Dear Chairman Sievers, Commissioner Wright and Commissioner Feist Albrecht,

I am writing in regard to docket 13-GBEE-803-MIS concerning the Grain Belt Express Clean Line proposal that affects my family's property, located Township 03, Range 12, Section 6. I oppose the proposed route that is under consideration.

I am a lifelong Kansan, as are my parents, as were my grandparents, as were their parents. My great-great grandfather, Johann Martin Stallbaumer settled in Nemaha County in 1854. Most of my family still lives there. I
currently live in Topeka and work as Art  Director for Mother Earth News magazine. In this position over the past decade, I've heard stories, read letters and empathasized with readers who have lost use of their land to projects like the Grain Belt Express. Now, my family and the property that has been in our family through five generations is being threatened.

I ask that you will listen to your conscience as you read this letter, it is your best tool to decide between right and wrong.

I first learned of the proposed project following the public meeting held in Seneca on the late date of August 12th, 2013. Because the easement would not actually touch my parents' property, they did not receive any literature regarding this line until two weeks before the meeting, and it was vague. They were shocked to learn at the meeting
that the 200-foot-tall towers and 600 kV line would be only 986 feet (according to Clean Line representative Ally Smith) from their property and within 1/4 mile of where my grandparents' home stood.

When I think of the sacrifices my ancestors and parents have made to obtain and keep this property through hard work, honesty and fairness, it discourages me that a commission of three people would grant eminent domain to a group of private investors in return for no benefit to us whatsoever. It leads me to  believe that the ethical, moral things Kansas once stood for are being threatened by private interest, influence and simply, money.

This land is home to us in the strongest sense of the word. In fact, I have often told people this: of all the things that could be possibly owned in this world, our land is the only thing I want to make sure stays in our family until
I die. It has been my personal dream and that of my brother to someday build at the location of the original home because of it's beautiful overlook of bottom grounds.

The proposed Clean Line transmission line would cut right through those bottom grounds, threatening our dreams. The opportunity to build there is priceless, but would become worthless if you allow this line as it is proposed. Yet, Clean Line Energy Partners refuses to acknowledge any loss whatsoever for us, property value included. Who among you would build a home in the shadows of such a structure, or even recreate near it? The poor aesthetics of the line, alone, would discourage and ultimately prohibit it. Furthermore, it's my understanding that
no line of this size has ever been constructed in Kansas or tested anywhere. Although Clean Line Energy Partners contends there are no safety hazards, I submit there is no evidence that there aren't. Who among you would risk your health, the health of your children and the existence of future generations of your family? Reports link these lines to childhood leukemia. Farmers and ranchers have  observed a negative effect on livestock: infertility, inability to gain weight and death. Electric utilities have paid out millions in damages due to electric lines of lesser voltage. History and independent studies shows there are health issues caused by these overhead lines, whether Clean Line Energy
Partners admits them or not.

Would you touch one of these lines with your bare hands? Because they will be hung 200 feet high, they may be relatively safe, but they ultimately are not safe, and they are vulnerable. Consider the weather we have in Kansas, what happens the first time a tower falls? Pretending this won't happen is showing a lack of common sense and carelessness. The natural disasters that have occurred in this state and nation in the past decade alone exhibit that.

I understand the value of wind energy to Kansas, but I submit that the value of this wind energy should go to Kansans and not be at my family's expense, the expense of our neighbors, our community, our county, or Northeast Kansas. Northeast Kansas is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the state. Nemaha County, as evidenced by one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state, is an active, productive, growing and responsible community. This doesn't make us any more important than anyone else, but it speaks to our heritage and pride. You have put all
of this in jeopardy.

Although I disagree that this project happen anywhere is a necessity- you have made your own rationalizations to support that- if it must be somewhere and somehow, I plead with you to do it somewhere else and/or somehow
else. The manner in which this is being handled is disturbing. The short notice that was given to those of us along the proposed route is a perfect example. The need to use eminent domain is as welL It is being propagandized as solely clean wind energy, but sources say that other "dirty" energy will be transmitted too. Despite the fact that Ally
Smith denied hiding comments from those who oppose the project, Clean Line Energy censors those comments in their literature and on their social media, as later admitted by Mark Lawlor, Director of Development for Clean Line, during a phone conversation. In addition, Ally Smith promised that, after contacting the KCC, I would receive a
personal response to my concerns, only to find out from a representative in the KCC office that is not the case. These things alone exhibit the company's dishonesty that one can only assume spans across many other subjects.

My suggestions follow, if you consider them and act accordingly you would be showing good faith and a deserved level of concern to people like me who value a quality of life, heritage and opportunity over money:

1) Keep the energy created by Kansas in Kansas for Kansans. Local and regional projects are touted by our governor, approving the current method of export via exposed line and its route exposes hypocrisy. The transmission lines would not need be of the scale within this proposal and so would be easier buried and less destructive. It would also spur local economies: cheap energy would attract businesses, people and generate tax revenue.
2) If you must export wind-generated power, place these transmission lines in already existing, State of Kansas owned, rights-of-way. This would eliminate the need to disrupt private, clean land. Eminent domain may be legal, but it definitely doesn't make it moral, ethical, or right. As is fact, they don't make any more land. Land is not a renewable
resource, wind energy is, and you would be sacrificing something that can't be replaced for something that can.
3) Take advantage of already existing easements in other parts of the state, or find landowners who support your agenda and want it on their land. Clean Line reports how many landowners are for the project, so let those landowners have it.
4) Choose a route through more sparsely inhabited areas of Kansas. In Nemaha County, the average farm is still small. Landowners still live on their property. The politicians of Kansas tout small farms as our backbone, this is your chance to prove it. Other areas of Kansas are more sparsely populated, landowners there have thousands of
acres of land, many of whom live nowhere near it.
5) Bury the cable. It would be safer because it isn't exposed. The aesthetic value, and land values of much of our great state, will be spared. Because it may be more difficult up-front, it would generate more jobs for a longer period of time, and be better for Kansas long-term. This is your goal, correct?

If Clean Line Energy Partners contend that they are unable to bury this line, find another contractor who can. It is done in other parts of the world, it would be shortsighted to allow it to be done any other way in Kansas.

May I remind you that it is your duty as public officials to keep the best interest of Kansans your priority, you represent us, not the interests of private investors who may have never set foot in Kansas. The proposed ten year tax abatement offered to Clean Line Energy Panners is mind-boggling, most of the jobs created by this, many of them not even held by Kansans, will be long gone in a fraction of that time frame. Judging by the docket information I find on your Web site as of Aug. 20, the public comments and petitions record overwhelming opposition to this
project, especially in Nemaha and Marshall counties. I hope that you have listened to your conscience while reading this letter and the letters from others who have everything to lose and nothing to gain. We are aware that once a single line like this is approved, a corridor of similar lines could follow,  swallowing up our land, homes, heritage,
dreams and our future altogether.

I will be putting a copy of this letter in a lock box for future generations of my family to read. They will know where I stood on this matter and will see your names as the addressee. I pray that you have the strength to put yourself in our position, follow your conscience, and do the right thing for us, the present and future citizens of Northeast Kansas: Rule against the proposed route and manner of transmission.

Respectfully, sincerely and pleadingly,

Matthew

My husband, Robin, and I bought land (8 acres) with a barn in Polo, MO a few years ago with the idea we would build a small home that would be energy efficient, and retire there one day. We did all the studies about solar power, small personal windmills, earth contact homes, wood stoves for heating, etc... When my husband lost his job in 2010, due to outsourcing to Singapore, we sold our suburban home in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Our house sold in a miraculous 33 days. We didn't have anywhere to live, so we took Robin's severance money and the equity from our home sale and in late April of 2011 we moved into our barn with our youngest son who was 12 at the time. Our future dream of an energy efficient home became a necessity.

The barn had limited everything. NO indoor plumbing, we had a water spicket about 30 feet from our barn with which we filled 3 five-gallon jugs each morning for cooking and personal use. And we had a camping port-a-potty. Bath time was interesting and we would set a water filled tub in the sun each morning so that we could have warm water for a bath that evening.We had one electrical plug on the safety light pole outside of our barn. This had been used by the previous owners for their RV hook-up. We used extension cords for our minimal electrical use. We have many funny memories, like trying to boil water on a hot-plate, and my husband trying to use a power tool at the same time during our building construction. If too much power was being used then the power would go off.  

We lived in this barn from late April until the end of November. When it got really cold, we had enough of our cabin built in order to move in. I learned many lessons in that barn on how to live very well WITHOUT a lot of electrical power. People can live off-grid, or at least, they can certainly minimize their energy needs by doing really simple things. This is one of the reasons that Grain Belt Express and Clean Line Energy Partners are so despicable to me. They assume that the only way people can have a quality standard of living is if they, and leaches like them, provide the energy for them.

Since the Open House, I have been researching Grain Belt Express, and Clean Line Energy Partners and have become more and more disgusted by what I have learned. I went on-line and found the BlockRICL folks. They have been a wonderful resource for how to fight this monster. Farmers and landowners from my area have been stunned by the response we have received from our county commissioners who seem to think that Grain Belt Express is a lovely idea, and whose lips have been already whetted by the promises of money and perks from those cheaters who waltz in, make promises that are not even investigated; who plan to take control of land, devalue property and land useability through eminent domain if they don't get what they want, and reduce the quality of life for everyone in the community who are subjected to these lines.

This report is primarily addressed to state regulatory utility commissioners, who will preside over some of the most important investments in the history of the U.S. electric power sector during perhaps its most challenging and tumultuous period. This report seeks to provide regulators with a thorough discussion of risk, and to suggest an approach—“risk-aware regulation”—whereby regulators can explicitly and proactively seek to identify, understand and minimize the risks associated with electric utility resource investment. It is hoped that this approach will result in the efficient deployment of capital, the continued financial health of utilities, and the confidence and satisfaction of the customers on whose behalf utilities invest.

Speaking of which, after Mr. Binz left the Colorado post in 2011, he maintained a paid relationship as a consultant with an outfit called the Energy Foundation.

Yet the Energy Foundation has an affiliated political committee called the Green Tech Action Fund, which has taken the very unusual step of hiring an outside public relations firm on behalf of Mr. Binz.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) runs something called the Project for Sustainable FERC Energy Policy. Lo and behold, the Energy Foundation contributed more than a half-million dollars to NRDC in 2011 to support such advocacy, according to its most recent grants disclosure form.

FERC oversees the nation’s electricity and natural gas networks, and the grid is badly in need of upgrades—up to $2 trillion worth by 2030. Binz has the track record to ensure that money is well spent.

He's mused about the rule of law as a nuisance when regulators want to exercise a "legislative role"...

Snip

The larger policy context here is that a core goal of the green movement is to pack FERC with commissioners who will expand and use its powers more assertively in the name of global warming, never mind a lack of legal authority.

Our reporting on all of this was too much for a dozen former FERC commissioners, both Democrats and Republicans. In a letter we published—a version is being circulated in the Senate—they assert that Mr. Binz fits FERC's "long nonpartisan tradition" and "will be a fair and impartial judge."

The 12 commissioners offer no evidence for that proposition other than an appeal to their own authority, but that's not their most notable omission. They somehow forgot to mention that, since their FERC tenure, most of them have taken the revolving door to become lobbyists, strategic advisers, utility executives and white-shoe attorneys with business in front of FERC.

Snip

All of this reflects the "long nonpartisan tradition" of monetizing federal political connections. What travels under the euphemism "public service" is often really a form of deferred compensation, and the folks whose livelihoods depend on favorable FERC policy rulings will naturally try to bank goodwill with their new master—at least until Mr. Binz cashes out his political options too.

The one thing the former FERC members are right about is that the agency's chairman really is supposed to be "a fair and impartial judge," not a political soldier. Perhaps that helps explain why Mr. Binz and his letter-writing and check-cashing partisans are so defensive.

Security forces at FirstEnergy's Beaver Valley power plant apparently failed part of a routine "force-on-force" exercise in April. Beaver Valley contains two reactors.

The details of the force-on-force exercise are classified and may never be made public, but the NRC earlier this month warned the company in a public letter that it was considering a citation against the company because the security failure looked significant.

The company has already said it does not believe the force-on-force exercise results revealed any weaknesses in Beaver Valley's security strategies but more reflected how the exercise was controlled.

During federal force-on-force drills, paramilitary squads, typically consisting of former military people, try to breach plant security and sabotage the reactor.

Armed with laser-type weapons, they attack at night, try to defeat plant security teams, breach walls and other barriers to invade the most protected areas of the plant, which contain the reactor, spent fuel storage and other critical equipment.

The Commission appreciates the continuing efforts made by the Stipulating Parties, even after the close of the record in this matter, to offer compromises and counter proposals in a concerted undertaking to develop the Joint Stipulation that is now before us. We also understand the desire of the Stipulating Parties to move this matter to resolution with utmost speed. The Commission shares that desire; however, we will chalk up the suggested decision date of “no later than August 30, 2013,” to “corporate enthusiasm.’’ The issues to be decided in this proceeding are too numerous, too significant from a rate making and cost of service perspective, and too important to current and future ratepayers, Mon Power and PE, and the economy of the State to suggest that they be treated in anything other than a detailed and thoughtful manner by the Commission.

The Commission has maintained a policy of receiving testimony from stipulating parties that both explain and support their stipulations in cases with a substantial impact
on ratepayers, This proceeding, with  significant rate base and ratepayer impacts, and where all parties are not in unanimous agreement, requires that the Stipulating Parties address why the Joint Stipulation is in the public interest, and further requires the
opportunity for the non-signatories to state their positions and objections about the Joint
Stipulation.
The Commission, therefore, will require that all parties to this case appear at a hearing with a witness to state whether, and why, the Joint Stipulation is, or is not, in the public interest. The witnesses should also be  prepared to answer questions from the
Commission and the parties regarding the terms and conditions of the Joint Stipulation. In particular, and without limiting the scope of inquiry at this time, the Commission seeks further explanation and clarification about:

Section 1 1 .(a.), Employment Commitment;
Section 1 1 .(f,), Net Payment to AE Supply at Closing;
Section 1 1 .(g.)( l), Rate Base Amount for Surcharge;
Section 1 1 ,(g.)(2), Future Regulatory Treatment of Rate Base Amount;
Section 11 ,(i.), Adjustment to ENEC Rates;
Section 11 .(l,), Accounting for the Transaction; Source of and types of Capital for the transaction; and The effect of the total transaction and all related accounting entries
on the capital structure of Mon Power.