall or benefit.
So, that's it for Sierra Club. I'm left wondering why they even bothered? The committee isn't fooled by that outdated puffery. Sierra Club needs to do some REAL fact-finding and stop simply regurgitating last year's talking points. That's not helpful.
And speaking of not helpful... try to get through the testimony of Renew Missouri Advocates representative James Owen without laughing. I'm just going to wonder... how many bottles of wine were consumed by the end of that 2-page rant? It started out sort of coherent but the further you get, the more error-ridden and senseless it actually is. Did James just find out about "electrons colliding on transmission lines"? He explains it like a third-grader with a new toy. Hardly convincing.
Seems like Invenergy is hardly playing the game this year. It's like they don't even have to try. Why do you suppose that is?
RSS Feed