“To that end, the bill would empower the federal government to override states’ decisions on the siting of high voltage electric transmission lines. 
Last week, the president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, wrote to this committee saying: ‘this new provision simply gives the state an ultimatum: ‘Approve the project or FERC will approve it for you.'

At a minimum, a change of this significance should be the subject of its own hearing before this committee." 

...the Secretary shall seek to enter into capacity contracts that will encourage other entities to enter into contracts for the transmission capacity of the eligible project.

“This bill also gives the federal government the authority to buy electric transmission capacity. 

There is no shortage of private sector investment in transmission capacity. 

There is no reason to make the federal government a transmission buyer or seller. 

A project to generate electricity using wind turbines in Kansas and distribute the power in the Midwest and east coast is moving forward.
Invenergy has purchased nearly half of the land it needs in northern Missouri for the construction project that will begin in earnest in 2023. All of those deals have been the product of voluntary negotiations with landowners willing to sell, according to the company, although Invenergy could have used eminent domain to acquire the land.

In certain circumstances, for example when landowners have stated their intention not to
engage in a voluntary negotiation process or have repeatedly refused attempts to be contacted by the Project, the only option available to Grain Belt Express is to pursue a legal proceeding for right-of-way acquisition. Missouri law requires landowners be notified in writing no less than 60 days in advance of the intended initiation of any right-of-way acquisition legal proceeding. Kansas has no prior notice requirement, however the Project intends to inform landowners prior to beginning any legal proceedings. To be clear, this letter is being mailed to all landowners for informational purposes and does not constitute such notice.

If we are not able to come to terms on an easement agreement within 60 days of this letter, Grain Belt intends to file a condemnation action regarding the referenced property.

As it relates to the proposed acquisition, under the Missouri law, you have the right to:

b. Make a counteroffer and engage in further negotiations;

The issue could come up again next year, but Luckey said the company isn’t concerned with that, as Invenergy is open to talking with lawmakers.
“It’s about coming to the table and letting them know we respect their point of view and the constituents they represent,” Luckey said. “We want to be a partner with them, and we are going to continue education and outreach with citizens and lawmakers.”

Luckey said linking the Grain Belt Express to the power grid could have helped avoid the massive power outage Texas experienced in February.
“The line would have made it possible to import substantial amounts of excess electricity to supply from other regions to address those outages,” Luckey said.

Invenergy also lists benefits to Missouri including  the possibility of using the infrastructure to improve broadband internet connectivity to underserved areas.

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If we are not able to come to terms on an
easement agreement within 60 days of this letter, Grain Belt intends to file a condemnation action regarding the referenced property.

Congress should consider legislation to provide greater federal siting authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for projects like these that are clearly in long-term national security, climate protection and consumer interests. A recent National Academy of Sciences report on achieving net zero U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 found that new siting and permitting for transmission must be pursued to “put in place, in a timely fashion, the kind of high-voltage interstate transmission system that is needed for deep decarbonization.”

Pritzker, who vowed in the wake of the ComEd scandal that utilities and energy companies would no longer write the state’s energy policy, declined to comment on the specifics of his offer, saying that negotiators were “still working on the bill.”

“Utilities did not write the bill that we have worked on. That is clear,” Pritzker said. “We have done everything that we can to stand up for clean energy principles, to make sure that we’re expanding renewables in the state. I have set out the principles, I have stuck to those principles, and so my hope is that we’ll end up with a good energy bill.”

The panelists agreed that regulatory entities will need to alter their policies to accelerate transmission projects and facilitate their interconnection to the grid.

In its Exception No. 8, Transource asserts that the ALJ’s recommendation to deny Project 9A is based on “faulty findings” without specifying any alleged factual or legal error.  In footnote to its Exception, Transource takes issue with certain specified findings by the ALJ and asserts, as a general matter, that all the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law should be disregarded to the extent the findings “are inconsistent with [Transource’s] Exceptions, Briefs and Testimony in this proceeding.”  Transource Exc. at 39, fn. 27 (emphasis added). 
 
We note that Transource’s Exception, as stated, fails to conform with Commission Regulations for stating exceptions, and lacks sufficient specificity to enable our review.  See 52 Pa. Code § 5.533 (pertaining to exceptions, requiring that the exceptions be stated with supporting reasons for each exception).  A general assertion that all the ALJ’s factual findings and legal conclusions should be disregarded to the extent they are “inconsistent” with a party’s filings does not state a supporting reason to disregard any of the findings and conclusions.  

... “need” from a PJM planning perspective may or may not be, as Transource asserts, “consistent with the standard for need under Pennsylvania law.”  It is for this Commission, not PJM, to decide whether the PJM planning perspective is, or is not, in line with the Pennsylvania standard for “need” under the Code, Commission Regulations and relevant caselaw.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Among other indications that Grain Belt now intends to materially change the original project are these additional, unequivocal statements from their press release:
● “Invenergy Transmission, the owner and developer of the Grain Belt Express transmission line project (‘Grain Belt’) today announced plans to increase local clean energy access and accelerate billions of dollars in economic investment in Kansas and Missouri.” The statement does not say Respondents “might” or “are considering” those plans. It says they are hereby announcing them.

● “Economic recovery and long-term economic competitiveness in Kansas and Missouri depend on new investment, more jobs, and tapping into low-cost, homegrown clean energy, which Grain Belt is moving full speed ahead to deliver, said Kris Zadlo, SVP [with Invenergy] .... Grain Belt is proud to increase our investment in Kansas and Missouri to rebuild the economy, deliver billions of dollars in energy cost savings, and meet growing renewable energy demand.” (emphasis added). No ambiguities there.

● “As the new owner of Grain Belt, Invenergy Transmission plans to increase the project’s delivery capacity to Kansas and Missouri to up to 2,500 megawatts of the line’s 4,000 megawatt capacity .... Previously, 500 megawatts of the transmission line’s capacity was slated for delivery to Missouri.” (emphasis added). Again, Respondents’ plan to increase delivery of power to these two states was expressed in unequivocal terms.

● ”Grain Belt will provide critical power infrastructure to the region benefiting residents for decades to come.”

● Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas is quoted in the press release as stating that “[t]his impressive project is the latest example of Kansas’ place as a wind energy leader in our region and beyond.”

● According to the Kansas Secretary of Commerce, “the unwavering commitment from Governor Kelly to further support renewable sources is paying off in many ways, including this tremendous step forward in the Grain Belt Express.” He is further quoted as saying that the revised project “will deliver a significant economic boost to our rural communities in particular. The news couldn’t come at a better time.”

Clearly, these statements from the two Kansas officials would have been authorized for inclusion in the press release only if those individuals had been convinced that Respondents actually plan to move forward with the changes announced in the press release. Had Respondents told them that the revised plans were merely under consideration, the reaction from the Kansas officials would no doubt have been different from what they are quoted as saying in the press release.

● A representative of Renew Missouri is quoted in the press release as saying that “the benefits of Grain Belt have only grown with billions of dollars of added savings ....” Again, this statement is nonsensical unless the speaker had been led to believe that Respondents are committed to moving forward with the changes announced in the press release.

● Perhaps the clearest commitment by Respondents to materially change the original project is the following statement from the press release: “With increased delivery to Missouri ... Grain Belt will double its overall economic investment in Missouri to $1 billion .... Grain Belt will now make available as much as half or more of the project’s total capacity for Missourians.”

The importance of this statement lies in how this additional $500 million is to be spent on the project. As Mr. Zadlo acknowledged, the additional $500 million announced in the press release represents the added cost of increasing the capacity of the Missouri converter station by five-fold: from the original 500 MW to 2,500 MW.35 One could hardly argue that this change is not material.
And Respondents did not state that they were merely “considering” or “contemplating” the additional $500 million investment, which was earmarked for quintupling the size of the Missouri converter station. Instead, the press release states unequivocally that the new plans for the project “would” double the investment in Missouri to $1 billion.
In addition to the press release, in a letter sent from Respondents to landowners just this past December, Respondents included the following statements, again made unequivocally and with no hint that the plans announced therein were anything short of a firm commitment:

● “As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project’s delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.”
● “Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt’s 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers .... This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri.” Again, Respondents do not equivocate. The new plan “requires” the expansion of the Missouri converter station. As it turns out, it requires a five-fold increase in the size of that converter station. ● “Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan.” Again, this is a firm commitment to proceed with the project as modified by the announced changes. If Respondents had not already committed to making these changes, there would be no need to state that they “will be seeking regulatory approval” for the changes. This statement also recognizes that the changes being made are “material” enough to require Commission approval under the terms of the CCN decision.

● The letter also states that Respondents will be seeking approval to begin construction of the line prior to obtaining approval for the Illinois segment of the project. This statement confirms the description of the new project in the press release as constituting a “phased construction plan.”

And as counsel for Respondents conceded, “if phasing was to occur so that the Missouri and Kansas portion of the line was built before the Illinois and Indiana portion of the line, then we would likely consider that a material change and be before the Commission.” So the newly announced phasing plan definitely constitutes a material change to the project.

● A series of emails shown at Exhibit 6 indicate that a woman named Kimberly, acting on behalf of Grain Belt, was soliciting comments from the Governor of Kansas to be used in the August 25 press release. In an email of August 6, she informed a number of Kansas officials that “The project is moving into its next phase and the company plans to announce this development.” (emphasis added). She did not tell the Kansas officials that the project might be moving into a new phase. Instead, she unequivocally assured them that the project “is” moving into the next phase.
● Finally, in his response to Data Request No. 8, Mr. Zadlo simply answered “yes” to the following question:
Do Respondents presently plan to eventually seek regulatory approval from the Missouri Commission for the changes described in the press release attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint in this case, assuming no other significant changes are proposed to the project as originally approved?

This answer says, plainly and simply, that Respondents do in fact “presently” plan to seek Commission approval for the changes they announced in the press release. Mr. Zadlo did not say they might do so, or that they were considering that as an option. He said they will be seeking approval for those changes, which necessarily means they have already decided to make the revisions announced in the press release. It follows that Respondents have abandoned the project as approved in the CCN case.
The press release also mentions that Grain Belt will seek regulatory approvals “to the extent necessary” for the revised project. That of course is a given. Respondents have no choice but to seek regulatory approval for what amounts to a new transmission project. But that fact has no bearing on the question of whether they have already decided, as they have said, to move “full speed ahead” with the revised project. And again, the statement reinforces the fact that Respondents themselves consider the proposed changes to be “material” enough to require Commission approval.

In attempting to explain away their answer to Data Request No. 8, Respondents claim that the revisions announced in the press release are merely “contemplated changes.” But that explanation misses the point. As of today the specifics of the new plan may well be in the “contemplated” stage, with final details still to be determined.

However, that does not mean Respondents have not already committed to building the project in accordance with the announcements in the press release, as opposed to the project approved in the CCN case. In fact, they have as much as promised officials in Kansas that those changes will be forthcoming.
Perhaps at some point Respondents realized the potential consequences of their announced changes to the project. But taking them at their word up to that point, they have clearly stated they are already committed to making material changes to the project originally approved by the Commission. For Respondents to now dismiss the press release as nothing more than “a marketing exercise” simply demonstrates a complete lack of transparency and credibility.

The same holds true for their after-the-fact attempt to dismiss the press release as merely announcing the supposed benefits of the line and “an openness by Grain Belt to increase the converter station and dropoff in Missouri.” That document goes well beyond that characterization. In fact, the additional consumer benefits would materialize only if the chances announced in the press release were implemented.

The more credible statements from Respondents concerning this project are those made before the Complaint was filed here. Assuming Respondents were not deliberately misleading Missouri landowners, public officials, and the general public up to that point, those statements can only mean that they have already decided to materially alter the project approved by the Commission.
Based on the foregoing, the design and engineering of the project presently being pursued by Respondents is materially different from that approved in the CCN case.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Soon enough, eminent domain policies will have to evolve to align with renewable energy policies in order for a complete overhaul of the grid system to be attainable. State and federal lawmakers will eventually have to address the issue by having to revise the definition of “public use” to account for transmission lines transporting renewable electricity.

Joe Kalin in News-Press Now

Joe Kalin has fond memories of growing up in the Buchanan County countryside.
His father came from Switzerland and turned 87 acres near Faucett, Missouri, into a successful dairy farm, where Kalin lived and worked with four brothers and a sister. Before passing it to the next generation, Kalin’s father instilled a deep appreciation for the land and its productive capacity.
“My parents both come from the old country,” said Kalin, now 84. “My father, he loved to farm. It was given to us boys as an inheritance. We were always told to take care of it, that it would care of us.”

It’s a 780-mile, high-voltage transmission line that threatens to cut through the land that brought John Kalin to America in the 1920s. The project, known as the Grain Belt Express, seeks to transfer wind power from western Kansas to population centers east of the Mississippi River.

For his part, Kalin said he isn’t against green energy but opposes being forced to pay the price while others reap the benefits. He doesn’t want to look out the window and see 150-foot power poles where his father once saw a landscape reminiscent of an alpine meadow.
“I don’t like the government telling people what they can do and can’t do with their land,” he said.