Hundreds packed a public open house convened by FirstEnergy Monday night to reveal plans for the Northern Portage Reliability Project.

The big room at Christ Community Chapel was built to hold 350 and it was so packed that people were turned away within the first half-hour of what was to be a two-hour event.
As the open house began at 6 p.m., traffic was backed up for almost half a mile between the chapel just off Ohio 306 and Ohio 82 to the south.

FirstEnergy employees, contractors and consultants staffed themed tables around the periphery of the room. They included stations entitled Engineering & Construction, Vegetation Management, Environmental, Real Estate and Route Selection. The company created a large centerpiece with big photos on easels showing various points where the company wants to put in power lines. The event was designed for people to circulate, but the crowd made navigation around the room difficult. Some attendees complained that there was no public give-and-take between the company and residents as one might have at a town-hall style event.

According to FirstEnergy, the cost to run the lines underground along the rail corridor would be three to seven times more expensive than using utility poles.

First Energy has said the underground scenario could create a 10-fold increase in the cost of the project and the above-ground rerouting would be longer that the former rail line, and would send the lines over roadways and home owners’ yards.

Jennifer Young, a spokeswoman for the company, said the lines will be carried by 60-foot wood poles and those might be reduced to 45 footers, making them lower than nearby trees.

Beach said FirstEnergy measures the viability of various routes by their potential impact on property owners. The western route could affect 111 homeowners (although the company would need right-of-way access from about half that number), and the eastern route could affect up to 177 homeowners with right-of-way access from half that number. He also said many of those properties would have utility poles going up in the front of their properties.

“We have the opportunity to build this and maintain it in the right-of-way with one parcel that’s 100 feet wide for the most part,” said Beach.

Dear Governor Parson,

On behalf of Missouri agricultural producers comprising nearly 100, 000 family farms,
concerned citizens, and taxpayers, I know you understand our interests and want to
preserve the number one industry in Missouri today. In fact, as our Governor you have
been quoted as saying, "To prepare the next generation of Missourians who will be a
part of this industry, we must unite and focus on important issues that matter to all of us."

Farming and agriculture are threatened by the proposed private use, merchant transmission line, Grain Belt Express Clean Line (GBE). This line is currently proposed to cross through eight Missouri counties, and if approved would set a terrible precedent that will sacrifice our state's agricultural heritage, and its future, for the benefit of out-of-state energy speculators.
Most folks affected by the project did not become aware of it until late 2013, however the company had been working behind the scenes to gain support from county governments and legislators since 2011. In fact, the company's Houston-based CEO has bragged that getting local governments on board before affected landowners find out about a project gives the people nowhere to turn for help. Since 2013, grassroots opposition to GBE has grown like wildfire, with membership in opposition groups numbering in the thousands. These citizens have worked diligently through the legal processes to block GBE for more than five years, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their hard
earned money simply to preserve their homes, businesses, and local economies from investment speculators from other states who seek to gain riches at our expense.

Landowners don't seek to gain if they win, they will merely be awarded the right to continue to live their lives and run their agricultural businesses unencumbered. The Missouri Public Service Commission has now denied two applications filed by GBE, but yet the company persists. The Missouri Supreme Court, at the request of GBE and former Governor Nixon, remanded the last denial back to the PSC. In the interim, GBE's owners have signed a contract to sell the transmission project to out-of-state wind energy generation company lnvenergy. Evidentiary hearings on the remand concluded in December and once briefing has completed this month, a decision could be made at any time.

If approved by the PSC, the GBE private electric transmission company would have the
same status as a Missouri utility company to take private property for its own use through eminent domain. However, GBE is not at all similar to our state public utilities that serve all customers equally. As originally created, GBE intended to sell transmission service at negotiated rates under federal supervision that would prevent self-dealing and unfair bidding. GBE owned no generation interests that could receive undue preference and therefore received federal authority to begin negotiations. While GBE received approval of its negotiation plan from the federal government, that authority cannot pass to lnvenergy without federal approval. lnvenergy owns substantial wind generation assets in Kansas and Oklahoma, near the starting point of GBE. Without federal supervision, lnvenergy may favor its own generation interests while selling transmission service on GBE, and lnvenergy may use GBE to serve only its own
generation interests in other states, turning GBE into a private highway through Missouri
that does not serve the public. Furthermore, under different federal rules, lnvenergy's private generation tie transmission line could be protected from a public use by Missouri
utilities or generators.

Utilities that do not serve the public do not qualify as a "public use" deserving of eminent
domain authority. However, GBE and lnvenergy have stated in PSC testimony that the company will need to exercise eminent domain on 700 properties in Missouri immediately upon approval of the PSC. GBE needs easements on 739 properties in Missouri and has only secured 39 voluntarily, requiring the use of eminent domain on 95% of its route across the state. The companies propose to begin condemning property before their project is approved in other states, and before they find enough customers to financially support its construction. lnvenergy plans to undertake condemnation first, while maintaining the option to change the route, need, and purpose of its project later. We urge great caution here, for condemnation cannot be easily undone if lnvenergy later changes GBE into its private electric delivery highway through Missouri.

GBE has been proposing the same old, outdated, overhead line technology for the past ten years. New technology can make burial alongside existing public rights-of-way
possible, such as along highways. Burial of GBE along highways would provide much needed lease revenue for MO DOT to improve our roadways, without new taxes for our citizens, and eliminate eminent domain on private property.

We are pleading with you as our Governor to please help us preserve our agriculture in Missouri. We are not against progress or renewable energy, but we do object to granting eminent domain authority to a private business for its own profit. GBE is not
guaranteed to provide any future benefit to Missouri and could end up transporting energy produced in other states to the west across Missouri for use by other states to the east. Eminent domain authority awarded to a speculative, private venture will permanently damage our agricultural businesses. For example, crops grown under the proposed line must be less than 10 feet high, making corn production impossible in fields crossed by the project. As a result, how can we expect those in agriculture to carry this burden when every bushel counts for our livelihood?

Thank you for your support of agricultural interests. We hope you share our concerns about condemnation by a non-public utility and will strive to take whatever action is within your power to make sure Missouri property owners are sufficiently protected from Grain Belt Express.

Sincerely,
Russell Pisciotta
President
Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri

The MLA respectfully contends that the type of “need” created by Grain Belt in inducing MJMEUC to buy its product is not a true “need” for the service in the sense envisioned in the Tartan case. By analogy, it seems safe to say that not every family in Jefferson City truly “needs” to own a Cadillac. But if a dealer were for some reason to offer a Cadillac to everyone in the City for say $5.00, would the fact that virtually every family in the City was now driving a Cadillac suddenly prove there really was a “need” for those cars after all?

To the contrary, the MLA submits that actual “need” for any product cannot be artificially created by practically giving it away, as Grain Belt has done here. “Need” is not the same as “Want”.

To begin with, the only meaningful means to determine what MJMEUC might have saved by using the Grain Belt line is to compare MJMEUC’s total cost of power from that line to MJMEUC’s next best alternative at the time it signed the contract with Grain Belt. The problem is, before MJMEUC signed the TSA with Grain Belt, it did not bother to solicit bids from any other party to replace the expiring Illinois coal contract. Therefore, neither MJMEUC nor anyone else will ever know what the best alternative would have been to signing the TSA with Grain Belt.

For the above reasons, the MLA respectfully submits that Grain Belt failed to prove that the need for the line in Missouri is anything but an illusion of its own making.

In short, all of the cases cited by Grain Belt on this issue merely support the reliance on the resources of Clean Line, and not those of a third party with no ownership in the Applicant.  Thus based on Grain Belt’s own analysis, it is asking the Commission to take a position here for which there apparently is no precedent.

A more fundamental problem with Grain Belt’s argument on this point is that it is once again taking for granted that future decisions of the Commission will be made in Grain Belt’s favor. Specifically, before the sale of Grain Belt to Invenergy may close, those parties need not only the CCN in this proceeding, but also the permission of the Commission for the sale of the Grain Belt project to Invenergy in a case which has yet to be filed. If that sale is not approved, then of course Grain Belt never gains access to the resources of Invenergy. Thus in asking the Commission to decide the two Tartan criteria on the basis of Invenergy’s expertise and stronger financial status, they are necessarily asking the Commission to assume that it will later approve the sale of Grain Belt to Invenergy. And this request is being made by Grain Belt before the Commission has even seen or heard a word of evidence in the case which will decide that issue.

This is particularly presumptuous on Grain Belt’s part, in that they have stated unequivocally that the Commission does not even have the authority to approve the proposed sale which they now take for granted will be approved.

Even if Grain Belt successfully manages to disavow its earlier position, which seems unlikely, it is totally inappropriate for Grain Belt to even suggest to the Commission that it should assume it will approve the sale of Grain Belt to Invenergy before that case is even filed.

Despite the prognoses of what the Commission will do in some unfiled case, as matters now stand there is no basis for granting a CCN to the Applicant on the basis of speculation about its possible access to Invenergy’s resources.

Grain Belt supports its position on this issue primarily with broad generalizations about the market for wind generation. And while it contends that “the economic feasibility of the Project continues to be strong”, it does not even attempt to make a case for the economic feasibility of the Missouri segment of the line, without access to the PJM market.

As the MLA and Show Me discussed in their initial brief on remand, there is a definite possibility that the line will ultimately terminate in Missouri, thereby precluding access to the very markets which could make the project economically feasible.

As the NRDC and Sierra Club suggest, Missouri might be a “loss leader” for Grain Belt. But as they then note, according to the concurring opinion the project relies for its economic viability on the higher prices in the PJM market. But of course if the project cannot reach the PJM market, it is left only with the loss leader segment of the line in Missouri.

ATC works hard to silence its critics. Besides hiring police to keep dissenters out of its meetings, the company seeks to discourage ordinary citizens from taking part in the Public Service Commission's review process.

When ATC first proposed building a 138-kilovolt line in Waunakee, 92 Dane County residents signed up as "intervenors." This allowed them a more intimate role in the approval process, rather than simply speaking at the PSC's public hearings.

ATC reacted quickly. First it challenged the citizens' right to intervene. The company noted that many did not live anywhere near the Waunakee line and were simply concerned about other projects in Dane County. ATC also sought to deny some public funding for the Sierra Club and Citizens for Responsible Energy. (The PSC funds public and nonprofit groups that intervene, so they can hire attorneys and experts to advise them.)

These approaches failed, so ATC took it up a notch. Most of the citizens argued that conservation, not building new power lines, is the key to meeting Dane County's energy needs. So ATC sent the individual intervenors a 16-page interrogatory, drilling them on their personal energy use. The questions included, "How many light fixtures are located on your current property, and of these, how many are currently fitted with fluorescent light bulbs?"

ATC also demanded the intervenors' addresses for the past five years, the square footage of each residence, and all of their monthly electric bills. For residents whose property the Waunakee line would directly cross, ATC also wanted a home appraisal, tax assessment or purchase agreement documenting the price paid for the home.

Attorney Frank Jablonski, representing Citizens for Responsible Energy, calls ATC's questions "unnecessary and possibly abusive." He says a neighborhood group that tried to intervene was treated similarly, with ATC demanding the names of all its members. "It's absolutely outrageous intimidation by an entity that is completely out of control."

But the tactic worked. Scores of residents, including Ann Emerson, withdrew as intervenors. "I finally bowed out because it was so overwhelming," she says.

“This is a work in progress,” [Judge Newmark] said. “Really the first time we’ve had this many parties.”

Approval of a request for intervention makes the requester a “party” to the proceeding. A Commission proceeding is a formal legal action, and becoming a party to that action confers certain rights and expectations. For example, party status confers the rights to: (1) acquire evidence from other parties; (2) offer expert testimony; (3) cross-examine expert witnesses; and (4) present a written argument.

 “We are perplexed by the Judge’s idea that a not-for-profit organization could represent the detailed interests of numerous, unique, households-- not to mention those of six municipal governments with elected leadership,” observed Keith Ashley Wright, President of SOUL.

Both in principle and in practice, SOUL is unable to represent the land-based concerns raised by the private and municipal intervenors. The state’s requirement of multiple transmission route options makes it impossible for any organization to represent one landowner’s interests without creating conflicts with other landowners. Only nine of the requesting intervenors are SOUL members. The SOUL board restricted its intervention efforts to demonstrating the cost and environmental effectiveness of Non-Transmission Alternatives. The organization is not seeking funding from the state to pay for the required experts.

TDI, from the very beginning, took important community, environmental and aesthetic considerations into account when designing and siting the NECPL. TDI carefully chose underground technology specifically to minimize impacts on the people, viewshed and environment of Vermont. We recognized that the additional expense related to underground construction for NECPL was worth the alleviation of a multitude of genuine community and environmental concerns, and that the cost of any project can’t only be measured in dollars.

Farming is hard. And the farming of orchard crops is arguably the most difficult. Every time it rains during the period of April through July, my apples are at risk from disease, requiring frequent and expensive protective chemicals. We have experienced two major exotic pests in just the last 6 years, with Brown  Marmorated Stink Bug, Spotted Wing Drosophila, and a third pest, The Spotted Lanternfly, which has spread to the next county will arrive next year if it is not here already. Most of the apple varieties we produce on the farm are worth little more now than they were 30 years ago, while labor, chemicals, and insurance, our three biggest expenses, have increased significantly in that time. The labor supply for the hard fieldwork is almost non-existent, and our crew size shrinks each year. My wife and I work an average of 12 hours a day, six days a week, from mid-March through November each year. We do not have a summer vacation.
Still, there is something intrinsically good about farming that is difficult to describe to those who have not experienced it. Maybe it is the challenge of overcoming all the adversity. Perhaps it is the knowledge that thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, have been nourished through our efforts. Or maybe it is a pride that our orchard is an important destination for thousands of people each year who would otherwise not be able to teach their kids where food comes from. Whatever the reason, in the sincere words of Washington, “I'd rather spend a day on my farm than be emperor of the world.”

It should come as no surprise that many customers who seek out family farms to buy fruit and vegetables are concerned with their health, and the health of their families. A large proportion of the population has concerns regarding the health effects of high voltage lines. Put simply, it doesn't matter what I think about the health effects of high voltage lines, if my customers believe that they are dangerous, then their presence will cost me money, either from people refusing to pick near them, or because they don't want food that is grown near them.

We use permanently sited irrigation in many of our fields, including the field that lies under the proposed power line. There are not only concerns about damage during construction, but concern that after construction is complete, an accident in the field could cause water under high pressure to jet into the line.

...a leak in the irrigation system presented a danger to those working under the lines. In this case, a break in the irrigation line under pressure was projected to fly 100 feet in the air, causing any person that came into contact with the system to suffer an electrical shock.

On August 9, 2017 Transource held an open house at Norrisville Elementary School. I arrived between 30 minutes and an hour after the event began. As I walked in from the parking lot, I was immediately recognized by a citizen who took me by the arm and asked if it was true that the Shaws were negotiating with Transource. I was confused, and said we had not even spoken to Transource. She told me that Transource had been telling people that “the Shaws are onboard” and that we were negotiating during the meeting. I asked her to take me to the person who told her that. On the way into the building, I was recognized by Transource’s Public Affairs person, Mary Urban (whom I had never met in person). She tried to welcome me, but we continued together into the event and met the Transource representative who had been spreading the rumor. He confessed to stating that he believed we were negotiating. I told him in no uncertain terms that my family was not negotiating and that he must stop spreading rumors  about me and my family. I admit to raising my voice. He was ushered out of the room by other Transource people.

In an editorial published in local papers on 9/21/18, PJM Vice President of Planning Steve Herling stated the core justification of the IEC: “After all, it would not be fair for customers in one area to consistently pay higher prices than others do simply because the system's design prevented some customers from accessing the lowest-cost electricity.” The implication of this statement is that all customers are entitled to the lowest-cost electricity possible. There is no assertion here that there is any law, regulation, constitutional guarantee, or even a policy that would indicate that there is something wrong with the status quo. Instead, he says, “it would not be fair.” This project is predicated solely on the assumption of an entitlement that is documented nowhere.

I believe that proximity to generating facilities should matter. People who live near generators should pay less for electricity. These are the people who tolerate the noise, the emissions, the visual impacts, and the other deleterious effects of large generating facilities. These are the people who absorbed the capital charges for existing facilities in their rates over the years. There is as little logic in Mr. Herling's statement as there is legal responsibility to approve a market efficiency project... none.

Large-scale transmission intended solely to decrease Locational Marginal Price (LMP) has the adverse effect of discouraging investment in generation capacity in the destination market. Maryland imports 47% of their electricity, and Washington DC imports 100%. For each megawatt that is imported into the  state, the decreasing price provides less incentive for generators to make an  investment in the state.

Environmentalists are starting to use the same legal tactics they use to halt the construction of oil and natural gas pipelines against clean energy projects like wind farms, cutting into consumer choices for clean energy.

In Oklahoma, legal fights have slowed the rollout of critical transmission lines and wind farms that could power other parts of the United States with emissions-free electricity. Wind Catcher — a 2-gigawatt, 300,000-acre wind farm planned for the Oklahoma panhandle — had to be scrapped after oil and gas opponents began to campaign against it, stiffening the spines of property owners in the path of the mega-wind farm’s transmission lines and making the project too tortuous and risky for investors. 

Similarly, in Iowa, the legislature banned the use of eminent domain for high-voltage transmission lines carrying wind energy across the state into Illinois. The state government would have used eminent domain to obtain rights of way from reluctant property owners in order to build these lines.