The Columbia City Council approved an agreement with Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission to purchase wind energy from Kansas-based Iron Star Wind, LLC during its Monday meeting, but the means of receiving the energy — a transmission line that still needs to be constructed — needs the OK from the Public Service Commission.

The Grain Belt Express project is a 780-mile transmission line that will start in southwestern Kansas and cut through Missouri and Illinois, providing energy to those states and Indiana. The direct-current line will go to Hannibal, where a substation will convert the direct current to alternating current, the type of current used by Columbia’s electric system, said John Conway, chairman of the Water and Light board.

The Secretary, acting through WAPA or SWPA, or both, may design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining, or owning, a new electric power transmission facility and related facilities (“Project”) located within any State in which WAPA or SWPA operates...

Today is a day to celebrate!! It is a historic day for property rights!

Governor Branstad signed a bill into law forbidding merchant high voltage transmission lines such as RICL from having condemnation power to take private property by eminent domain.  Click here to read Senate File 516:  an Act relating to state and local finances by making appropriations providing for legal and regulatory responsibilities, concerning taxation, and providing for other properly related matters, and including effective date and retroactive applicability provisions.  This bill passed the Iowa House on April 21, 55-39 and the Iowa Senate on April 21, 27-13.  Read the lanquage related to merchant transmission lines beginning on page 18 of the bill.
​
This means that even if RICL decides to try and come back into Iowa they CANNOT take your property by use of eminent domain.  This is a huge win.

A very dedicated and amazing board of directors donated their time, energy and talents to continue this mission for nearly 4 years.
​
Many people across Iowa and outside the state spent endless volunteer hours and contributed money to assist PRIA legislators in making this possible.
​
We need to also remember the leaders in private property rights in other states who provided leadership and guidance as they continue their fight!

Hans Detweiler, vice president of Clean Line Energy Partners, Rock Island's Houston-based owner, said he's "encouraged" that Illinois' high court will review the case and hopes it "will recognize that privately funded infrastructure projects" like Rock Island "serve a public purpose."

Congress should create legislative authority for siting major electricity transmission lines that follows the authority it has already granted to siting major gas lines.

"What Rock Island is asking the Commission to do is grant it a CPCN so it looks like a 'public utility' for purposes of condemning private property to build its line, while at the same time it plans to offer only a token percentage of that line's capacity for 'public use'. The transmission service that Rock Island plans to provide on its transmission line does not meet the public use standard under Section 3-105 of the PUA." (R.V27, C6629).
These are the words of the ICC Staff at the close of a five day evidentiary hearing at the
Commission on Rock Island's Verified Petition. Rock Island is not a public utility, and it does not commit to serve the public. Despite the express language of the PUA, Rock Island, as a non-utility startup company, sought a CPCN from the Commission for which it is not statutorily eligible. Rock Island's public policy arguments regarding an apparent desire for an expansion to the statutory definition of''public utility" should have been, and still can be, made to the legislature.

Grain Belt Express is a merchant transmission company. It is proposing to build a participant funded transmission line. As such, neither the applicant nor the proposed project embody the business characteristics the Legislature authorized this Commission to regulate.

The Court recognized that when a private business enters into special contracts upon its own terms and not at a regular rate, there is not only no need for the Commission to regulate, to do so would be a violation of the constitution. The purpose of regulation is to bring the power of government to bear on a common carrier service. Private initiatives not devoted to the public use of all do not justify the comprehensive regulations dictated by the Public Service Commission Law. Stated another way, when facilities are not devoted to a public use, there is no need for the Commission. That is the situation before the Commission in this Grain Belt Express case.

The issues presented by this case are twofold: (1) whether Clean Line fits the statutory definition of an Arkansas “public utility” and is entitled to a CCN to provide public utility service in the state; and (2) if so, whether Clean Line is entitled to exemption from certain public utility statutes. For the reasons stated more fully below, the Commission finds that Clean Line does not meet the statutory definition of a public utility at this time.  The Commission’s ruling on the first issue moots the necessityof ruling on the second.
The Commission is a creature of the General Assembly, and it performs a legislative function in regulating all public utilities. Bryant u, Arkansas Pub. Sew. Comm‘n, 46 Ark. App. 88,877 S.W.2d 594 (1994); Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 267 Ark. 550, 593 S.W.2d 434 (1980).  The Commission’s statutory mandate extends to and includes “all matters pertaining to the regulation and operation of all ... electric lighting companies and other companies furnishing gas or electricity for light, heat, or power purposes.” Ark. Code Ann. 23-2-302.

The Commission’s decision in this case turns on the statutory definition of a “public utility” found in Ark. Code Ann,  23-1-101(9)(a) cited above. Although Clean Line’s presentation of its case was strong on policy considerations and certainly Clean Line worked hard to analogize its case to that of the SPP RTO, the Commission’s authority cannot exceed that which is delegated to it by the Arkansas General Assembly. The “public utility” definition requires “owning or operating in this state equipment or facilities for...transmitting...power to or for the public for compensation.” Ark. Code Ann. 23-1-101(9)(A).

The Parties’ legal filings and opening arguments at the December 7 hearing discussed to varying degrees what each of these key phrases means, but the Commission is not convinced the totality of the evidence satisfies this statutory threshold. Recognizing, as Clean Line pointed out, there is some circularity involved in the fact that Clean Line cannot own or operate regulated major utility facilities pursuant to Arkansas law in this state without first being declared a public utiliity, in isolation, this portion of the statute is not determinative of Clean Line’s utility status. However, read in tandem with the facts that the transmission of the power must also be “to or for the public for compensation’’ when Clean Line, to date, has no contracts for public utility service with any utility, including Arkansas utilities, and there also can be no transmission of power at this time, the Commission is not prepared to approve Clean Line’s CCN Application.

Rock Island’s plan offers the public the nondiscriminatory right to bid for transmission capacity. But it does not offer the public the nondiscriminatory right to use transmission capacity. Under well-settled authority dating back a century, Rock Island’s plan does not meet the “public use” requirement.

As a threshold matter, it is important to clarify what this means. As Rock Island’s witness makes clear in his testimony, the open season auction will be open to the public on non-discriminatory terms. In other words, any member of the public can bid. But there is a difference between being able to bid for a service through an auction and being able to actually use a service at a tariffed price. When Christie’s auctions a painting, any member of the public can bid on non-discriminatory terms; but only the winner takes the painting home.

The ICC points out that the open season will be “fair, transparent and non-discriminatory.” ICC Br. 25-26. ComEd agrees. But this simply means that the auction process will be fair, and that all bidders would have the same opportunity to bid. It does not mean that all members of the public can use the service on equal terms. Those who cannot pay the auction price are left with only the chance of receiving non-firm service and are expressly subordinated to anchor tenants and auction winners. Non-auction winners who do not, or who cannot use non-firm service, are left completely empty- handed.

Grain Belt Express is proposing a duplicate service to the existing, well-established transmission grid. It is seeking to provide discriminatory service to one particular customer to obtain this Commission’s approval. It is proposing as a merchant a service that is participant-funded. It wants to maintain that merchant status, free from the obligations imposed on an “electrical corporation” by the Missouri Public Service Commission Law. This unregulated utility will create many problems that the Missouri Public Service Commission Law was designed to thwart, such as destructive competition, damage to property from duplicative facilities, and the exercise of market power in a traditional monopoly service. Grain Belt is seeking the power of the state of Missouri granted by this CCN without any of the obligations imposed by the law. Show Me is concerned with one enterprise whose property is not devoted to the public service using the land (I think he meant to say "laws") of the state, particularly the eminent domain power of the state, for their own business interests. It is not just and it is not in the public interest of the state of Missouri.

When Donald Trump and Mike Pence met this month to discuss a promised $1 trillion infrastructure plan, the Cabinet Room was filled with half a dozen billionaire executives, from Tesla’s Elon Musk to Steve Roth, a New York developer and longtime friend to the president.

One person who wasn’t there? The man who worked for months to line up priority infrastructure projects for the Trump transition team.

Just a few weeks earlier, Dan Slane had been jetting around the country — on his own dime — to meet with governors, contractors, investors, labor union officials and others eager to influence Trump’s infrastructure plan. He developed a 50-project proposal filled with exactly the kind of “shovel-ready” investments the White House wanted – the kind that needed regulatory relief, not federal dollars.

But as Trump’s attention turns to infrastructure after suffering defeat on his first policy priority, the White House will not even acknowledge Slane, except to say he has “no official or unofficial role” in the administration. He says his infrastructure plan, and indeed his very connection to the president, has become the victim of a power struggle for control of this big-ticket infrastructure agenda between Peter Navarro, a Trump loyalist and economic populist who advised his campaign, and Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president who now runs the National Economic Council.

Anderson’s company had compiled a list of 100 top infrastructure projects with input from senior-level investors, engineers and developers. The list would have been offered to whichever presidential candidate had won in November, Anderson said.

A week after Trump’s unexpected win, Anderson found a white paper online that Navarro and now-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had written for the Trump campaign. It proposed tax credits to fund infrastructure. He emailed Navarro, and offered some suggestions.

“Navarro asked Dan to talk to me the next day,” Anderson said.

Slane, who was working without a staff, asked Anderson to help him screen a list of projects Navarro wanted for the administration. Anderson in turn hired Boston Consulting Group to analyze how many direct and indirect jobs each project would create.

Playing the liaison

Leaders at the state and local level, and executives at the National Governors Association, thought they had been working with the White House, through Slane.

Paul Aucoin, executive director of the Southern Louisiana Port, said he assumed Slane was a shoo-in for a White House infrastructure job when he met him at Anderson’s offices in Washington in December.

Aucoin made the trip to DC to promote his port and try to secure federal assistance to dredge the mouth of the Mississippi River.

The meeting with Slane had been arranged for Aucoin by the public relations firm of Gary Meltz, a former aide to Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel of New York.

Slane introduced himself as a member of the Trump transition, and Aucoin made his pitch.

Slane promised to get the dredging project on the list he and Anderson were compiling for the transition.

“They were very receptive, they got it, they understood what I was saying, they asked all the right questions,” Aucoin said. “It wasn’t like I was talking to a wall. I was finally talking to some one who understood what I was trying to say.”

Later Slane would visit the port and meet with Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards. He reassured Edwards and Aucoin that congressional Republicans would pledge money to the project from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. That promise that has yet to be fulfilled.

Aucoin said he’s since hired a lobbying firm in Washington that was working on getting him a meeting with Gribbin.

“It was a blow for us to lose Dan,” Aucoin said.

"When the Trump campaign was looking at infrastructure, we thought it was a good thing to mention. We're just happy to be part of the conversation."

Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, said his organization consulted with Slane on his plan. His union delivered to the White House its own list of priority infrastructure projects in February, after meeting with Trump.

“The way Dan framed it was really good because Dan took projects that had all funding but lacked permitting or some who had permitting,” McGarvey said.

“He did a lot of thoughtful work on the initial ready-to-go, out-of-the gate stuff,” he said. “The projects that Dan was talking about really don’t require a new infrastructure bill. Those are ones that exist, that are both private and public, and have the three elements you need: the financing, the engineering, and permitting. And some of them will happen this year.”

Slick Willie is a term that, upon hearing it, is understood to mean something uncomplimentary towards the person to whom it refers.  Those who are called Slick Willies are cunning and deceptive people who are superficially appealing and polished, but who are shallow and glib, and able to deftly execute convincing arguments that favors the con man and defrauds the mark.

To my ear, that backstory "so" is merely a little geeky, but it rouses some critics to keening indignation. A BBC host says speakers use it to sound important and intellectual. A columnist at Fast Company warns that it undermines your credibility. A psychologist writes that it's a weasel word that people use to avoid giving a straight answer.