Ever read something and feel that it made you dumber? That's pretty much my summation of a news article and OpEd that recently appeared in Missouri, along with an article in a law school journal. A law school journal? Isn't that supposed to be an in depth examination of the law using facts? The things they're teaching kids these days...
Let's start with the law journal piece, because it's just so much fluffy opinion.
Missouri’s Chance at Low-Cost Renewable Energy ‘Gone with the Wind’? in the St. Louis School of Law Journal uses references to opinion pieces to make its point. Is that how current law students intend to win future court battles? "Because Sierra Club told me this should be my opinion, therefore, it shall also be the opinion of the Court...". All "facts" are unproven, one-sided claims and studies. There is no balance here. If this was a journalism student writing for the school newspaper, he should receive a failing grade. But it's law, where reality is molded to support a desired outcome. Works great unless there is an opposing side. And there's always an opposing side! Maybe the author should have spent more time researching eminent domain and its requirement that property taken must be put into "public use." Public use and public "benefit" are two separate things. The public may not use Grain Belt Express. It's a privately owned project for the exclusive use of its selected customers. Just because some wrongly believe it provides some economic public "benefit" does not mean it's for public use. Building a Walmart in your Mom's backyard would provide economic benefits to the public, right? Or how about a casino in your spare bedroom? A McDonald's next door? All businesses spur commerce, new taxes, and convenience to users, however we don't use eminent domain to site them. It's not like anyone can come in off the street and sell its cheap Chinese goods at Walmart, sell their own burgers at McDonald's, or set up their own shell game in the casino's lobby. That would be public use. I hope the law school soon includes a class on the 5th Amendment, maybe some study of Kelo v. City of New London. It's desperately needed before these new lawyers are unleashed on society. This piece discusses political opinion, not the law.
Next let's look at this article in The Kansas City Star. It also concentrates on purported "benefits" and opinion, not the law. Granted, it is a newspaper, but the article is about proposed legislation to change the law. Shouldn't they be concentrating on the law? There's nothing in there that sheds any light on changes to the actual law, or why legislators and voters believe the changes are necessary. It nothing but a trojan horse of "benefits" that aren't really necessary. It toots loud and long about "reliability" benefits, claiming that GBE will bring "needed" reliability to the electric grid. However, reliability is something studied, planned and ordered by regional grid operators, such as Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). If you need new transmission for reliability, SPP or MISO will order it to be built. GBE has not been ordered for reliability. It is a merchant project planned by private interests for their own pecuniary gain. Its only purpose is to make money for Invenergy. It's "reliability" you don't need. If you did, SPP or MISO would order it, but they have not. It also makes some crazy claims about the ability to redirect the project to bring power to Missouri from Indiana, instead of the other way around. Maybe that would work if it was a public access transmission line, but it's not. GBE plans to sell 100% of its capacity to generators on the Kansas end of the line and load serving entities who supply power to consumers at the Indiana end of the line. These entities would own all the capacity on the line for their own use. The idea that MISO or SPP could commandeer this private use transmission line and use it to ship power from generators in Indiana to load serving entities in Missouri doesn't work. How would the contracted customers be compensated for that? What would happen if the load serving entities on the Indiana end of the line were counting on GBE's capacity to meet their own power needs, and GBE suddenly stopped delivering power and, instead, began sucking locally generated power out of Indiana for use by load serving entities in Missouri? There's a lot more to this story that isn't told. It's an idea that makes little sense but it is spoon fed to an ignorant public as possible.
The article also attempts to convince that we need to "upgrade" the wider electric grid, and GBE will accomplish that. No, not even close. Our current grid is often compared to an interstate highway, open for the public to use. However, GBE is not a part of the wider electric grid. It's a private toll road from Kansas to Indiana that charges a fee to its contracted users. Only those contracted users can use the highway. It does not provide benefit to communities crossed because they cannot use it.
Let's start with the law journal piece, because it's just so much fluffy opinion.
Missouri’s Chance at Low-Cost Renewable Energy ‘Gone with the Wind’? in the St. Louis School of Law Journal uses references to opinion pieces to make its point. Is that how current law students intend to win future court battles? "Because Sierra Club told me this should be my opinion, therefore, it shall also be the opinion of the Court...". All "facts" are unproven, one-sided claims and studies. There is no balance here. If this was a journalism student writing for the school newspaper, he should receive a failing grade. But it's law, where reality is molded to support a desired outcome. Works great unless there is an opposing side. And there's always an opposing side! Maybe the author should have spent more time researching eminent domain and its requirement that property taken must be put into "public use." Public use and public "benefit" are two separate things. The public may not use Grain Belt Express. It's a privately owned project for the exclusive use of its selected customers. Just because some wrongly believe it provides some economic public "benefit" does not mean it's for public use. Building a Walmart in your Mom's backyard would provide economic benefits to the public, right? Or how about a casino in your spare bedroom? A McDonald's next door? All businesses spur commerce, new taxes, and convenience to users, however we don't use eminent domain to site them. It's not like anyone can come in off the street and sell its cheap Chinese goods at Walmart, sell their own burgers at McDonald's, or set up their own shell game in the casino's lobby. That would be public use. I hope the law school soon includes a class on the 5th Amendment, maybe some study of Kelo v. City of New London. It's desperately needed before these new lawyers are unleashed on society. This piece discusses political opinion, not the law.
Next let's look at this article in The Kansas City Star. It also concentrates on purported "benefits" and opinion, not the law. Granted, it is a newspaper, but the article is about proposed legislation to change the law. Shouldn't they be concentrating on the law? There's nothing in there that sheds any light on changes to the actual law, or why legislators and voters believe the changes are necessary. It nothing but a trojan horse of "benefits" that aren't really necessary. It toots loud and long about "reliability" benefits, claiming that GBE will bring "needed" reliability to the electric grid. However, reliability is something studied, planned and ordered by regional grid operators, such as Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). If you need new transmission for reliability, SPP or MISO will order it to be built. GBE has not been ordered for reliability. It is a merchant project planned by private interests for their own pecuniary gain. Its only purpose is to make money for Invenergy. It's "reliability" you don't need. If you did, SPP or MISO would order it, but they have not. It also makes some crazy claims about the ability to redirect the project to bring power to Missouri from Indiana, instead of the other way around. Maybe that would work if it was a public access transmission line, but it's not. GBE plans to sell 100% of its capacity to generators on the Kansas end of the line and load serving entities who supply power to consumers at the Indiana end of the line. These entities would own all the capacity on the line for their own use. The idea that MISO or SPP could commandeer this private use transmission line and use it to ship power from generators in Indiana to load serving entities in Missouri doesn't work. How would the contracted customers be compensated for that? What would happen if the load serving entities on the Indiana end of the line were counting on GBE's capacity to meet their own power needs, and GBE suddenly stopped delivering power and, instead, began sucking locally generated power out of Indiana for use by load serving entities in Missouri? There's a lot more to this story that isn't told. It's an idea that makes little sense but it is spoon fed to an ignorant public as possible.
The article also attempts to convince that we need to "upgrade" the wider electric grid, and GBE will accomplish that. No, not even close. Our current grid is often compared to an interstate highway, open for the public to use. However, GBE is not a part of the wider electric grid. It's a private toll road from Kansas to Indiana that charges a fee to its contracted users. Only those contracted users can use the highway. It does not provide benefit to communities crossed because they cannot use it.
In addition to providing a source of affordable, renewable energy to communities along the route, Invenergy says it expects to provide broadband capability to internet service providers — connecting as many as 1 million Missourians with high-speed internet.
No, it does not provide a source of energy to communities along the route. And it doesn't provide broadband either. Just putting broadband capabilities on the project does not connect communities along the route. The communities would still have to make the connection and construct the "last mile" of infrastructure that makes the actual connection to users, and that's expensive. Another "benefit" that's not useful.
And then perhaps we should consider the comments of Invenergy's Kris Zadlo, and maybe the MO PSC wants to consider them as well during its hearing this week regarding purported changes to the project. Is Invenergy changing the project? Depends on what day it is. In some media, they claim they will build the project without the leg through Illinois that connects to Indiana, and increase the offering of capacity to Missouri. But it tells the PSC it's not changing the project... and then it reverts back to the original project it had permitted for purposes of lobbying against new legislation. Which is it, Invenergy?
And then perhaps we should consider the comments of Invenergy's Kris Zadlo, and maybe the MO PSC wants to consider them as well during its hearing this week regarding purported changes to the project. Is Invenergy changing the project? Depends on what day it is. In some media, they claim they will build the project without the leg through Illinois that connects to Indiana, and increase the offering of capacity to Missouri. But it tells the PSC it's not changing the project... and then it reverts back to the original project it had permitted for purposes of lobbying against new legislation. Which is it, Invenergy?
Aside from Missouri’s proposed legislation, Zadlo said the project only needs final regulatory approval in Illinois before construction begins. It’s expected to be online by 2025, he said.
Invenergy has more personalities than Sybil!
Last, let's take a look at today's Op Ed from Senator Bill White in The Missouri Times (still pretending to be a news source?)
White claims that the legislation is unconstitutional because it changes the law. Hang on a minute... is he saying that the legislature is prevented from changing the law? The legislature's job IS to change the law!
GBE was approved using a law that doesn't fit. The MO PSC's authority to approve transmission and grant eminent domain was created before merchant transmission was invented. The law was written for public use projects that the PSC determined were needed for reliability, economic purposes, or to provide service to customers who don't have it. Missouri doesn't have any laws regarding merchant transmission, therefore the PSC tried to shoehorn GBE into the existing law, even though it was a poor fit. The current legislation amends the existing law to include provisions for merchant transmission. Because merchant transmission is for private profit, and not for public use, it shouldn't receive eminent domain authority. It is entirely within the purview of the legislature to update existing laws to fit today's reality, and that's exactly what the legislature proposes to do. Senator White purports that Invenergy could sue the state for making new laws that frustrate its profits. How ridiculous is that? Why is Senator White inviting an out-of-state corporation to sue the state for making laws that benefit its citizens (but not necessarily foreign corporations)? Does Invenergy want to invest more time and lots more money engaging in a long-term legal battle? At some point, Invenergy needs to cut its losses and move on. Either bury this project on existing rights of way to quell landowner opposition, or abandon this project entirely. What would people in Senator White's district think if a merchant transmission project was granted eminent domain to take their land? I don't think they would be any happier than landowners in other parts of the state. White isn't thinking long term for the benefit of his constituents, he's only thinking about the immediate effects in his own backyard. Not In My Back Yard? Sure, great, let's build it! How short sighted and self indulgent is that?
Every year about this time, Chicago-based Invenergy pours money and influence into Missouri in order to protect what it sees as future profits. Isn't it about time for Missouri to shrug off out-of-state lobbying and make laws that benefit its citizens? Support HB 527!
Why is this legislation needed? Because existing eminent domain laws are dangerously out of date. Changing old laws to reflect today's reality provides vital protection to Missouri's citizens!
Last, let's take a look at today's Op Ed from Senator Bill White in The Missouri Times (still pretending to be a news source?)
White claims that the legislation is unconstitutional because it changes the law. Hang on a minute... is he saying that the legislature is prevented from changing the law? The legislature's job IS to change the law!
GBE was approved using a law that doesn't fit. The MO PSC's authority to approve transmission and grant eminent domain was created before merchant transmission was invented. The law was written for public use projects that the PSC determined were needed for reliability, economic purposes, or to provide service to customers who don't have it. Missouri doesn't have any laws regarding merchant transmission, therefore the PSC tried to shoehorn GBE into the existing law, even though it was a poor fit. The current legislation amends the existing law to include provisions for merchant transmission. Because merchant transmission is for private profit, and not for public use, it shouldn't receive eminent domain authority. It is entirely within the purview of the legislature to update existing laws to fit today's reality, and that's exactly what the legislature proposes to do. Senator White purports that Invenergy could sue the state for making new laws that frustrate its profits. How ridiculous is that? Why is Senator White inviting an out-of-state corporation to sue the state for making laws that benefit its citizens (but not necessarily foreign corporations)? Does Invenergy want to invest more time and lots more money engaging in a long-term legal battle? At some point, Invenergy needs to cut its losses and move on. Either bury this project on existing rights of way to quell landowner opposition, or abandon this project entirely. What would people in Senator White's district think if a merchant transmission project was granted eminent domain to take their land? I don't think they would be any happier than landowners in other parts of the state. White isn't thinking long term for the benefit of his constituents, he's only thinking about the immediate effects in his own backyard. Not In My Back Yard? Sure, great, let's build it! How short sighted and self indulgent is that?
Every year about this time, Chicago-based Invenergy pours money and influence into Missouri in order to protect what it sees as future profits. Isn't it about time for Missouri to shrug off out-of-state lobbying and make laws that benefit its citizens? Support HB 527!
Why is this legislation needed? Because existing eminent domain laws are dangerously out of date. Changing old laws to reflect today's reality provides vital protection to Missouri's citizens!
RSS Feed