When Deceit Bites Back

Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive.  -- Sir Walter Scott in Marmion

And that about sums up the legislative situation in Missouri right now, where Invenergy and its minority sympathizers think they may have crippled HB 1062 for the time being.  HB 1062 amends Missouri's eminent domain statute to prevent the use of eminent domain for above ground merchant transmission lines that do not erect substations at least every 50 miles.  HB 1062 does not prevent the construction of Grain Belt Express, it simply removes eminent domain authority for the currently proposed project.  It encourages Invenergy to build a better project, one that provides more benefit to Missouri, without an onerous sacrifice on behalf of Missouri citizens who will receive no benefit from the involuntary construction of the project across their productive agricultural businesses.  Can GBE be built without eminent domain?  Yes!  The project can use existing public rights of way, it can be constructed completely underground, or it can provide connections for Missouri utilities at least every 50 miles.

But Invenergy doesn't want to build its project this way because it costs more, or perhaps it will delay the project enough to cause a missed opportunity for Invenergy to sell electricity from its Wind Catcher turbines to a company that serves other states, who requires the full production tax credit for wind generation. 

But the web Invenergy and friends are spinning in Missouri looks like it is intended to deceive.

This says that HB 1062 would "ban the GBE transmission line."  That's not even close to the truth.  In fact, it's a straight up lie.  Nothing new from Renew Missouri, who previously insisted that landowner groups were funded by "dark money" and then could not produce one shred of evidence to back up its concocted accusation.  It's like Renew Missouri believes it needs to lie and exaggerate in order to garner support for Grain Belt Express.

And let's think about this... supposedly the Energy Committee members were getting "political pressure" to support HB 1062.  Is that some Renew Missouri code phrase for constituent support?  According to Renew, some Senators "held strong and voted no."  But not because of "political pressure."  Therefore, it must be lobbying pressure from a Chicago-based corporation that has no current business in Missouri.  And for some reason this is somehow morally superior to what Missouri citizens want?  Sounds more like Invenergy's lobbying dollars at work.  Isn't it interesting that Invenergy was a recent "sponsor" of one of Renew Missouri's events?  I wonder what color the sponsorship dollars were?  Were they a dark color, or pure lily white?

Renew Missouri seems pretty tickled that some Senators "filibustered this language and held off the foes of renewable energy..."  Phrased another way, these Senators support the use of eminent domain by for-profit corporations.  It's a slippery slope indeed.  If Missouri is "open for business" for out-of-state corporations to condemn land for their own profit, what flood of corporate eminent domain is on the horizon?  Renew Missouri's message to Senators seems to imply that a "savings" for a handful of municipal utility customers, a few jobs and the "forcing" of utility resource supply mixes tips the scales to allow eminent domain.  Eminent domain shall only be used to take property for a public use.  Eminent domain should not be used solely to provide economic benefit.  I think public sentiment toward the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes has been made clear in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London.  Nobody's right to own and enjoy property should be compromised by another's "right" to cheaper, or cleaner, electric service.  This is not public use.  I shudder to think what "showing the world that Missouri is open for business" through the use of eminent domain could do.

And what of Renew Missouri's message?  Any Senator receiving the copied message should be aware that it doesn't come from the minds of constituents, but from the pen of Renew Missouri and its "sponsor" Invenergy.

And then there's the inexplicable behavior of Senator Bill White, who this article tells us "believes private companies have the right to take your land away for the use of a public utility."  It also says Senator White sided with Democrats in "slowing debate on the bill." 

The question is why?  Why is Senator White such a sudden and fierce advocate for Grain Belt Express?  He says, "the company is regulated by the PSC which makes it a utility."  And

"You have to run a power line somewhere," he told Newstalk KZRG a few weeks ago.  "It's kind of like our reservoir down down here, you have to build it somewhere."

“If you [are] transmitting power from point A to point B, you’ve got to go from point A to B,” he continued. “Ideally, you find a place where you can make an equitable agreement with everybody along the way so you don’t have the eminent domain process but if that’s not the case, you have eminent domain proceedings.”

First of all, "you" don't have to run the Grain Belt Express anywhere.  It's not necessary to public electric service.  It's purpose is for elective alternate supply to select customers.  Second of all, what's it to you, Senator White?  The previously proposed route of GBE comes nowhere near Joplin, and as near as I can figure none of the contracted municipal electric suppliers who have elected to take service from GBE are in Senator White's district.  Why would Senator White become such a strong advocate for a project that doesn't affect his constituents?  As well, why has Invenergy taken such interest in Senator White?  Why would Invenergy need an ally who is not affected by the project?  Maybe Invenergy is getting more bang for its buck than meets the eye?  What if Grain Belt Express was rerouted through Joplin?  How difficult would it be for Senator White to change his position and oppose the project once it affected his district?  Seems to me that Invenergy would have Senator White just where it wanted him.  I find Invenergy's courting of Senator White incredibly revealing.

Let's look at the transcript from the recent PSC hearing on the sale of GBE to Invenergy:

Q.  Can you very briefly describe what Invenergy's wind catcher site is and what its status is at this point?
A. So wind catcher was a 2,000 megawatt wind project that was being sold to American Electric Power.
Q. Has Invenergy discussed the possibility of developing this site for wind farms?
A. We're-- we're constantly in the process of selling that project.
Q. And this project, in particular?
A. So again, the Wind Catcher project is in the Panhandle of Oklahoma and it was contracted by American Electric Power who failed to receive commission approval to purchase the project.
Q. And my question is, have you looked into
developing that project?
A. Well, we are developing that project.
Q. Okay .
A. I don't understand.
Q. What's the status of it at this point?
A. It's still in development, active development.
Q. Development meaning what?
A. Meaning that we have active land easements for the installation of generators, wind turbines specifically, and we're looking for off- takers for the facility.
Q. And is that site about one hundred miles
from the proposed Grain Belt converter station in Kansas, approximately?
A. Approximately.
Q. Have you discussed internally the
possibility of connecting wind generation at the Wind Catcher site with the Kansas converter station of the Grain Belt line?
A. Not really.
Q. Not really, meaning no?
A. So I mean there is a possibility that an
affiliate may want to purchase capacity on Grain Belt.
Q. An affiliate of whom?
A. An affiliate of Invenergy.

So, Invenergy was going to sell the project to American Electric Power.  Except the Texas Public Utility Commission denied AEP's request to recover the cost of the project from ratepayers.  And AEP cancelled that plan.  However, AEP turned right around and issued a Request for Proposals to purchase a nearly identical amount of wind capacity delivered to Tulsa.  AEP requires the proposal to qualify for 100% of the federal wind production tax credit, which Wind Catcher does.  In the fine print, AEP also says the company would ultimately want to purchase the wind generator and transmission line.  If Invenergy could deliver the Wind Catcher project to AEP in conjunction with a new transmission project that made the connection from the Oklahoma panhandle (100 miles from GBE) to Tulsa, Invenergy would be foolish not to make a proposal for this RFP.

If Invenergy did make a proposal to use Grain Belt Express to deliver from its Wind Catcher site in the Oklahoma panhandle, how might the company re-route the project to accomplish the goals of AEP?  Getting Wind Catcher connected to GBE would be no great feat.  As long as Oklahoma ratepayers aren't paying for it, there is no law requiring a permit from Oklahoma.  If Kansas has approved GBE, it's a simple re-route across the southern part of the state to get to Tulsa.  But AEP wants to also deliver this power to its customers in Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana, and GBE promised to make 500 MW of capacity available to Missouri, so might a re-routed GBE continue east into Missouri, and construct a converter station somewhere around Joplin, from which it could make strong, new connections to the other states?  It sure sounds plausible to me, and Invenergy would be quite foolish not to attempt it.

What if GBE only impacts Senator White's district?  What would his constituents think if they knew Senator White supported the use of eminent domain to build a transmission line across their land that would serve other states?  Would he change his mind about supporting it?  Why is Invenergy so interested in Senator White, and why is Senator White so interested in GBE?