By December 2, 2024, GBE shall have either (i) obtained executed easement agreements, demonstrably commenced negotiations to obtain easements, or instituted proceedings in state district court to obtain easements, or any combination thereof, for at least **-** of the total number of easements required to construct the Kansas portion of the Project; or (ii) satisfied the Financing Requirement as defined in Paragraph 9.a. hereof. If unable to meet the requirements of the preceding sentence, GBE shall either, at GBE’s election: (a) commit to ** REDACTED **;1 or (b) file for an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178.

"You have to run a power line somewhere," he told Newstalk KZRG a few weeks ago.  "It's kind of like our reservoir down down here, you have to build it somewhere."

“If you [are] transmitting power from point A to point B, you’ve got to go from point A to B,” he continued. “Ideally, you find a place where you can make an equitable agreement with everybody along the way so you don’t have the eminent domain process but if that’s not the case, you have eminent domain proceedings.”

Q.  Can you very briefly describe what Invenergy's wind catcher site is and what its status is at this point?
A. So wind catcher was a 2,000 megawatt wind project that was being sold to American Electric Power.
Q. Has Invenergy discussed the possibility of developing this site for wind farms?
A. We're-- we're constantly in the process of selling that project.
Q. And this project, in particular?
A. So again, the Wind Catcher project is in the Panhandle of Oklahoma and it was contracted by American Electric Power who failed to receive commission approval to purchase the project.
Q. And my question is, have you looked into
developing that project?
A. Well, we are developing that project.
Q. Okay .
A. I don't understand.
Q. What's the status of it at this point?
A. It's still in development, active development.
Q. Development meaning what?
A. Meaning that we have active land easements for the installation of generators, wind turbines specifically, and we're looking for off- takers for the facility.
Q. And is that site about one hundred miles
from the proposed Grain Belt converter station in Kansas, approximately?
A. Approximately.
Q. Have you discussed internally the
possibility of connecting wind generation at the Wind Catcher site with the Kansas converter station of the Grain Belt line?
A. Not really.
Q. Not really, meaning no?
A. So I mean there is a possibility that an
affiliate may want to purchase capacity on Grain Belt.
Q. An affiliate of whom?
A. An affiliate of Invenergy.

“I would contend that an interstate transmission line is an issue regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,” added Petty. “And this issue may ultimately be appealed and decided in that arena.”

“State Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, has filed legislation which says no private entity has the power of eminent domain for the purposes of building above-ground merchant lines,” explained Petty. “ But he’s clearly not the only legislator feeling the pressure from about 15, or fewer, out of 500 landowners that share this ‘not-in-my-backyard attitude’ about transmission projects for any type of transmission project.”

Nevertheless, Petty is concerned that Hansen’s bill could pass the Missouri House and go to the Missouri Senate as early as next week. If it becomes law, it will be back to the courts for the much-delayed project.

So, what makes Grain Belt line different?
“The difference is it carries clean wind energy, so it threatens the fossil fuel industry, as well as the monopoly utilities that depend on coal,” Hickey said. “So, the issue of ‘eminent domain’ is only an issue for these legislators when it involves wind energy. If it is coal energy, or a tar sands pipeline, eminent domain is all okay.”

According to Hickey, Rep. Hansen is being joined in his fight against the transmission line by House Speaker Elijah Haahr, R-Springfield. He said the legislators are clearly carrying water for the fossil fuel industry.

"I am a firm believer in protecting individual freedom and rights of private property owners, especially our farmers and ranchers," Parson said in a written statement to The Associated Press. "We will continue to stay engaged with the legislature to ensure that we are equipped to protect all Missourians from potential threats of government overreach for private gain."

The vote was bipartisan, and approving the measure was the right thing to do. The Missouri Senate should pass the bill, and the governor should sign it.

...we agree with Missouri Republican leadership that allowing a company to condemn property for this purpose is wrong. Clean Line Energy should negotiate fair agreements with property owners for any towers it needs, and pay for the land accordingly.

It should not use the threat of condemnation to browbeat property owners into accepting low-cost deals.

Their efforts should be applauded. Eminent domain must always be the last resort for projects of major public benefit, not the first step in making rich companies richer.

Condition No. 4: Invenergy shall make preliminary easement payments of [redacted percentage, most likely 30%] of the total eventual compensation to all Kansas landowners affected by the line siting within 12 months of a Commission decision to extend the 13-803 sunset provision or gaining approval for a new line siting.

Placing a firm deadline by which preliminary easement payments must be made to all Kansas landowners unnecessarily and improperly restricts the ability of GBE, and by  extension Invenergy, to conduct Project development according to its proven best   practices which have resulted in the successful delivery of over 20,220 MW of generation   projects and 392 miles of transmission lines.

Importantly, this deadline, in a vacuum, does not account for the many other Project development activities that must be carefully sequenced prior to and in parallel with easement acquisition in order to ensure efficient scheduling and deployment of capital to minimize Project costs and facilitate timely delivery, including but not limited to:

Completing the regulatory processes in the various states;

Closing on the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement;

Completing environmental permitting requirements, including extensive consultation with state and federal agencies;

Advancing Project engineering, including detailed design of the route to conform with environmental permitting requirements and landowner considerations;

Conducting an open solicitation for Project capacity;

Negotiating transmission service agreements with customers; and

Obtaining financing for construction of the Project.

There are endless variables that could impact the timing of this process, such that placing a firm deadline on payments to all Kansas landowners restricts the ability of GBE and Invenergy to efficiently manage Project development, and thus severely inhibits the Project’s likelihood of success.

GBE and Invenergy fully understand and respect the uncertainty surrounding landowner impact from the Project, which has been an unfortunate consequence of regulatory uncertainty in other states that has hindered Project progress. It is important to clarify that, despite Invenergy’s concerns with Proposed Condition No. 4, it is in no way discounting the importance of landowner participation in the GBE Project and reaffirms its commitment to working with host communities to foster mutually beneficial relationships; this commitment is reflected in Invenergy’s track record of successfully negotiating over 16,000 lease agreements with landowners, entirely on a voluntary basis, across its project portfolio. GBE and Invenergy are planning, upon approval of the Transaction, to reengage affected landowners to provide Project updates and to be a resource for interested parties. This effort to become a known commodity in host communities and to develop and foster local relationships is an important first step in the land acquisition process that must not be overlooked simply for the sake of quickly obtaining easements.

The best way to obtain certainty regarding the Project is to utilize available capital in an efficient and logical manner. Each of the development activities listed above will add incremental certainty to the Project. Inefficient use of capital will decrease certainty by putting unnecessary financial and logistical strain on the Project. Accordingly, while the intended result of Proposed Condition No. 4 is to increase certainty, it will actually have the opposite effect.

There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources. We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”

The dominant argument in favor of blocking eminent domain is that the right to private property shouldn’t be infringed upon by a private company.

“This is just another attempt by private companies under a government commission to limit our personal liberties,” bill sponsor Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, said as he introduced his bill.

There were also concerns about how the power line could negatively affect property value and how it could damage farming land. The lawmakers also questioned why an out-of-state company should have this power.

“We’ve been told that these people will be well-compensated and it’s going to do so much for the economy and so these poor counties — I come from a poor part of the state — and those things matter, but there ends up being more important overarching values,” Rep. Jeff Shawan, R-Poplar Bluff, said.

“For an awful long time, we’ve subsidized oil, and we don’t seem to have a problem with that,” Rep. Deb Lavender, D-Kirkwood, said. “So why do we suddenly have a problem with subsidizing wind?”

James Owen, executive director of Renew Missouri, dismissed the eminent domain legislation as a tactic that will only “add to the litigation that’s been attempting to halt this job-creating project for five years.”

“Ultimately, it won’t stop it for many reasons, but leaders think this frivolous legislation will score points with some noisy constituents,” Owen told The Missouri Times. “So it’s another hurdle to creating jobs and bringing low-cost energy to Missouri. Disappointing, but misguided.”

“We have tremendous outpouring of leadership in the House and the Senate,” Gary Marshall, CEO of the Missouri Corn Growers Association, said. “We just felt it was important to be here to show them how much this legislation means to us.”

“My fear of that is the precedent it would set within the state of Missouri for any future developments,” Klusmeyer said.
Any utility system in the state, whether it’s water, sewer, electric or telecommunications, has the power of eminent domain, Klusmeyer said. The bill could be construed to limit the use of eminent domain for “pretty much any utility in the state,” he said, even though it’s limited to “above-ground merchant lines.”
“That can trickle down into just about any type of utility expansion that’s done, whether it’s through Missouri American, or maybe even Ameren or Associated (Electric Cooperative),” he said. “That’s my fear of what it’s going to do to any type of infrastructure improvement or expansion in the state.”

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.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, would prohibit taking easements by eminent domain to make way for the Grain Belt Express, a planned $2.3 billion transmission line, which Chicago-based Invenergy bought last year. The line would carry electricity from the Iron Star wind farm in southwestern Kansas, across Missouri and Indiana, and into Illinois. The line would cross eight north Missouri counties, including Monroe and Ralls, which are represented by Hansen.

Targeted at the Grain Belt Express, the bill would also apply to similar projects. It bans all private entities from using eminent domain to acquire easements to build “above-ground merchant lines” if less than 12 percent of the power will be consumed by Missouri customers.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to regulate transmission, not the state legislature, said Mark Petty director of Kirkwood Electric. Every transmission project can be difficult for landowners to grapple with, which is why they are considered by a commission rather than elected officials who haven’t been reviewing all the facts, he said.

“It’s easy for an entity that objects to want to do an end run, even after all the other facts have been presented and laws been interpreted and reviewed,” he said.

Since the electricity is still coming to customers through public utilities, customers will have the same low rates and price stability, Petty said. The wind electricity from the Grain Belt Express is also cheaper than the alternatives, and Kirkwood could save up to a third of what it currently pays for electricity, Petty said.

Cities served by the public energy pool will also see savings, but not as large as Kirkwood. Each city would save about 3-4 percent, said John Grotzinger, vice president of engineering operations and power supply at the Missouri Public Utility Alliance. Those savings would be passed on to ratepayers, he said.

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.”