Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on February 17, 2020, E-22386 STATE OF IOWA BEFORE THE IOWA UTILITIES BOARD IN RE: ) ITC MIDWEST LLC ) DOCKET NO. E-22386 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE ) ________________________________________________________________________ Reply Brief of Linda E. Grice in Opposition to the Cardinal Hickory Creek Project I. Introduction The CEI Intervenors, a group of well-funded lobbyists wants to silence the voices of citizen and ratepayer intervenors in the CHC Project because they do not feel their voices are relevant or credible. They say citizen intervenors lack basis. The Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate is afraid that when the truth gets out concerning how, poorly they defend the rights of Iowa Citizens that Iowans will become discouraged and not contact their office for help. The Applicants and the CEI say that wind energy is cheap yet can’t put a number on its’ cost. CEI opines on the fact that MS Grice objects to what she claims is Iowa’s transformation from an agricultural state into an “industrial energy generation complex” without citizen input. (Grice Pre-Hearing Brief at 3.) CEI states Ms. Grice ignored established state law that helped facilitate this. The argument in this brief will address these issues and provide documentation to support the conclusions. Linda Grice Reply Brief 1 Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on February 17, 2020, E-22386 II. Argument The CEI wants to eliminate citizen and ratepayer voices so their argument cannot be refuted. In the Dubuque hearing of the CHC Transmission line four citizen intervenors stood alone against large sums being spent to silence them. One of the groups spending the large sums was the Clean Energy Intervenors, a group of well-funded lobbyists. Now that group wants to silence the voices of two of the citizen intervenors because they don’t like to hear the truth. The CEI Post Hearing Brief Page 23 states: II. THE BOARD SHOULD GIVE NO WEIGHT TO INTERVENOR TESTIMONY OPPOSING THE PROJECT. Chris Klopp and Linda Grice intervened in this case to oppose the project and identified concerns about the consequences of building the project. The Board should give no weight to their testimony because they have no basis, lack credibility, and lack relevance to required Board findings in transmission franchise dockets.4 (CEI Post-Hearing Brief, p. 23) Intervenor Ms. Grice’s testimony is relevant as that of a citizen of Iowa, a taxpayer, and a ratepayer. Ms. Grice is an Iowa resident, a landowner, and a rate-payer unlike the CEI who are paid lobbyists for large energy companies with an out-of-state main office. Because many CEI members are not Iowa residents, do not pay taxes in Iowa, and are not Iowa ratepayers Ms. Grice believes it is the CEI that has no basis, lacks credibility, and lacks relevance because their interest is their wallot and making money for their clients the huge energy companies and Berkshire Hathaway. As such, the CEI is in no way concerned with the interests of ratepayers Linda Grice Reply Brief 2 Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on February 17, 2020, E-22386 or taxpayers as is MS Grice or MS Klopp. It is clear, the CEI would like to eliminate any and all opposition possible. Ms. Grice’s opinions are relevant because her interest is in protecting Iowans’ quality of life, economic future, and the future of our state agricultural heritage for our children and our grandchildren. MS Grice’s opinions reflect those of many Iowan’s in her walk of life and, therefore, her opinions are relevant. Ms Grice’s opinions are credible because she lives and owns property in the areas the line affects, pays utility bills and property taxes there, and she understands the hardships which would be imposed upon herself and her neighbors if the line were to be approved. As a farmer, MS Grice understands how the farming operations of the Deutmeyers’ and the Goebels’ and others along the line will be affected if the line is built. Ms. Grice’s opinions are relevant because she is affected by the transmission line and has friends and neighbors affected by the line. Ms. Grice argued that the transmission will lead to wind turbines, and wind turbines inevitably lead to higher electricity rates. Ms. Grice did not submit any testimony in this case or substantiate any of her claims in the record and they should be given no weight. (CEI Post-Hearing Brief, p 26) The first fact that CEI disagrees with, “that the transmission will lead to wind turbines” is a fact substantiated by multiple witnesses testifying for the applicants and their own post-hearing brief. The MISO plan is to build wind generation facilities and then transport the energy long Linda Grice Reply Brief 3 Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on February 17, 2020, E-22386 distances. The testimony given by multiple witnesses for the applicants said the transmission line is necessary for increasing the wind energy output in Iowa. The CEI brief states: The primary driver of these benefits are the wind resources being added in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. (POST-HEARING BRIEF OF CLEAN ENERGY INTERVENORS IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, CLEAN GRID ALLIANCE, MINNESOTA CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY, AND FRESH ENERGY-P 12) The turbines are a part of the CHC transmission line decision because the Applicants have stated numerous times that the transmission line is needed to carry wind energy to the east and without it wind energy will suffer. Because the CHC line is necessary for the turbines it is relevant to talk about the efficiency and intermittence of wind energy and what effect those consequences will have on our state’s economic future as well as the state’s desirability as a place to reside. Afterall, what use is it to build a line for a failing wind energy sector? MS. Grice’s claims that Wind turbines will lead to higher electricity rates can be substantiated by numerous sources and some were listed on the docket as objections prior to this. MS Grice will take this opportunity to introduce multiple resources confirming that wind energy use leads to higher electricity rates. Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds. Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) "significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward," the economists write. It (the study) compared states with and without an RPS. It did so using what the economists say is "the most comprehensive state-level dataset ever compiled" which covered 1990 to 2015. Previous studies were misleading, the economists note, because they didn't "incorporate three key costs," which are the unreliability of renewables, the large amounts of land they require, and the displacement of cheaper "baseload" energy sources like nuclear plants. The higher Linda Grice Reply Brief 4 Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on February 17, 2020, E-22386 cost of electricity reflects "the costs that renewables impose on the generation system," the economists note, "including those associated with their intermittency, higher transmission costs, and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers." (EX 29: Forbes, Energy, Michael Shellenberger, Study by Michael Greenstone, Richard McDowell, and Ishan Nath, University of Chicago, 22 AUG 2019) The true cost of wind power, however, is what consumers and society as a whole pay both to purchase wind-generated electricity and also to subsidize the wind energy industry through taxes and government debt. The true cost includes both traditional cost accounting and the seen and unseen costs of policies that seek to artificially bolster renewable energy development and production. When examined more closely, many claims about wind energy are found to be indefensible. COST OF ONSHORE WIND ENERGY PRICED LOW TO HIGH LAZARD NREL EIA HAMILTON MODIFIED GIBERSON TANTON/TAYLOR Total Cost ($/MWh) $59 $72 $80.3 $97 $149 $151 The studies examined show a market where subsidized wind is competitive, and one where unsubsidized wind is much less viable. Wind energy is dependent on subsidies, and when these are removed from the calculation, the costs of wind energy increase enough to make it an unfavorable choice in the energy market. (EX.22 Simmons, Yonk, & Hansen. July 2015, Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University) At the hearing it was determined that there has been no analysis of the economics of the CHC project standing apart from additional projects and plans of MISO. One has to wonder if that is because a true economic analysis would decrease ratepayers’ enthusiasm for wind energy that is purported to be “free” or nearly so by the developers. Linda Grice Reply Brief 5 Filed with the Iowa Utilities Board on February 17, 2020, E-22386 Without the PTC, many private investors would have no incentive to invest in wind energy because such investments would no longer be profitable. Warren Buffett, who has invested billions in renewable energy, stated, "[W]e get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”(EX 23 BUFFET) Thus, when the PTC is allowed to expire, investments in wind energy plummet.26 (EX.22 Simmons, Yonk, , Hansen , July 2015, The True Cost of Wind, Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University} (EX 23 Markets Insider, December 30, 2019, Theron Mohamed) Federal subsidies for wind power lead to an economic phenomenon called “negative pricing,” which is when the seller pays the buyer to receive the product.