Applying for CPCN/CCNs from the Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia state commissions is a threshold step for Valley Link during the pre-construction phase, because obtaining CPCN/CCNs will improve Valley Link’s ability to secure the needed land rights to support the Project Portfolio. Because the PJM Board only recently approved the Valley Link Portfolio Project on February 26, 2025, Valley Link has not yet initiated the CPCN/CCN process. Valley Link faces significant time pressure to initiate the CPCN/CCN process within the next few months because CPCN/CCN proceedings in these states can be lengthy.

Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process. Community engagement is crucial for making informed decisions that reduce or prevent potential impacts while delivering for the public essential infrastructure necessary to address large-scale reliability needs that the PJM grid faces both in the short term and for years to come.

On behalf of research teams at Data for Progress and World Resources Institute, I’m reaching out to ask if you would be willing to participate in a 30-min or 45-min confidential recorded interview to answer questions about your experiences with community engagement and transmission infrastructure projects. The opportunity to learn from your expertise with the PATH project would be a particularly valuable contribution to our research. 

We are inviting advocates both for and against transmission projects, policymakers, developers, community organizations, and other key stakeholders to these discussions. In the interview, we hope to learn about your familiarity with and views of community engagement efforts around transmission development, including what you view as working well or as areas for improvement. 
These interviews are part of a larger research project designed to examine barriers and opportunities for transmission deployment, including a specific focus on community engagement and understanding the role that community benefits (and tools like community benefits agreements) could potentially play in addressing some of these challenges, or if not, what their shortcomings are. We plan to synthesize what we learn from these interviews into a report which will also include evidence from case studies, focus groups, and survey data.
 
We would be grateful for the opportunity to include valuable insights from your unique expertise in our research. Your interview responses will be confidential and nothing you say will be attributed to you or your organization. Please reach out if you have any questions about the interview format.


If you’d like to participate in this interview, please let us know, and we would be delighted to set up a 30-min or 45-min Zoom discussion in the next few weeks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I’m not sure how I can help you with your project.  How many actual transmission opponents are you interviewing?  The fact of the matter is that once a transmission project is sited on private property, the impacted property owner will oppose it.  It doesn’t matter how many “benefits” the government or the transmission owner want to shower on others in the community who are NOT impacted.  For instance, if a transmission line is sited in my back yard and I will have to live with it in perpetuity, it doesn’t matter much to me if somebody wants to fund a new park across town, or in an adjacent community that is not impacted at all.  Community “benefits” are nothing more than a bribe to buy the advocacy of unaffected persons.  It doesn’t make the landowner whole.  “Benefits” to people who are not impacted do nothing to change opposition and only create arguments and bad feelings in local communities.  I wouldn’t throw my neighbor under the bus for my own personal gain, and I hope you wouldn’t either.

Maybe you should change your polling questions to ask people if they support a transmission line ACROSS THEIR OWN PROPERTY that will use eminent domain to take the land if the landowner refuses.  Or if a landowner is willing to sacrifice his home for the “benefit” of people who are sacrificing nothing for the effort.

The only opinions that matter here are the ones of impacted persons.

Have a great day!

P.S.  Transmission opponents are unlikely to give away our strategy to dark money transmission advocacy groups.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I completely understand if you do not wish to participate in this research project. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I respect the time you spent writing this reply and wanted to provide more context to you about this work. 

As an independent non-profit research organization, we hope to present a balanced view of challenges and shortcomings when it comes to how companies have approached transmission development, as well as opportunities to ensure that landowners have a meaningful say in these projects, including when that means organizing to stop them or to improve the conditions under which they do get built. We are representing a variety of perspectives across nearly 100 participants in our interview and focus group research, and have invited transmission opponents to participate in these interviews ranging from directly impacted landowners to county commissioners that have spoken out against projects. Our research included focus groups with rural landowners to understand their views on the important questions that you raise -- such as how they would feel about transmission infrastructure being built across their own property and their views on the use of eminent domain. You make valid points we've also heard during our research about the perceptions of benefits and their limitations, which will inform the analysis in our report. 

In case it is of interest to you, we are also conducting 15-20 minute anonymous surveys as part of this project. We'd welcome your response if you would want to participate in this in lieu of an interview, but we also respect your decision to decline participation in the project. 

Once again, I wanted to thank you for your time and the care you put into your reply. Have a wonderful weekend!

“In the waning, chaotic days of the Biden Administration — when the former president’s mental decline had grown to such a severe state that we now know he was not actually running his own White House and often signed documents without even knowing what they contained — left-wing bureaucrats seized the opportunity to advance their radical ‘green agenda,'” said Attorney General Bailey. “In the shadows of this confusion, far-left deep staters advanced a $4.9 billion green energy federal loan guarantee boondoggle to bankroll the Grain Belt Express (GBE), one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars in recent memory.”

The first paragraph of the Executive Summary states that in order to qualify for a loan, the project must be eligible under Section 1703 of Title XVII (the Clean Energy Financing Program), which defines eligible projects as those that, “avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases [GHGs]; and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued” (Public Law [P.L.] 109-58, Section 1703(a)).
The DEIS makes this presumption: “The Project could also help reduce overall GHG emissions by allowing new renewable energy projects to access the electric grid, potentially leading to the replacement of existing fossil-fuel power plants, while providing additional power to expanding renewable energy markets.” (Table 3.1.1). Coulda, woulda, shoulda. This is a wish list that is not backed up by facts. The DEIS does not name or study the projects that could use Grain Belt Express to access the electric grid and the DEIS determines they are not reasonably foreseeable actions and therefore are not included in the cumulative effects analysis. (Sec. 4.3.2.2).


Here’s the bottom line. Without signed legal contracts with generators, it cannot be presumed that Grain Belt Express will transmit renewable energy from wind or solar generators. Under its Negotiated Rate Authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Grain Belt Express may negotiate contracts with customers who will pay the company to use its transmission capacity, either generators or load serving entities.
Grain Belt Express has not made a compliance filing demonstrating to FERC that is has signed contracts with any generators, in Kansas or elsewhere, therefore any generator may negotiate a future contract, including those that use fossil fuels. It is just as likely that a new or existing gas- or coal-fired generator may sign a contract as a new solar or wind generator. Grain Belt Express may not discriminate against generation types when negotiating contracts and cannot evaluate connection requests using generation source as a factor. All sources of generation must be allowed to negotiate contracts under open access transmission rules.
Because potential generators have not signed contracts with Grain Belt Express, it simply cannot be determined that Grain Belt Express will reduce greenhouse gases as required to qualify for the loan. Furthermore, without signed contracts with generators, Grain Belt Express is just a transmission line. Transmission lines, by themselves, do not reduce greenhouse gases. A transmission line that is not connected to a generation source is just like an extension cord that isn’t plugged into anything. Grain Belt Express does not reduce greenhouse gases and therefore it is not eligible for the proposed loan.

Recipients of low-interest LPO loans “incur lower financing costs for their qualifying infrastructure projects than if they had used commercial capital markets [and] will pass along the savings to customers”

Although it may seem profitable for landowners to reject offers and hold out for 150% compensation, going to court may be costly and not worth the risk, said James Owen, director of Renew Missouri, a local clean energy nonprofit organization.
“I do not believe it is going to be in anyone’s best interest to challenge this in court,” he said. “They’re going to have to pay attorney fees on that. It’s going to be dragged out."

When DOE first opened this program, we initially submitted applications for all projects in Invenergy's transmission portfolio to be considered.

20241213_motion_gbx_to_dismiss_petition.pdf
File Size:	301 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

20250110_response_petitioners_to_gbx_mtd.pdf
File Size:	964 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

GBX's Motion states that building an interstate transmission line across their properties does not constitute any “invasion of a legally protected interest.” (GBX Motion at 15). As GBX sees things, Petitioners’ objections to GBX’s likely condemnation actions, its subjection of Petitioners to forced sales of their lands, and its construction of its transmission line across their farms and properties are "purely academic concerns." (GBX Motion at 19).

GBX wants this Court to ignore the Illinois landowners' objections to GBX's entry on their lands because Petitioners’ objections are nothing more than "...general...moral, ideological or policy objection[s] to a particular [FERC] action" (GBX Motion at 15).

GBX’s contempt for the property rights of Petitioners would be bad enough if it stopped there. But having hit rock bottom, GBX begins to dig.  After omitting any mention of its need for eminent domain power and belittling Petitioners’ interest in avoiding forced sales of their properties, GBX tells this Court that Petitioners are a group of “…citizens who … roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing." (GBX Motion at 3).

But it was GBX, not Petitioners, who lobbied the Illinois General Assembly for custom-tailored legislative changes to provide a glide path for its transmission line project. (Petitioners’ Initial Brief, at 21).

It was GBX, not Petitioners, who inserted in its custom-tailored legislation a route through the nine Illinois counties in which Petitioners’ farms and properties are located. (Petitioners’ Initial Brief at 22).

And it was GBX, not Petitioners, who sent minatory letters to Petitioners stating that, if they didn’t sell their property to GBX voluntarily, GBX would file an eminent domain lawsuit against them to take their property anyway.  See Exhibit B to this Response.

So GBX is partly correct: there is one party to this appeal who has been roaming across the country looking to pick legal fights with strangers. But it’s not Petitioners.
​
FERC’s unlawful order makes possible GBX’s exercise of the power of eminent domain against Petitioners. GBX’s plan to take Petitioners’ lands involuntarily and to build its high voltage transmission line across their properties presents precisely the kind of particularized injury that affects Petitioners in a concrete and personal way required for standing.  TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (2021).