When Sabal Trail approached him, Dowdy agreed to a negotiated fee for the right-of-way and estimated crop loss because he knew if he balked, the government would help the company take it anyway. He agreed in good faith, as well. Sabal Trail promised that Dowdy’s land would be returned to its original state by early January, in time for the new planting season.

And this is where the dispute begins.

“I was assured that Sabal would adhere to Georgia Soil and Water provisions,” says Dowdy, “that they would adhere to guidelines for segregated top soil and sub soil…rebuild my terracing to insure erosion wouldn’t occur…and put everything back in pre-construction condition. They said they would do…in their words…everything it takes.”

Andrea Grover, Director of Stakeholder Communications for Sabal Trail, says the company “followed specific protocols in place for construction which include storm water, erosion and sediment control plans which all require best management practices or “BMPs.”

“Our representatives have worked with individual landowners over the course of the past 3 ½ years to address concerns as related to the project and its impact to agriculture,” Grover explains. “The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) is the lead agency which approves pipeline projects, and Sabal Trail’s work is limited to only the FERC approved areas and conditions for construction. Project inspection personnel and our contractors all have the appropriate level of certifications for storm water controls inspection in Georgia.”

While Sabal Trail management promised that Dowdy’s farm would be back in business by the first week in January, and ensured that the project right-of-way would be “restored to its previous condition and contours,” that wasn’t the case. Repairs continued into February—and, worse, were still in progress when a major late January storm hit the state.

“I had already reached out to Sabal Trail management at least five times in December to say I was seeing erosion issues,” recalls Dowdy. “They promised to fix it immediately, but they never did, so when the storm came, we were completely unprotected.”

Dowdy thought he had made some headway with Sabal Trail when the company, in an attempt to make peace with an unhappy landowner, offered to pay Dowdy to make additional repairs to his land.

“They asked me to put together an estimate for attempting to repair the land, including an acceptable value I placed on my wetlands, and additional future yield loss,” says Dowdy. “We made a verbal agreement and I began repairs as instructed. Sabal knew the costs and agreed to pay for the estimated costs of repair.”

“When it came time for them to pay though, they introduced a condition—in order to get my reimbursement, I would have to sign a document releasing Sabal from future long-term yield loss, wetland violations and compensation. Here I was repairing what they messed up at my own expense and then they want more.”

Dowdy says his lawyer advised him not to sign and, thus far, he has not signed nor has he received a penny of the promised reimbursement from Sabal Trail.

Next Step…Litigation?

Dowdy’s laundry list of what wasn’t completed correctly by Sabal Trail is long.

“Sediment barriers were placed wrong, no hay was spread, there were no temporary terraces or berms…water was moving off my land at a 10% grade and sediment was going right into the surrounding wetlands and waterways. If Sabal had been in compliance with BMPs, I wouldn’t have been replacing 15,000 cubic yards of topsoil as I am having to do after the storm.”

Grover says Sabal Trail did return to Dowdy’s farm, and others impacted by pipeline construction, after the late January storm event, to “inspect the construction areas to ensure soil erosion devices installed according to the BMPs are working properly or repaired if necessary.”

But by then, says Dewey Lee, UGA Professor and Extension Agronomist, even though Sabal Trail installed additional BMPs after the storm damage was discovered, it was too late.

Lee who has worked with Dowdy on conditioning his farmland for a decade, says, “In the restoration that Sabal did, it appears they did not follow regulatory protocols perfectly. It appears that the crew handling the reconstruction did not have a full understanding of what their responsibilities were. This ultimately caused erosion down Randy’s waterways and across his field.”

Like Lee, irrigation specialist, Rance Harrod, knows well Dowdy’s attention to detail when it comes to his land. Dowdy and Lee’s suspicions that co-mingling of the top and sub soils in the fields was confirmed just last week after an irrigation supply line to the pivot began leaking. It was Harrod, along with Dowdy and a Sabal Trail employee, who worked on the fix.

Dowdy says as soon as Harrod began digging, it was apparent that the Sabal Trail repair crew had paid little attention to BMPs when it came to replacing the soil.

“Sabal has created tremendous soil loss and erosion resulting in offsite movement into the wetlands, no question about that. Randy’s damages are almost incalculable,” Lee adds.

“I shared pictures of the problems I was seeing with the Georgia Environmental Protection Department to show them things weren’t being done to regulations, hoping that they would take it up with Sabal,” says Dowdy. “But they said they needed to see it at the time it happened…that a later complaint wasn’t enough.”

Dowdy recalls he asked the agent “well where were you when it needed to be inspected?” He says the agent told him they didn’t have enough manpower to be everywhere along a 500-mile pipeline at all times.

“The only people inspecting what Sabal was doing to my land was Sabal,” says Dowdy. “The way I see it, it was like the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.”

Like many policies that were proposed by the Obama Administration, the DOE/Clean Line agreement is currently tied up in the courts.  DOE is involved in a lawsuit, forcing the agency to address the lingering doubts regarding the legal justification for the department’s decision.

If these concerns are ignored and the project is allowed to move forward, not only are Arkansans facing the prospect of losing their property due to a decision by the federal government, but your department risks codifying into law the practice of federal eminent domain seizures.  This dangerous precedent is antithetical to your distinguished record as a champion for states’ rights in the face of federal overreach.

Throughout your career you have been a champion of states’ rights.  This Administration has promised to give a voice back to its citizens.  This is a good way to show that commitment.

We will continue working to halt the project, not only because it violates property rights of Arkansans, but also because it violates the rights of all Americans to have their voices heard at the state and local level.  We hope you can appreciate our concerns and work with us to fight against this lingering overreach of the Obama Administration.

In a statement provided Monday to the media, Clean Line officials said the APPROVAL Act “creates more red tape and kills jobs by attempting to pull back approvals the project has already received.” The Clean Line statement also included a note of support from a large national union.

Clean Line Founder and President Michael Skelly said much consideration was given to the project before it was approved.

“We are very confident in the nearly decade long process undertaken by the U.S. Department of Energy in order to decide to participate in the project under Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This law was passed with bipartisan support, including then-Congressman John Boozman’s, and signed by President George W. Bush,” Skelly said in the statement. “The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project that will help to create a secure energy future for the country, and we are ready to get to work.”

Plains and Eastern state that they will assume all market risk associated with the development and construction of the Project and that there will be no captive customers.

“At the same time that our country is focused on creating opportunities for American workers, Arkansas Congressmen introduced a bill that will kill thousands of American jobs and, specifically, hundreds of Arkansas jobs,” said Lonnie Stephenson, International President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). “Whether the infrastructure project be a pipeline or an electric transmission line, the IBEW strongly disapproves of politics getting in the way of American job creation.”

The withdrawal of official support also comes not long after John Hobbs was voted in as a commissioner for Randolph County. Hobbs has been a vocal opponent of the Grain Belt Express.

Hobbs confirmed that the commission had rescinded the letter of support but declined to comment further on the matter.

Truesdell clarified that, although the commission has rescinded its official support for the wind energy transmission line, the attitude hasn't changed. The commission assumed a neutral stance on the matter around two years ago.

"The only thing that prompted action is that our legal counsel said that, if we wanted to be truly neutral, we should draft a letter to rescind the prior document," Truesdell said.


The move was meant to solidify the neutral stance of the commission, setting aside personal views the commissioners might hold, Truesdell said.

Randolph County Commissioner Wayne Wilcox said he was not present for the commission's vote to rescind the letter of support for the Grain Belt Express.

As was its position in Case No. EA-2015-0146, it is still Staff Counsel’s position that, not only must Grain Belt have the consent from each of the Missouri county commissions for its transmission line to cross the public roads and highways in their respective county before a Commission certificate for the line is effective, Grain Belt must have those consents before the Commission can lawfully issue the certificate, i.e., those consents are prerequisites to the certificate.

JCP&L has been consistent on the project’s need, which stems from a decision made by PJM Interconnection, a regional grid operator that oversees 13 states and the District of Columbia – New Jersey being one of those 13. PJM has stated that a 2011 review found that Monmouth County’s electrical system violates reliability criteria.

PJM Interconnection is a regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Acting as a neutral, independent party, PJM operates a competitive wholesale electricity market and manages the high-voltage electricity grid to ensure reliability for more than 65 million people.

PJM’s long-term regional planning process provides a broad, interstate perspective that identifies the most effective and cost-efficient improvements to the grid to ensure reliability and economic benefits on a system wide basis.

An independent Board oversees PJM’s activities. Effective governance and a collaborative stakeholder process help PJM achieve its vision: “To be the electric industry leader – today and tomorrow – in reliable operations, efficient wholesale markets, and infrastructure development.”

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a not-for-profit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America. NERC develops and enforces Reliability Standards; annually assesses seasonal and long‐term reliability; monitors the bulk power system through system awareness; and educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel. NERC’s area of responsibility spans the continental United States, Canada, and the northern portion of Baja California, Mexico. NERC is the electric reliability organization for North America, subject to oversight by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and governmental authorities in Canada. NERC’s jurisdiction includes users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system, which serves more than 334 million people.

In the 2011 RTEP, PJM identified reliability criteria violations of NERC Category P7 (previously NERC Category C) contingencies for the outage of the Atlantic-Red Bank (S1033) 230 kV line and the No. 2, 230-34.5 kV transformer with the loss of the Atlantic-Red Bank (T2020) 230 kV line and the No. 8, 230- 34.5 kV transformer due to failure of a common structure containing both circuits. JCP&L confirmed this contingency may result in more than 700 MW of load loss, well above the 300 MW loss of load criterion limit, which violates the JCP&L Planning Criteria as well as PJM planning criteria. The JCP&L-proposed Project was confirmed by PJM that it adequately addresses the reliability criteria violation.

PJM has not changed their required date for the project, but has listed the projected in-service date as June 1, 2019 in the RTEP Transmission Construction Status database... Note the PJM Required Date is the date the violation is initially identified to occur.

1.7 Obligation to Build.
(a) Subject to the requirements of applicable law, government regulations and approvals, including, without limitation, requirements to obtain any necessary state or local siting, construction and operating permits, to the availability of required financing, to the ability to acquire necessary right-of-way, and to the right to recover, pursuant to appropriate financial arrangements and tariffs or contracts, all reasonably incurred costs, plus a reasonable return on investment, Transmission Owners or Designated Entities designated as the appropriate entities to construct, own and/or finance enhancements or expansions specified in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan shall construct, own and/or finance such facilities or enter into appropriate contracts to fulfill such obligations.

1.5.8 (j) Acceptance of Designation. Within 30 days of receiving notification of its designation as a Designated Entity, the existing Transmission Owner or Nonincumbent Developer shall notify the Office of the Interconnection of its acceptance of such designation and submit to the Office of the Interconnection a development schedule, which shall include, but not be limited to, milestones necessary to develop and construct the project to achieve the required in-service date, including milestone dates for obtaining all necessary authorizations and approvals, including but not limited to, state approvals.
 
1.5.8 (k) Failure of Designated Entity to Meet Milestones. In the event the Designated Entity fails to comply with one or more of the requirements of Section 1.5.8(j); or fails to meet a milestone in the development schedule set forth in the Designated Entity Agreement that causes a delay of the project’s in-service date, the Office of the Interconnection shall re-evaluate the need for the Short-term Project or Long-lead Project, and based on that re-evaluation may: (i) retain the Short-term Project or Long-lead Project in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan; (ii) remove the Short-term Project or Long-lead Project from the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan; or (iii) include an alternative solution in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan.

The move Tuesday at the winter policy meetings of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in Washington was "unusual" said Elizabeth Jacobs, a member of the Iowa Utilities Board and vice chairwoman of NARUC's Electricity Committee.

"It wasn't supposed to be directed at any one project," said Jacobs. Rather, she said the resolution "was supposed to be about defending state jurisdiction [over transmission siting] going forward."

But there was some confusion "that made people really nervous," in particular its specific mention of the Plains and Eastern Clean Line proposed by Clean Line Energy Partners LLC, she said.

"I think some people had concerns with language about NARUC taking all necessary actions" to challenge the line, Jacobs said, and thought "Let's think this one through a little more."

The resolution was proposed by Sam Britton, a member of the Mississippi Public Service Commission. He did not return a call seeking comment.

Britton had explained to the NARUC committee that the resolution was "resource neutral" and not anti-wind or anti-renewables, said one attendee.

WHEREAS, Provision “(d) Relationship to Other Laws” of Section 1222 states that “Nothing in this section affects any requirement of ... (2) any Federal or State law relating to the siting of energy facilities; or (3) any existing authorizing statutes,” and
 
WHEREAS, On March 25, 2016, the DOE announced its plan to own the portion of a proposed power line that would traverse the State of Arkansas and rely on Section 1222 to exercise a Federal right of eminent domain in that state; and
 
WHEREAS, DOE has stated that it does not plan to request a site permit from the State of Arkansas but will instead rely on the federal Condemnation Act, which it says authorizes DOE to exercise eminent domain authority over any property so long as DOE has the legal authority to acquire the property, and so long as the project will constitute a public use; and
 
WHEREAS, NARUC has a long-standing position that the siting of electric transmission facilities should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the States, notwithstanding the limited “backstop” siting provision in Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (which NARUC opposed); and
 
WHEREAS, Without taking any position whatsoever on the wisdom of constructing any transmission project in which DOE wishes to participate or the type of power envisioned to be transmitted over such project, NARUC wishes to state its position on the proper interpretation of Sections 1221 and 1222;

We have analyzed the phrase "withheld approval for more than 1 year." Read by itself, the phrase does not include the outright denial of a permit application within the one-year deadline. We have also considered the phrase in the context of the entire statutory provision in which it appears. A reading of the entire provision reveals that Congress intended to act in a measured way and conferred authority on FERC only when a state commission is unable to act on a permit application in a national interest corridor, fails to act in a timely manner, or acts inappropriately by granting a permit with project-killing conditions. The broader context of § 216(b) thus confirms that the meaning of "withheld approval for more than 1 year" is plain: it means that action on a permit application has been held back continuously for more than one year. The continuous act of withholding approval does not include the final administrative act of denying a permit. Because Congress's intent is clear, our review under Chevron proceeds no further. For these reasons, we reverse FERC's interpretation of the phrase "withheld approval for more than 1 year."

A group of state electric utility regulators tabled a resolution critical of the Department of Energy's plan to take an ownership stake in a 720-mile interstate transmission project from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Tennessee.

The galvanizing issue for some NARUC members is DOE's unprecedented use of its authority to take an ownership stake in a line under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The Plains and Eastern line is ranked No. 9 in a list of 50 high-priority infrastructure projects circulating among governors, lawmakers and the business lobby. And the line could become a topic of debate if Congress and the White House develop economic stimulus legislation aimed at infrastructure development.

The 50-project document touted the line as a "national security project that can add resiliency to our electric grid," citing its ability to "move cheap, clean, wind power energy" that could power more than 1 million homes in the mid-South.

Mario Hurtado, executive vice president at Clean Line who leads the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project, welcomed the NARUC decision.

"Resolutions in a collegial body like this are supposed to be noncontroversial," he said.

"It's not really the role of NARUC to decide on projects. I think a lot of the commissioners were not comfortable passing judgement on single project in this informal association that's supposed be about broad policy," Hurtado said.

"To now to try to relitigate things is sort of like you're trying to start the clock again, and that's not really fair for investors," he said.

...the line could become a topic of debate if Congress and the White House develop economic stimulus legislation aimed at infrastructure development.

For Iowa's Jacobs, the siting issue is getting greater attention by regulators as "the citizens and the consumers are getting more and more involved in major infrastructure projects that deal with energy."

"Consumers would not feel comfortable that the federal government is making a decision that could impact them within miles of their home," she said. "We're hearing it more and more."

The trend in opposition "gives play to the old adage that all politics is local. That's really where we are right now. That whole populist sentiment is really strong out there," Jacobs said.

Jennifer Murphy, NARUC's assistant general counsel, emphasized that the tabled resolution does not negate the organization's opposition to even limited "backstop" siting authority granted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

"We have a resolution from 2009 that states our position on backstop siting. And until we have another resolution about backstop siting, that's our position on backstop siting," Murphy said.

In my opinion, this whole project is an attempt by a small group of investors to make a large amount of profit from the wind energy generation from Kansas. They have offered the proverbial 30 pieces of silver to local governments. Some have apparently taken it. I for one will not choose to do so. They promise Ralls County a whole million dollars (they must think this is 1960) to sell out our future. It is asking a lot of us to have our land taken by force to enable a few to get rich. I believe that other elected office holders should think beyond just today.

I think Mr. Tregengo’s assessment of the benefit to school districts and other county taxing jurisdictions is misleading because the facts are materially understated. 

I believe his overall discussion is short sighted because it does not address the tax revenues generated by the Project after it goes into service. Nor does it address the long term net tax benefits or losses. Therefore I regard most of his testimony as having little significance to an overall assessment of the longer term tax benefits to Missourians.

Basically, I believe that he spoke in generalizations which might leave the reader to see a much brighter prospect than actually exists for tax revenue benefits to Randolph and the other seven counties on the line. He omitted a discussion of which taxing jurisdictions receive little or no tax benefit.

Essentially, the value of a property is based on the perception of the buyer. Understanding that perception drives value is the foundation in analyzing the effect that electric transmission lines have on property value.

This perception does not have to be based on a scientific or engineering fact, it is based on what a buyer believes. An example of perception driving value based solely on belief is the haunted house. A home cannot be proven scientifically to be haunted. Yet, there are several homes throughout the nation thought to be “haunted” which stigmatizes the property resulting in a diminished selling price.

Just as in the last case, Grain Belt still has no memorandums of understanding with wind generators, and no firm commitments from any load serving utilities to buy capacity on the proposed transmission line.

Grain Belt fails to mention that MJMEUC may without penalty or cost elect to take no capacity over the new line, and that decision will be made sixty to ninety days before the line is then expected to enter service.

The TSA is nothing more than an option agreement.

In short, there currently is no commitment from MJMEUC to buy any capacity on the proposed transmission line.

The only support provided for the $10 million estimate from the MJMEUC was an eight-row spreadsheet in response to MLA’s Data Request MJM.13.

It is a flawed calculation of the cost of transmitting 100 MW and 200 MW of wind power from SPP to MISO. There is no calculation of, or comparison to, buying wind power over Grain Belt. The spreadsheet also contains an error in calculating the loss component of the costs. The total costs end up including addition of megawatt-hours and dollars which is flawed mathematics.

1. Mr. Lawlor asked how we felt about this move. We told him we would be thrilled not to have the line crossing our property, but that we did not want it moved to our neighbor’s property either. We couldn’t bring ourselves to benefit at the expense of our neighbors.
   
   
2. He said that the proposal to move the line seemed like a viable option, but that they expected something in return from us. My husband asked what he meant. Mr. Lawlor never did tell us exactly what they were expecting in return for moving the line off our property, but said it would be nice to have something from us.
   
3. We eventually told Mr. Lawlor that we could not agree to a move that would be detrimental to our neighbors, and that we would continue to oppose the Grain Belt Project. They thanked us for our time and left. That was the last we heard from Grain Belt about rerouting the line.
   

I will rebut Grain Belt witnesses James Arndt’s and Lanz testimonies regarding how the Grain Belt Express project could impact farming operations as well as discuss other issues regarding the negative impacts to farming and land as a result of large transmission projects like the Grain Belt project. Specifically, I will address the following negative impacts: Compaction of Soil; Erosion; Irrigation Equipment Interference; Difficulty in Aerial Applications to Crops and Pastures; Possible GPS Interference; Problems Maneuvering Large Farm Equipment around Towers; Precision Farming Problems; Concerns about Storm Recovery; and Eminent Domain.

Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC’s supposed promises to sell power to Missouri municipalities should be recognized for what they are: a political stunt to create pressure for approval of this project by giving small benefits to local governments at the massive expense of landowners’ rights. Those municipalities in support will bear none of the burden from Grain Belt’s proposed project. It is instead Missouri’s rural landowners that will experience significant disruptions in their operations if Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC is given the power to force land sales through eminent domain takings. This development does not change the underlying nature of the Grain Belt Express proposal. The project remains an attempt to engage in the abuse of eminent domain for private gain.

In summary, based on Staff’s review: 1) Grain Belt does not have the consent of the Caldwell county commission for its proposed transmission line to cross the public roads and highways in that county, the validity of its consent from the Monroe County Commission is being challenged in court, and, presently, the prefiled evidence does not include any such consents by the county commissions of Buchanan, Clinton, Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Randolph, Monroe and Ralls Counties; 2) There is not a clear need for the Project; 3) Grain Belt is qualified to construct, own, operate, control and manage the Project, but additional expertise will be needed once engineering and safety issues have been resolved; 4) Grain Belt has the financial ability to undertake the Project; 5) It is not clear whether the Project is economically feasible due to the lack of various RTO studies and the uncertainties surrounding the ATXI Mark Twain transmission line and its effects on the Missouri converter station and corresponding congestion; 6) A determination cannot be made at this time as to whether the Project is in the public interest since there is still uncertainty related to the economic feasibility and the safety of the Project.

It is expected that the MoPEP cities will save approximately $10 million annually by utilizing the Grain Belt Express and Infinity wind contract in their power supply after the IPM contact ends in 2021.

When asked in November whether the federal lawsuit will slow the project’s intended construction start following the delivery of a HVDC converter station in Pope County, Clean Line Founder and President Michael Skelly said the transmission project is moving “full steam ahead.”

“Utilities will have to contract for energy to deliver to their customers with specific dates in mind. A delay in this matter has the potential to delay the entirety of the project as financing institutions require a high degree of certainty – meaning a low risk of legal and regulatory obstacles – prior to committing the capital to make multi-billion dollar investments required to construct the project and the wind generation that the project will enable,” Heister continued. “Because of the interconnected nature of all of the various project participants, even small schedule delays can lead to cascading impacts.”

The so-called remedial action scheme Dominion prepared and presented this week to PJM Interconnection, the operator of the 13-state electrical grid Virginia is plugged into, would cut power to Hampton, two-thirds of Newport News, Poquoson and eastern York County if there are faults on two of the dozens of components in the Peninsula's high transmission network.

They say Dominion's been using scare tactics when it has said there could be as many as 80 days a year in which rolling blackouts are possible. Dominion says that's the number of days when demand is so heavy that faults in the system could force it to cut some customers off in order to avoid a widespread blackout.

"It appears that Dominion Virginia Power would rather continue their campaign to frighten consumers and threaten to close their Yorktown power plants," said James Zinn, a trustee with the Save the James Alliance, who argues that federal law allows the U.S. Department of Energy to order a power plant to operate in an emergency.

"If nothing else, this is consistent with their continued inflexibility to consider less intrusive alternatives for their construction of towers over the historic James River," he said.