Expedited approval of the Transaction is warranted here because the Transaction does not involve the merger of two public utilities that are rate-regulated by the Commission; rather, it involves a transaction at the holding company level of GBE, a public utility that is not rate-regulated by the Commission, that will improve the capability of GBE to complete the Project. Therefore, many of the traditional state and local concerns with regard to public utility mergers are not implicated by the Transaction.

For purposes of the authority to appropriate property through eminent domain, the term "public utility" shall not include any activity for the siting or placement of wind powered electrical generators or turbines, including the towers.

The proposed Transaction will benefit consumers by improving the ability of GBE to complete the Project. In granting GBE a certificate to operate as a public utility, the Commission found that completion of the Project would be in the public interest.

Clean Line Energy, which is in negotiations to sell the project to sustainable energy developer Invenergy, is seeking permits from state regulators in Kansas and Missouri to build the power line.

Invenergy bills itself as North America’s largest privately held renewable energy provider. The Chicago based company has 89 wind projects worldwide that generate 12,814 megawatts of power. The firm and its affiliates claim to have more than $9 billion in total assets.

The Commission’s concerns regarding undue preference and affiliate abuse arise when a merchant transmission owner is affiliated with customers. Applicant does not have any affiliates that currently plan to secure transmission service rights on the Project. Applicant is therefore a purely merchant transmission owner with respect to its proposal to allocate up to 100% of the Project’s capacity pursuant to bilateral negotiations.

Local leaders in the Oklahoma Panhandle are pinning their lingering hopes on the idea that some version can be salvaged. The mostly rural region has struggled to attract employers, and this would have been by far the largest investment in its history, with a projected 4,000 construction jobs and a dramatic increase in tax revenue for local governments.

Its demise is still sinking in for Michael Shannon, director of the region's economic development office. "I'm stunned," he said, adding, "There has to be a Plan B."

As global manager of renewable power for General Motors, Rob Threlkeld speaks often with both RTO and utility managers about transmission. When he depended primarily on power-purchase agreements with wind producers, “That would require a significant amount of transmission to be built.”
While he expects transmission to continue to be a challenge in meeting his company’s renewable energy goals, he is more focused now on green tariffs and sees a new resource on the horizon: the transmission capacity left in the wake of closing coal plants.
“As we shift the generation fleet,” he said, the question is, “How do you repurpose existing transmission?” Wind farms used to rely on all new transmission lines to bring the power to where it was needed, he said. But he sees that changing as coal plants close and reduce the load on parts of the transmission system.
“Don’t build new all the way; build new half the way,” he said. “Those are the types of discussions we have.”

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."