Grain Belt Express LLC engaged Contract Land Staff LLC (“CLS”) to assist with negotiating voluntary easement agreements with landowners on the approved route. 

CLS remains engaged. Pursuant to the terms of the engagement, Grain Belt Express LLC is paying CLS approximately $50,000 per week and must continue to pay that amount for the duration of the stay. Grain Belt Express LLC is receiving no services due to the stay Order. Grain Belt Express LLC must, and intends to, keep CLS engaged or it will not have staffing available for land acquisition services when the stay is lifted.

“The landowner will not need to pay for an ‘updated title search, appraisal and ALTA survey’ to evaluate GBE’s offer during voluntary easement negotiation . . . because GBE will provide those or comparable materials in support of its easement offer.” 

GBE seeks the following relief:
1. That this Court reconsider the Order, as the requested stay is not supported by any evidence of great or irreparable damage to the Landowner Alliance. To the contrary, the only verified evidence in the record is that GBE will suffer damage as a consequence of the injunction.
2. Moreover, that this Court reconsider the Order because the stay violates GBE’s constitutional rights and is not supported by any applicable legal principle.
3. That this Court failed to address the requirement for a bond, and, if this Court determines that any portion of its Order should remain in place, that this Court require the Landowner Alliance to post a bond in an amount adequate to secure the damages to be incurred by GBE.
4. In the alternative, if this Court elects to not reconsider its Order, that it clarify that the Order does not (and legally cannot) enjoin GBE from engaging in voluntary land acquisition or easement negotiations with landowners along the approved route for the transmission line project, as such an injunction would exceed this Court’s jurisdiction and violate GBE’s constitutional rights. 
5. That this Court clarify the “specific finding[s] based upon evidence submitted to the court, and identified by reference thereto, that great or irreparable damage would otherwise result to the [Landowner Alliance], and specifying the nature of the damages,” as required by the Illinois Public Utilities Act, 220 ILCS 5/10-204(b). 

A grass fire near 199th and Lone Elm Olathe was likely caused by a downed power line. 
An Evergy representative reports the "excessive heat was likely a contributing factor" to a crossarm breaking, falling and igniting the grass fire.
About 1,900 customers were affected. Their power was restored within an hour of the incident.

“I think that sort of input that we got from the community and then also doing that modeling to show folks what it was going to look like when it’s constructed both helped along the project,” he said.

The commission observed that while many residents were still opposed to both the Garage Site and the Post Office Site, which is adjacent to the Victor Post Office on Route 60, they seemed more accepting of the Garage Site over the Post Office location.

order_from_appellate_court.pdf
File Size:	91 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

...the odds that any affected landowner will ever recover from a penniless project finance limited liability vehicle the costs and expenses they will have incurred in consequence of GBE's premature attempts to obtain easement rights will range somewhere between slim and none.

motion_to_stay.pdf
File Size:	6595 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

Special legislation is expressly prohibited by our state constitution: “The General Assembly shall pass no special or local law when a general law is or can be made applicable.
Whether a general law is or can be made applicable shall be a matter for judicial determination.”

Section 8-406(b-5) benefits only GBE as opposed to all other potential applicants because GBE is the only entity that can take advantage of its specific requirements. There is no rational basis for the General Assembly to require that any application for a “qualifying direct current project” be filed by December 31, 2023, except to specifically favor GBE against all other applicants. In fact, the sponsor of the legislation that added Section 8-406(b-5) to the Act specifically admitted during the debate on the amendment that the new law was for “the transmission line [G]rain [B]elt.”

Section 8-406(b-5) also arbitrarily discriminates against landowners, including the Landowner Alliance, who own land within Pike, Scott, Greene, Macoupin, Montgomery,
Christian, Shelby, Cumberland and Clark Counties, Illinois (the “Enumerated Counties”), to the benefit of landowners that own real estate outside of the Enumerated Counties. Section 8-406(b-5) arbitrarily and unfairly deprives the landowners in the Enumerated Counties of the same legal threshold for the involuntary transfer of their private property by eminent domain as landowners in non-Enumerated Counties enjoy.

It is well settled under Illinois law that "…the determination of whether a given use is a public use is a judicial function."

Section 8-406(b-5) takes out of the hands of
the courts the determination of whether a particular use is a public one. Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution states that "[t]he legislative, executive and judicial branches are separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another."

Though GBE asserts that it is presently capable of financing the Project, this is false. GBE’s own witnesses testified that financing for the Project will not be in place until it has secured transmission contracts with customers whose credit ratings are acceptable to lenders willing to lend to GBE on the strength of those customers’ creditworthiness. As GBE stated in its Initial Brief before the Commission, it will not be able to obtain financing for the Project until customer contracts are executed.

A large scale set of projects that solve the growing congestion issues in the southern Pennsylvania/northern Virginia/Maryland/West Virginia area. The project involves strategic rebuilds, substation upgrades, and greenfield transmission lines that primarily follow existing corridor. This strategic use of existing corridor greatly reduces the risk of projects being delayed due to opposition.

Colocating the line with the existing transmission line helps mitigate viewshed issues and permitting risk.

A cultural resource professional assisted with the routing process to identify and minimize impacts to known areas with historic sensitivities.

There are no unique or sensitive environmental concerns or impacts with the proposed transmission line that cannot be addressed.

The combination of these three elements provides a comprehensive solution for the current requirements in the area.  Four documents are attached to show the progress already made on this...

The Rice-Ringgold 230kV Route is the result of a robust siting and outreach process which included input from landowners, local officials, and key stakeholders on a multitude of study segments. The proposed route will be 130 feet in width, parallels existing rights-of-way including interstates, roads,railroads, and existing transmission lines for 42% of its length, and best minimizes potential impacts to the natural and human environments. The extensive Siting Study is available for review under PA PUC docket A-2017-2640200. In addition, the Proposing Entity has been able to obtain 70% of the required ROW, via option agreements or easements, for the Rice-Ringgold 230kV line route.

The project will use steel, monopole structures with foundations. The use of steel monopoles was determined during the siting of the Proposed Solution due to significant landowner opposition to lattice towers, particularly in agricultural areas.

As the Proposed Solution continues to move forward, representatives will continue to be available throughout construction to answer questions from landowners.

The Peach Bottom - Doubs Route is mostly in rural areas. Northern portion of the route is located in southern Pennsylvania with rural and farmed properties and then the route heads to the west. The route is to the north and west of Westminster and then heads in a south-westerly direction to Doubs.

PSE&G will coordinate all outreach, real estate-related requests, and efforts to identify environmental and non-environmental conditions affecting the properties along the proposed Project route. Working collaboratively with our internal Outreach Team, PSE&G will coordinate stakeholder engagement and public outreach with land acquisition planning. This level of collaboration will help to ensure proactive and cohesive stakeholder communications in order to better serve landowners and impacted individuals and entities. PSE&G contemplates the need for access roads and areas, as part of any lands to be acquired
 
PSEG has identified several properties that are suitable for this proposed solution. The Project Team has initiated contact with the property owners and will continue to work to acquire site control in the event of award. The Project Team will work with impacted stakeholders, municipalities, and local authorities to obtain the necessary property rights to construct and maintain its facilities. While this solution is located outside of PSE&G territory, PSE&G is committed to a transparent, timely, and efficient land rights acquisition process for any site control required. PSE&G intends to utilize the same land acquisition professionals from start to finish, ensuring landowners have the same team assigned to their negotiations throughout the process.

The greenfield transmission line between North Delta station and Northeast station will require an ROW with a width of 85 feet in residential areas and 100 feet farmland.

ROW will be acquired to widen the existing transmission line corridor from 150 feet to 200 feet.  Approximately 102 acres of additional ROW will be acquired, which is all privately owned.  Negotiations with private landowners will be based on fair market values determined by a third-party  appraiser. Negotiations with private landowners will be conducted by PPL ROW Agents and PPL contracted ROW agents.

PPL Electric is committed to open communications and transparency throughout the project lifecycle. As such, PPL Electric develops a project-specific Community and Outreach Plan based on the unique conditions associated with each project. To communicate clearly and transparently, PPL Electric utilizes a wide variety of strategies including, in-person meetings with local municipalities and regulators, direct mail, project websites, fact sheets, frequently asked questions, and public open houses. For example, during previous projects, PPL Electric has developed a strategic public outreach program that served as the cornerstone of project success. The program included soliciting input from, and providing timely updates to, external stakeholders from the onset of the project through to completion. This was achieved using face to face meetings, direct mailings, multiple rounds of open houses, fact sheets, press releases and an interactive website.

Most high-voltage transmission projects will require a state siting approval. To begin the siting approval process, Proposer plans to hold pre-application meetings with the regulatory agency to introduce Proposer and the Project, as well as confirm its understanding of the process. Shortly thereafter, Proposer will simultaneously begin collecting siting data and start its outreach efforts so that public siting input is incorporated at the earliest stages of the Project. Once the Proposer identifies a preferred site/route and at least one viable alternative site/route, Proposer will carry out environmental and detailed engineering work in order to establish a highly- detailed Project plan to support the siting applications.

The Company is committed to working with all interested stakeholders through a robust public outreach program to address/respond to community concerns and inform the public about the project to the greatest extent practicable. The Company believes a well-designed public outreach program can have numerous benefits, including fostering a cooperative relationship with landowners and other stakeholders, expediting the regulatory permitting process, and assisting with project development. In general, the purpose of the community outreach plan is to gain community support for the project. In the affected communities, the Company’s public outreach plan will educate the public and relevant stakeholders on specific project details to enable timely regulatory approvals and construction activities. Elements of the public outreach plan will include the following:1) Identify potential issues at an early stage by engagement with key community stakeholders at the outset; 2) Broaden the community engagement process to identify potential and relevant community benefits that can facilitate community support for the proposed project; 3) Develop a broad base of community support for the proposed project before the regulatory agencies; and 4) Develop a comprehensive administrative record documenting the community outreach process that can be presented to the regulatory agency or, in the event of a legal challenge, to the appropriate court.  The outreach plan proposes to dedicate considerable time and resources in engaging the community, and specifically the affected community during the planning process to identify highly sensitive areas that have the least amount of cultural, environmental, and social impacts on the community. The plans will reflect avoidance of impacts rather than mitigation. However, in some cases, if avoidance is not possible, then the Company will involve the community in providing appropriate and practical mitigation measures. The Company will commence its public outreach activities following project award.

...the permit holder has made good faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the applicable permitting process...

Taking the time today to listen to property owners and adjust plans in response to their concerns, they hope, will lessen the likelihood of drawn-out legal or political battles delaying the project later.

Christina Hayes, executive director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, said the two Minnesota utilities are following the best practice of early stakeholder engagement to avoid later potential litigation.

The third powerline was the last straw for Marla Britton.  Her and her husband’s 40-acre farm near Brainerd, Minnesota, is already framed by electrical wires on the east and south. When she learned of plans for a new project running along the north end of her property, she took action.  Britton wrote to state utility regulators and contacted the companies behind the planned Northland Reliability Project. The 180-mile line will eventually make it easier to move clean electricity between central and northern Minnesota.  Soon, a utility representative was at her doorstep to discuss her concerns and ideas for rerouting the line where it would have less impact on her and her neighbors.

“They listened to me and wrote down what I said,” Britton said. “They agreed it was way too much for my property.”

It’s yet to be seen how Britton’s feedback will be reflected in the final route, but the interaction illustrates the type of engagement that project backers say they are aiming for with the project. Taking the time today to listen to property owners and adjust plans in response to their concerns, they hope, will lessen the likelihood of drawn-out legal or political battles delaying the project later.

PJM’s Reliability Analysis presentation at the August 8, 2023 TEAC demonstrates a marked concern for routing/siting/permitting/scheduling risks of certain component segments submitted in 2022 RTEP Window 3.  I appreciate that PJM is considering these factors.  After all, what good is a transmission project that cannot be built due to opposition?

My review of the projects submitted in Window 3 finds that several of these projects are reinvention of old projects, either in whole or in part, that PJM approved years ago and then later abandoned or suspended.  Three of these historic projects are the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (now FE-23 and FE-837), the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (now Exelon-691), and the Independence Energy Connection (now Transource-487).  These projects have cost PJM ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars in development and legal fees despite never being built.

No matter what reason PJM recorded for the suspension and abandonment of these three transmission projects, the fact remains that each of these projects was met with a wall of resistance from landowner groups, state/local governments, elected officials, public interest groups, and impacted communities.  Opposition to PATH, MAPP and IEC prevented approval and construction of these projects and added considerable delays to their schedule.  Entities that opposed these projects the first time around are knowledgeable and prepared to oppose them again.  The impacts of these projects, which made them objectionable in the first place, have not changed.  The only difference now is that the opposition is better educated and better prepared to win this battle.

I asked during the TEAC how PJM could receive comments from impacted communities to consider as part of their constructibility studies for the projects.  I heard from you that stakeholders could voice their concerns during TEAC meetings, as I was doing, or contact something called “Stakeholder Engagement Group.”  Neither option actually incorporates the stakeholder comment into the constructibility report outcome.

I have read some of PJM’s “constructibility reports” in the past.  The one for the Independence Energy Connection particularly stands out in my mind, as that constructibility report found significant opposition would not occur because the project was routed on “undeveloped land.”   That “undeveloped land” is prime farmland, important to its owners and the community it supports.  The owners of this “undeveloped land” are highly educated, well connected, and capable of preventing this project from being constructed as originally ordered by PJM.  In conclusion, PJM’s constructibility report was dead wrong because the entity that prepared it was woefully uninformed about transmission opposition and real conditions on the ground.  These are areas where public comment and consultation can be incorporated into the constructibility report to improve its historic lack of accuracy.

The presentation at yesterday’s TEAC mentioned “Utilization of existing ROWs and brownfield development/expansion.”  Existing ROWs include more than just transmission or utility ROWs.  New technologies and policies are opening existing transportation ROWs to new transmission infrastructure.  These ROWs are ideal for burying HVDC for the purpose of transporting electricity from one market to another, not serving communities along the way.  Window 3 seems to concentrate on importing new power supply to the data centers.  HVDC buried on transportation ROWs may be a solution supported by impacted communities. See more: https://theray.org/technology/transmission/

Expansion of existing transmission ROWs by adding parallel lines is NOT a solution to routing issues.  PJM needs to re-think this unworkable approach.  While existing transmission built in the last century may have been routed on agricultural land, aka “undeveloped land”, the land use conditions that existed when the transmission line was built in 1950 will not be the same in 2023, especially in the growing PJM region.  Many former farms have been sold and re-developed into new housing communities and other uses.  The community has built itself up around the existing transmission line, often with new homes, schools, and other expansion right up to the edge of the existing ROW.  Expanding the existing ROW cannot happen without destroying this new development.  This was one of PATH’s biggest problems in Jefferson County, West Virginia.  Housing developments had sprung up to surround existing transmission lines and expansion of the ROW would begin to destroy portions of these communities.  This problem has not changed in the 15 years since.  In fact, it’s gotten much worse.  However, FirstEnergy’s submitted projects depend on expanding these ROWs to build new lines parallel to existing ones.  While I recognize PJM does not design the routes for its projects, it still must be cognizant of the project’s shortcomings and risk in order to be successful at what it does do.

There’s a lot that PJM (and its member utilities and constructibility report contractors) do not know about the dynamics of transmission opposition.   Much can be learned from study of scholarly research on the social aspects of opposition.  It is not simply a “NIMBY” issue that can be solved by routing elsewhere.  Impacted people need to examine the problem and be involved in the creation of a solution.  PJM has historically ordered transmission and left the designated entity to approach the community with a pre-determined transmission solution and consult with them about where to put it.  This is not a choice for the impacted community and they will reject it every time.  While investigating the basis of the need for the project, the community will develop other solutions to solve the problem, such as use of existing rights-of-way, upgrading of existing lines, burying lines, allowing the market to demand new generation before building transmission, as well as other demand side solutions such as energy efficiency and distributed generation.  The designated entity and PJM have resisted any and all suggested modifications to their plans, and as a result the project never gets built.  Is PJM about building workable solutions, or spending eternity trying to foist its will on a public that doesn’t want or need it?

PJM prides itself on its “transparency”, but lacks any avenue for true stakeholder participation.  Stakeholder consultation should begin in the project planning phase so that PJM doesn’t waste time and money pursuing projects that are not constructible.  Allowing stakeholders to make comments that are never considered or acted upon is a parody of democracy.  I ask that PJM create a way to accept public comments and incorporate them into its planning, particularly for such an enormous undertaking as Window 3.  I have tried to find the “stakeholder engagement group” you suggested during the TEAC, but cannot find anything like that on PJM’s website.  I would appreciate a substantive response to this comment/suggestion, not just an acknowledgement it has been received (and ignored).