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.

In conclusion, the only argument I've noticed that needs addressing, is the Right of Way with landowners. Most of the Transmission route is satisfactorily settled to landowners' liking. There will always exist individuals that aim to capitalize on any efforts to improve a populations quality of living. I understand and readily concur that there are some situations
that need clarification and potential settlements, but this in no way impacts pre-approval of cost recovery. Laws exist by the legislature to ensure both landowners and corporate entity interests are protected regarding Right of Way. It seems arguments are rather one sided lately favoring the landowners. If our nation aimed at 100% satisfaction, we wouldn't even be able to elect governmental officials. With corporate expansion, the same holds true. A majority of Oklahomans approve this project and want our state to lead the nation.

"We knew that if we were going to focus, we would need a leaner, meaner team."

Though he declined to comment on the sale price of the assets Clean Line has sold or the company’s current, reduced headcount, Skelly did say he isn’t looking to move into a smaller office with the slimmed-down team.

Houston-based Clean Line Energy Partners LLC has trimmed its portfolio down to one $2.3 billion project in the midwest called Grain Belt Express.

That left Clean Line with Grain Belt Express, a transmission project moving wind power from Kansas to as far east as Illinois. That’s what Skelly wants to hone in on, he said.

Grain Belt is still in the permitting phase, and it had been hung up in a Missouri Supreme Court case around who determines whether the project is in the public interest. The court ruled that the central Public Service Commission gets to decide, a favorable outcome for Clean Line, according to a July 26 press release.

The PSC has broad discretion in how it handles the decision going forward, so the timeline for the project could still change depending on what it does, Skelly said. But right now Grain Belt is looking at five or six years before it’s operational, he said. Clean Line should hear the PSC’s decision within the next several weeks, Skelly said.

Since its single remaining asset is still in development, Clean Line is not producing revenue right now.

Clean Line’s founder and president, Michael Skelly, hasn’t yet decided what to do with Clean Line once it either sells or completes Grain Belt, he said. If it sells the project, it will have cash and a very small number of employees — a good position for the company, Skelly said. It’s still to be determined whether the company would make an exit from the market at that point or start working on a new project, he said.

Dear Abby, Dear Abby
Bet you never thought
Telling your lies, that you'd ever be caught;
There is no PUC deadline for eminent domain
The deadline is yours, and your lie is insane.

Many landowners are in the process of negotiating rights of way, and Transource had to meet the PUC deadline for any easement which might require eminent domain, according to Transource spokeswoman Abby Foster.

"Those names may come off as negotiations happen," she said.

Transource will not proceed with eminent domain proceedings until the project is approved, according to Foster.

Landowners should meet with Transource right-of-way agents so they can understand the process and can negotiate the location of the line, she said. 

"They can still say no at the end of the process," she said. "It's up to the landowners whether to sign the documents."

However, given the construction schedule and in-service date for the proposed lEC-East Project, it is necessary for Transource PA to seek Commission approval to exercise the power of eminent domain in order to ensure that the lEC-East Project is constructed and operational by the in-service date.

Miss Abby, Miss Abby, I have a complaint,
The truth is the truth and truth this just ain't
So, listen up, missy, and listen up good
Stop telling your lies and go back to your 'hood.

Except in response to a question from a landowner, Project Representatives will not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend supports or opposes the Project, even if it’s true.

All communications and interactions with property owners and occupants must respect the privacy of property owners and other persons.

The details of the negotiations with property owners and occupants are to remain confidential unless allowed by the landowner. Project Representatives will not discuss these details with other property owners or other persons unaffiliated with PSO or the Project.

Project Representatives will not ask relatives, neighbors and/or friends to influence the property owner.

While PSO has the legal right to use court proceedings to obtain land rights for the Project, the Project Representatives should not threaten to call law enforcement officers, obtain court orders, or threaten the use of eminent domain.

Project Representatives will respect all communications from property owners to them – whether in person, by telephone or in writing – in which the property owner indicates that he or she does not want to negotiate or does not want to give permission for surveying or other work on his or her property. Unless specifically authorized by PSO, Project Representatives will not contact the property owner again regarding negotiations or requests for permission to survey.

When asked to leave a property, Property Representatives will promptly leave and not return unless specifically authorized by PSO.

If threatened, Project Representatives will promptly and politely leave the property.

Project Representatives will not give the property owner any legal advice.

Barnes, one of the administrative law judges, said the commission has an interest to "reduce the impact" on landowners, and she’s “hard pressed” to approve the currently proposed project. 

Not only did she mention that some of the existing transmission lines in Franklin and York counties are “underutilized” and “defunct,” but Barnes also emphasized that the cost of the $320 million market efficiency project is concerning.

During a second prehearing conference before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Monday, July 9, a PPL Electric representative said the company's existing infrastructure could accommodate the goal of moving more power from the northern U.S. to the south.

In response to a question, PPL counsel Amy Hirakis told administrative law judges Elizabeth Barnes and Andrew Calvelli "it's feasible to use existing PPL right-of-way and facilities for the market efficiency project identified by the PJM Interconnection."

Joe Nixon, PPL strategic communications manager, also confirmed "our existing transmission lines in the York County area has the capacity to carry additional circuits." 
"PPL proposed an alternative market efficiency project to address the issue identified by PJM, but ours was not the selected solution," Nixon explained. "PJM awarded the project to Transource. We always look at the least impact to landowners in developing solutions."

Plaintiff is quick to claim that it does not need any court order to enter upon the lands because it has that inherent right pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code. (Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Preliminary Objections ... p. 7.) Yet, Plaintiff is here in Court seeking just that -- a court order permitting it and its agents entry onto lands of Defendants.

...claiming an immediate need to access Defendants' property for the purpose of obtain[ing] critical information, including various environmental studies, (including, wetland delineations, habitat assessments, and threatened or endangered species surveys), appraisals, geotechnical surveys (including soundings and drillings for testing soil and bedrock, cultural resources surveys, civil surveys (including trimming or cutting vegetation necessary for survey purposes) and all other surveys and tests necessary to properly assess the area, design and construct the proposed electric transmission line ...
(Plaintiff's Motion,~ 22).

From this description, the nature of the proposed intrusion onto Defendants' land appears to be quite extensive, quite possibly resulting in damage to the land. In fact, Defendants acknowledge the possibility of damage by noting in its Motion that it stands ready to pay damages should such occur.

disrupt Defendants' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their lands with "soundings and drillings ... [and] trimming or cutting vegetation ... " possibly resulting damages, on the off chance that the power line may, in fact, run over a portion of those lands, with one exception.

We fully realize that the final route may not be able to be approved absent the studies Plaintiff seeks to undertake. However something more than Plaintiff's mere assertions as to whose lands might be affected is required to satisfy us that Plaintiff is not on the proverbial "fishing expedition." We are mindful of Plaintiff's argument that preventing discovery at this stage of the proceedings makes it difficult for it to obtain final route approval. However, our concern is not with what Plaintiff must do to satisfy the PUC, our concern within the context of this litigation in general, and regarding Plaintiff's discovery request in particular, is to ensure that a party does not suffer from "unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, [or] burden" during the discovery process.

PSO will suffer irreparable harm, damage, and injury unless the acts and conduct of Defendants above complained of are enjoined because further work and construction of the
transmission line cannot continue unless the location and description of the right-of-way easement across the Property owned by the Defendants can be determined.

AEP also did not want to discuss specific eminent domain cases. However, AEP spokesperson Melissa McHenry specified that as of this past spring, the company had more than 3,200 easements on projects, including more than 903 miles of transmission line. Out of the 3,200 easements, only 41, or 1.28%, required eminent domain filings, she said. In some of those cases, eminent domain was necessary “because the land was without clear title, and, therefore, condemnation by publication was necessary,” she said.

According to McHenry, when AEP constructs or upgrades a transmission line that requires the use of a landowner’s property, easement negotiations begin with property owners after state regulators have approved the project. The negotiations are based on the fair market value of the property needed for the ROW, she said. Appraisals and market data studies are conducted to determine market values and a basis for acquisition negotiations. Negotiations will continue “as long as practical” to reach a voluntary agreement.

If it becomes clear that a voluntary agreement between AEP and the property owner cannot be reached and other viable alternatives do not exist, the company will then exercise the right to eminent domain to secure required easements.

...the new results are a clear sign that Americans support cleaner, renewable power and that it has carried over to the distribution of that power through their own backyard.

High-voltage transmission lines generate some of the most adamant NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition in the country. That such a large percentage of people are willing to allow green lines in their community says a lot about the awareness and importance of renewable energy and climate change issues in addition to the education efforts undertaken by the renewable energy industry.

Polling indicates the public’s feelings about a number of various topics on any given day. But it can also be misleading if viewed out of context — especially when it comes to land use issues.

How is it, for example, that most Americans support wind energy in general, but emotive opponents can block transmission lines delivery wind energy or wind farms in some local communities?

So, the jury’s in, right? Everyone loves renewable energy projects. But wait.

But the emotional opposition appears to fly in the face of surveys and polls showing national support for clean energy generation and transmission. What’s going on? Do these polls and surveys lack credibility? No. In fact, they are spot-on in terms of reflecting how Americans feel about renewable generation and distribution projects and how they may positively impact our communities given the perceived global threats of climate change, greenhouse gases and negative impact to wildlife over time. Today, based on a solid campaign by climate change advocates, the renewable energy industry, the current Obama administration and constant media pounding, the threat to our economy and the environment posed by carbon-emitting generation sources is very real and frankly easy to grasp. The arguments have been made and, let’s face it, many Americans are buying in.

But it’s easy to support a wind energy project without a real wind turbine or transmission line literally staring you in the face. That’s where rational thinking ends and passionate “defense of the community” (or defense of the children for that matter) campaigns begin.

...shop for a home in a community of interest and share the rumor of a new 765 kV transmission line going across the property down the road, in front of the view of the mountain range. What’s the survey say then? Chances are you may not find majority support, even from residents who responded in the poll you fielded yesterday.

Perhaps at best, polling identifies the size of the silent majority you have on your side when they are under no local threat of changing their daily lives. Winning hearts and minds in a poll won’t necessarily win you a permit at town hall.

Renewable energy is great in our public opinion, just not when it gets in the way of our personal point of view.

Grant authority to obtain rights-of­ way for electricity transmission lines with the goal of creating a reliable na­tional transmission grid. Similar au­thority already exists for natural gas pipelines and highways.

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.