Private entities shall not have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purposes of constructing above-ground merchant lines. For the purposes of this subsection, "merchant line" means a high-voltage direct current electric  transmission line which does not provide for the erection of electric substations at intervals of less than fifty miles, which substations are necessary to accommodate both the purchase and sale to persons located in this state of electricity generated or transmitted by the private entity.

Marilyn O’Bannon of Monroe County says she will lose farmland and room to till:

“When do you give the right to somebody to take their business across your business. I’m going, as a landowner, to give up a lot of income. I’m not talking a few dollars here, a lot of income to allow something to come across my property that I will get no value from.”

The Public Service Commission ruled that the landowners would have to be compensated for use of the land and caps the amount of agricultural land used for each tower.

But the Public Service Commission on this past March voted unanimously to give Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC a “certificate of need and necessity.” Former Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon argued on behalf of the company.

The proposed line promises to deliver 3,500 megawatts of renewable energy from western Kansas to southeastern Missouri and into Illinois, and Indiana where it would connect to a grid that supplies energy to heavily populated northeastern states. 

Peggy Whipple, who argued on behalf of Clean Line before the Missouri Supreme Court and the PSC, says the commission decision legally deems the company to be a public utility, answerable to local regulators.
“We have legal control over this company that will develop this line for everything that we could hope to have it for, other than rates only.”  Rates would come from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and must be just and reasonable, she says.”

Small cities and their utilities spoke against the bill, saying they need the new power lines. Carroll County Commissioner Bill Boelsen:
“My previous job before I took on this job was high-voltage electricity. I traveled the entire United States working on substation transformers.  This country’s infrastructure is crap anymore. It’s 70, 80 years old at least.”

Stephen Franke, a businessman from Hannibal says they’ve been promised energy a third cheaper than the open market.
“Two cents a kilowatt-hour an entire third cheaper for a community with 20 percent poverty rate. That’s substantial. In addition, a 25-year contract, we’re locked in which means we can do capital planning, we can do reserve planning. We’re not exposed to the risk of an open and volatile market.”

So how can PJM propose a project that doesn’t really save any money, hurts Pennsylvania ratepayers so badly, and costs nearly $500 million to build? 
 
The answer can be found at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), the entity charged with regulating PJM.  FERC allowed PJM to implement a tiered system, with one set of rules for smaller projects, and one for larger projects.  Delineated by voltage, the lower tier rules allow PJM to completely ignore all zones that see increases, while the higher tier rules consider the net change to system production cost.  Transource realized that this created a loophole.  They designed the IEC to run at the highest voltage possible in the lower tier, but carry an astonishing 24 conductors.  Though run at only 230kv, the IEC has so many conductors it would have more power capacity than most 500kv lines that form the backbone of the grid.  One expert witness said it carried more power than any 230kV line he had ever seen.  Testimony showed that if the line were evaluated as a higher tier project, it probably would never have been proposed.

And if that isn’t gaming the system, then consider this: when PJM asked FERC to make the changes in the assumptions for future planned generation – the changes that affected the benefits last week – they didn’t provide much analysis.  In fact, they only gave FERC one table of examples.  Those examples showed what would happen to eight small projects with and without the proposed changes.  In all eight examples, the new rules reduced and usually eliminated the need for those projects by showing the projects no benefit.  PJM clearly was trying to tell FERC that they had historically been over-estimating the benefits of projects, and that the proposed rules would more accurately reflect lower benefits and result in fewer unnecessary projects.  But just days after the rules were changed, the IEC showed a $250M swing the other direction.  Bait and switch anyone?  You can almost hear the laughter in the PJM hallways.

PJM is a cabal of utilities interested in one objective: making money.  They have manipulated the rules to allow the proposal of a project that will lose hundreds of millions of dollars, destroy preserved farmland, and raise rates for Pennsylvania residents, all while ignoring existing alternatives.  If nothing else, this process has convinced any objective onlooker that PJM needs tighter regulation.  FERC has been too trusting, and the effects are clear.

Dear Governor Parson:

We are writing to ask for your support in taking action to protect agriculture in Missouri from Grain Belt Express-Clean Line. The proposal to take wind energy from Kansas through Missouri to PJM Grid is only a speculative venture and is for private gain for a company that is not a utility but a merchant transmission line. Our Missouri PSC has denied this project two times, and we are now at a point of decision on the third application which involves the sale of GBE to lnvenergy, who did not have to make an application to PSC.

Growing up on a family farm in the 1930's, we can tell you about adversity and how we have
seen agriculture change from horse drawn equipment to the development of auto-steer and technology that has greatly enhanced production. Our University Extension Century Farm was settled in 1873. We currently have 5th generation grandchildren involved in the family operation, and are fortunate to be able to continue living on the homestead even though we are in our late 80's.

The GBE proposed line will run through the middle of our farm, tearing up farm ground that has been cared for since 1873.  In fact, the dangerously high voltage line will be within 600 feet of our home and machine shed, a nice view from our patio. Until recently, like you, we took much pride in my cow herd. Our pastures near our home would be affected by the proposed GBE line as well.

In all our years of farming, we have never faced a troubling situation like GBE. And, to think our state government could possibly approve such a project by giving authority of eminent domain adds to our worries.

With all due respect, please protect the future of farming and agriculture in Missouri. If a project like GBE is approved, what is next? We have included a picture of us with some of the
other generations involved in our century farm.

Our regards,
Dale & June Morgan
Madison, MO

L to R: Vickie Morgan Ross, June Morgan, Jay O'Bannon, Dale Morgan, Alan Morgan, Marilyn, Kevin, Jeff & Lisa O'Bannon. Front row: Kade, Grey and Isla Kate

Dear Governor Parson:

We have been engaged in farming since 1978. In fact, to help make ends meet, one of us worked as a Social Worker for Missouri Department of Social Services Children's Division and Department of Health and Senior Services for over 25 years.

Nothing has been as threatening to our livelihood as Grain Belt Express-Clean Line. We have been strongly opposed to the project since finding out in mid-December 2013. Most upsetting is this company, a speculative merchant transmission line, was even eligible to apply to our Missouri Public Service Commission to become a utility company and take property through eminent domain.

As a farmer, you know the sacrifices involved to purchase a farm, nurture the land, and be good stewards to raise a crop or maintain pasture for cattle. We have implemented all of the technology to farm more efficiently and want to leave a legacy for our sons and grandchildren. The proposed GBE plan would devastate our operation as it is proposed to run through the middle of farms that are open and mostly tillable. The proposed 27 foot concrete piers below ground sickens us as we would lose our investment in conservation practices and production in the 200 foot easement, and anywhere the heavy construction equipment runs across the fields.
There are many other issues induding safety, inability to raise corn under the transmission line, loss of our technology (GPS), and the list goes on.

Missouri PSC has twice denied the GBE application. A third application is now in the hands of PSC commissioners for a decision. Now that GBE has started the sale of their company to lnvenergy, it seems very wrong for PSC to consider lnvenergy, a company that will not close on the deal with GBE until there is PSC approval, and the remaining 700 easements are obtained through eminent domain. Since Iowa has legislation to prevent eminent domain for merchant transmission companies, and Illinois Supreme Court has denied GBE and a sister company RICL as a utility, we are suspicious why lnvenergy would even want to buy GBE-Ciean Line. A more thorough investigation is needed.

We are not against renewable energy. But, wind does not need to be shipped in from Kansas, and not at the expense of destroying highly productive farmland in Missouri.

We are proud to have a Governor who stands for agriculture. Please take action within your power to protect property rights and landowners from GBE. We want to keep agriculture number one in Missouri.

Respectfully,
Kevin O'Bannon
Marilyn O'Bannon

Mr. Baker testifies that "Transource PA feels that transmission line corridors are a common element in the landscape and that the presence of these features does not diminish the scenic aspects of an area for visual enjoyment from public rights of way."
Transource Statement No. 4-R at 37.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND?

As an initial matter, I am not aware that a corporation can have feelings. However, to the extent that Mr. Baker is expressing his own personal feelings, he is wrong. The proposed project would wholly diminish the scenic aspects of southern York County. The outpouring of opposition from the local community shows how the construction of another transmission line corridor would adversely affect the landscape in a damaging and permanent way.

Regardless of what efforts Transource may have undertaken to minimize the impacts of
the project...  the fact remains that the project would have significant and adverse impacts on...

Q.  WHAT IS THE PRIMARY TOPIC OF MR. SCHAFFER'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
Mr. Schaffer testifies about Transource's interactions with landowners, explaining that
the approach to these interactions is described in its Internal Practices for Dealing with the Public on Power Line Projects, which is Attachment 13 to the Siting Application. He claims that "Transource PA strives to be honest and act in good faith with landowners."
Transource Statement No. 6-R at 1-2. Mr. Schaffer further suggests that in most cases,
"the negative interaction is the result of a misunderstanding" and that it makes additional information available in these situations. Transource Statement No. 6-R at 2. He also explains what Transource does when it learns of a negative interaction between one of its representatives and a landowner and describes some of the key elements of its internal practices. Transource Statement No. 6 at 2-3.

Q.  PLEASE RESPOND.
While Transource may have an approach to interactions with landowners that is documented in a manual, landowners have been subjected to numerous instances of negative interactions, including situations of dishonesty and acting in bad faith. Attached as Citizens Exhibit No. 1 is a letter stating that many landowners had already granted Transource access to the property to conduct surveys. That was an untrue statement, as the opposite is actually true. In other instances, agents who were seeking permission and right-of-ways told landowners that many of their neighbors had already consented when in fact only one has signed to this day, of which I am aware. As Transource prepares to conduct drill tests on the land, the agents are telling landowners that they only have to give 24-48 hours' notice, when Section 309 of the Eminant Domain Code plainly states they are required to give 10 days' notice. 

Also, I note that Mr. Schaffer does not suggest
that any landowners received apologies as a result of a "misunderstanding." Nor does he
provide any data to quantify the number of negative interactions that have been reported,
offer any detail about the nature of the so-called misunderstandings or explain what additional information was subsequently provided to the landowner. It is also telling that Mr. Schaffer does not describe any disciplinary procedure that Transource has in place, much less discuss any actions that have been taken.

HOW HAS MR. CAWLEY CHARACTERIZED THE THINKING OF OPPONENTS OF THE PROJECT?

Mr. Cawley has characterized the thinking of the project's opponents as "parochial," "self-interested," and "provincial." Transource Statement No. 9-R at 13-14.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
Landowners from York County have repeatedly testified that if the project was needed for reliability reasons and no other reasonable alternatives existed, they would not be in this proceeding - spending their personal retirement and college funds and committing vast amounts of their valuable personal time- to oppose construction of this high voltage
transmission line. But, it is not needed for reliability in Pennsylvania or in the region, and other reasonable alternatives do exist, in the form of currently underutilized lines running through the area. Frankly, given the way that the landowners of York County have united and organized their efforts to oppose the project shows the depth of their commitment to preserve the entire area's farmlands, businesses, environment, natural resources and viewshed - not only for their families but for future generations and for visitors to the region. Their attitudes are far from "parochial," "self-interested" and "provincial."

Dear Governor Parson,

I own a small business in Missouri, pay Missouri taxes, donate to Missouri charities, and lived in Missouri for more than 30 years of my life. I am adamantly opposed to Clean Line Energy’s Grain Belt Express (GBE) transmission line project, which would usurp my family-owned small farming business for the private gain of an out-of-state company. I write to ask that you support Missouri’s farmers by opposing Clean Line’s application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC).

For over 40 years, my family has farmed in Ralls County, Missouri. More than a quarter century ago, my family initiated a 200+ acre habitat restoration project on Parham Farms in coordination with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, an effort which my brother and I continue to manage today. We
set aside this portion of Parham Farms for environmental protection because of its unique qualities. It is a rare swath of Missouri savannah habitat that plays a special role to biodiversity of the surrounding area. It is a hub for wildlife and includes prime habitat for the Indiana Bat, which is listed as endangered by both the State of Missouri and the U.S. Government. Savannah habitat—where the Eastern woodlands and Western prairies meet—was once predominant across Missouri. As savannah habitat declines, so does biodiversity across the state. Today, according to state and federal agencies, less than 1% of savannah habitat remains in Missouri.

Today, Parham Farms falls directly in the path of Clean Line’s planned GBE project, and Clean Line wants to condemn and forcibly take this property for their own use. That remaining 1% of native savannah habitat – which my family has painstakingly restored over decades – now faces destruction if the PSC approves Clean Line’s petition to build the GBE. I urge you to question if this is the kind of legacy that the PSC’s decision should leave.

The proposed route for the GBE would cut straight across Parham Farms – slicing through our most productive cropland. It would also disrupt prime habitat for the Indiana Bat, which depends on land covered
in mature, old-growth trees—exactly the type of habitat that we currently protect on Parham Farms. If the PSC allows Clean Line to take away our old-growth forest, it will take away the endangered Indian Bat population with it.

The PSC’s approval of Clean Line’s project will also tell large companies that Missouri welcomes out-of-state companies to forcibly repurpose family-owned small businesses for their own use—a truly dangerous precedent.

Clean Line does not have the right to tell me how my business should use my property, and the PSC should not grant it such authority. I ask for your support in protecting Missouri residents, landowners, farmers, and natural resources by not supporting Clean Line’s application for Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity.

Respectfully,
Austin Read Parham
President, Parham Farms

Dear Governor Parson:
 
As a farmer and a Commodity Trader for one of the largest Grain Companies in Missouri and the world, I am writing today in opposition of Grain Belt Express as the proposed route will be crossing my family’s University of Missouri Extension Century Farm in Monroe County.  I am adamantly opposed to a private for-profit company applying to Missouri Public Service Commission for a Convenience and Necessity Certificate that if approved would give the authority of Eminent Domain.
 
On the coldest days of February 2015, our Missouri utility companies were selling excess power to PJM grid and making over million dollars a day.  That money was coming back to Missouri utility companies, workers and citizens as the cooperatives could pass along profits (patronage payments) to members. If merchant lines are allowed to cross our state, they will bring little benefit to Missouri in the way of power or full time jobs. We are basically as the saying goes “cutting off our nose to spite our face”. If these transmission lines were allowed, we would be taking money right out of our local utility companies and Missouri citizens’ hands and putting it in the pockets of few business owners in other states or countries.
 
This is big business and I doubt Grain Belt (Invenergy) will leave any extra money or savings on the table for the residents of Missouri. As mentioned, I’m a commodity trader for one of the largest Grain Companies in Missouri and in the world. Electricity is a commodity that is traded basically like any other commodity in the world. The first thing my company teaches every new commodity trader on the first day of the job is simple……“Always control the freight, then you always have the leverage”. Grain Belt Express (Invenergy) is trying to gain utility status in Missouri, even though they are not a producer or a seller of electricity. Grain Belt would only be the freight haulers. I see no benefit for Missouri or United States in this proposed project. As far as the “jobs created,” I see no long term employment.
 
This project is not the long term solution for our State. People will not be attracted to move or reside in a county with the highest voltage transmission line in the United States. I have asked myself many times if I would want to be part of a legacy that stood by and let the highest voltage transmission line in the history of the United States be erected and forced my neighbors, life-long friends and fellow Missourians to move from their homes and devalue their property so a private company can profit?
 
Please help to protect property rights, utility companies, and workers of Missouri by doing what is within your ability to stop the abuses of eminent domain for merchant transmission companies, and keep agriculture in Missouri for future generations.
 
Respectfully,
Jay O’Bannon

Dear Governor Parson,

As I sit here entering the eighth year after Grain Belt Express started their drive to build a transmission line through Missouri, to the East to deliver wind power, I wonder how this can still be going on. There have been sixteen public hearings before the PSC that I am aware of, hearings at Jefferson City, hundreds of letters of opposition, and hundreds of testimonies which have been overwhelmely opposed to this transmission line. Also Missouri citizens have had to spend an enormous amount of time, resources, and money against this attempt to illegally use the power of eminent domain for a private company. Even if they did qualify for a permit, statue 229.100 of Missouri law would require consent from each county commission before they apply to the PSC.

GBE has been denied a permit twice before the PSC and their status as a non public utility has not changed. I would think that should have been the last time GBE could apply before the PSC. However, The Missouri Supreme Court requested by GBE and former Governor Nixon, who was in support of GBE
while in office, sent the denial back to the PSC. Is there a limit as to how many times this process can go on? If GBE is approved then they would have the power of eminent domain the same as a public utility to seize private property. The only thing that has changed is that GBE has signed a contract to sell this project to the company lnvenergy. It was stated in GBE's easement agreement that their rights may be sold, mortgaged, or leased in whole or in part at any time. What kind of Pandora's box will we be subject to then?

As I understand, Missouri has ample wind and other power to meet its needs and it is questionable that GBE or lnvenergy would drop off any power in Missouri. Without being a public utility they could sell to the highest bidder. Giving a private company the power of eminent domain would not only give an unfair advantage to our existing public utility companies, it would set a dangerous precedence for the future of our state and it citizens.

My family and I have been on this land for eighty five plus years. This proposed line would cross five farms and three and one quarter miles of our most productive farmland. I have testified and written letters in the past as to the irreparable and sustained economic loss, and ability to farm the land, such a line would have on me and all people in its path. I and my family are firmly opposed to granting GBE this power of eminent domain and it is my hope that as Governor that you can do whatever is in your authority to protect the citizens of Missouri against such abuses of power. Thank you for your time in listening to my concerns.

Respectfully,
Kent Dye
Paris, MO