This will be GE’s first HVDC project in the United States since acquiring Alstom’s energy portfolio last year. This addition to our portfolio was critical.

The Grain Belt Express Clean Line wind energy project has made significant steps towards getting the final green light from the Public Service Commission.

“It wouldn’t make a lot of sense to build a line around Missouri,” Lawlor said, adding that he is confident the PSC will rule fairly on the merits of the project, not the factor. “They’re going to judge the case on its merits and whether it meets the standards that Missouri has under its statutes. They will ask, ‘Is there a need for the project and is it it in the public interest?’ We have put forth a strong argument that there’s a need.“

While Indiana and Illinois signed onto the project before Missouri, Missouri was always seen as the most integral partner of the project. Lawlor says that belief can cause some to believe Missouri would not get much benefit out of the project, even though Missouri would get roughly 500 MW from wind energy as a result.

“Some folks get distracted this is something going through Missouri, the reality is that this is delivering power to Missouri,” he said. “From day one, it was just going to be a Kansas to Missouri line, but we found the Missouri grid couldn’t take that much power.

“Missouri’s key to this whole thing and we hope and expect we can bring those benefits to the state,” Lawlor said.

A reporter attempted to interview Faughn about his companies’ money troubles. The Missouri Times is headquartered at 129 East High St. in Jefferson City. A reporter found Faughn there at the top of a two-story walkup, inside a darkened room resembling a lounge.

Faughn was standing behind a bar in the room with a laptop computer in front of him. Liquor bottles stood on shelves on the wall behind him. Black and white photos of politicians covered the other walls of the room.

Faughn declined a face-to-face interview. He said he would consider written questions sent by email. Questions were emailed March 17. Faughn acknowledged receiving them March 21, but said he could not respond until next week.

Faughn, the former mayor of Poplar Bluff, launched the Missouri Times in 2013 with former Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton. Faughn was Jetton’s former campaign manager. Jetton has since severed ties with the operation.

The PATH project is an example of a project that faced significant public opposition.

As part of its analysis of the public interest, the PSC acknowledged the substantial opposition to the project expressed by business owners, farmers, and individual landowners across whose properties the project was proposed to cross. The Missouri PSC noted, “In this case, the evidence shows that any actual benefits to the general public from the Project are outweighed by the burdens on affected landowners.”

The National Park Service, for example, required significant and expensive mitigation measures from the developers for the Susquehanna-Roseland project in order to gain its approval for completion of the portion of the line that crossed the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, which it is mandated to protect.

The development of a transmission project is a commercial venture involving investors who are prepared to incur significant, yet ultimately limited, up-front development costs in return for the opportunity to earn future profits from the sale of transmission services and/or a regulated return on invested capital. Adopting a developer’s perspective enables us to look at the factors reviewed in this report as ones that affect either the cost or time required to construct a transmission project. The extent to which these factors represent barriers to the implementation of transmission projects is thus an assessment of whether these costs or time requirements are avoidable or necessary.

There are documented examples of project developers who have sought to reduce these costs and associated time requirements through up-front information sharing and joint (and early) development of mitigation approaches (including abandonment of early proposed and development of new routing options). The success of these activities has hinged largely on the extent to which they lead to meaningful engagement and tangible commitments to address public concerns over line routing.

The state-centric public-interest issue that arises most vividly for multi-state transmission projects involves the so-called “fly-over” states. These states are situated between the states that are the starting and ending points for a long-distance transmission project. The initial decisions by the Missouri PSC to deny the CPCN application for Grain Belt Express exemplify this issue. The public-interest issue raised by states in the middle is that, at bottom, they are being asked to bear significant portions of the cost or adverse impacts of a project, yet they do not believe they are being provided with sufficient opportunities to share in the benefits of the project.

The need to satisfy a middle state’s public-interest requirements is a classic example of what economists describe as the role and importance of “side payments.” In this instance, the gains from trade must be sufficient to cover side payments to affected parties who have standing but who would not otherwise benefit from the transaction. Thus, the situation faced by developers, such as those for the Grain Belt Express project, is tangibly and fundamentally (but not solely) commercial in nature. Notably, as discussed, the developers for Grain Belt Express recently reached an agreement to sell power from the project to an association of municipal utilities in Missouri and, based on this agreement, plan to re-file their request for state regulatory approval. It remains to be seen whether the fact of a Missouri entity signing an agreement that could be seen as demonstrating the public-interest value of the project in Missouri will result in the Missouri PSC approving the project on its third attempt in the state.

Developing a transmission project involves simultaneously managing two categories of commercial risk. One is the risk associated with securing the capital necessary to build the project. Eto (2016) focused on one example of capital risk: that associated with seeking regional cost allocation. The other category encompasses risks associated with the actual construction of a project. This report is focused on a key subset of these project-construction risks: the cost of satisfying the due process requirements of state and federal agencies involved in permitting and siting lines, which is often increased when there is organized public opposition to the project. These are necessary costs associated with transmission-line construction. Some can made more manageable through proactive actions by developers. Still others can be made more manageable through the actions of federal and state agencies to enhance the efficiency and accountability of their processes. Thus, while the project review process can be slow and add costs to project development, on the whole transmission lines are being built. Moreover, there are promising signs that both groups are taking actions to improve the processes, both in terms of their duration and the quality of the decisions that get made. We found examples of merchant transmission projects successfully gaining needed approvals and being constructed. Their experiences, in particular, suggest that if the economics of potential projects are sound, someone will find a way to build them.

Hibblen:  "So, I take it the property owners don't want to sell?"
Massey:  "Well, some of them don't want to sell.  And others sort of resent being forced to sell even though they may get a good price for the use of their land."

Massey:  "Well, the delegation would say the difference is that this is the benefit of private company that is Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston and it's a little different from an interstate in that Clean Line has not been declared a utility by the PSC so the Congressional delegation is framing this as an unprecedented partnership between the Department of Energy, which is backing this project, and a private company."

Hibblen:  "What would be the benefits of this project?"
Massey:  "Well there would be a few jobs in maintaining the line, but the main benefits would be to the landowners."

"But the big number is the $147M in taxes that would flow to the 12 counties that the line crosses."

Hibblen:  "Are the landowners and Clean Line talking possible settlements?"
Massey:  "Clean Line is negotiating with individual landowners and they have commitments with a great many of them as I understand it."

"So I think a great many people find this attractive and would be happy to have the money for the line coming through their land.

In fact, very much like what happened in Nebraska, the resistance in Iowa against the Dakota Access pipeline is led by ranchers furious at what they see as the state's complicity in a private land-grab. Earlier this week, a judge denied a stay on construction of the pipeline, kicking the decision over to the Iowa utility board. The plaintiffs in that case accused Energy Partners of blackjacking them into granting easements by threatening to have their land condemned, a charge that the company's lawyers denied, but one that is more than familiar to the people in Nebraska who fought TransCanada.

"This has been the slow erosion of property rights," said Kleeb. "This is the only way that pipelines will be stopped. Construction companies will find ways to get around permits and other obstacles. That has to be brought through the courts."

There are other problems as well. On Wednesday, The Des Moines Register ran a story in which farmers who were paid to allow an easement through their property along the pipeline's route in Iowa complained that the pipeline company had reneged on promises to restore the land once the pipeline got buried.

Instead, he's got a scar running across his soybean fields where the dark, fertile topsoil is being stacked on top of several feet of hard clay mixed with clay loam. The result, Goebel fears, will be soil less suited for growing crops—and much less valuable.

"Nature separated those soils for a reason, that's the way I feel," said Goebel, who runs a 164-acre century farm in Sioux County. "If nature put it there, they should put it back the way it was." His complaint is one of several popping up across Iowa as work ramps up on the pipeline that will stretch from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota across Iowa to Patoka, IIl."

Two groups representing landowners are suing to block an electric transmission line planned for delivering wind-generated power across Arkansas from Oklahoma to Tennessee.

The federal lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Jonesboro by Golden Bridge LLC and Downwind LLC, the two landowner organizations, will test the legality of a decision by the U.S. Department of Energy to aid construction of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line through provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The landowner groups are represented by Christopher L. Travis and Jordan P. Wimpy, both of the Gill Ragon Owen firm in Little Rock. The complaint lists as defendants the Energy Department and Ernest Moniz, the U.S. secretary of energy, as well as the Southwestern Power Administration and its administrator, Scott Carpenter.

The lawsuit questions the Energy Department's authority to approve the construction of one of the nation's largest electric lines without seeking state-level review. It also challenges its power to exercise the federal right of eminent domain to condemn and acquire private property under the Energy Policy Act. Landowners, it says, should have played a bigger role in the Energy Department's review of the project, which is being carried out by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston.

CLEAN LINE OFFICIALS SAY ‘FULL STEAM AHEAD’

Late Monday evening, Clean Line officials said they had not seen the legal complaint against the DOE regarding their project and would not be able to provide specific comment. However, a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project and anticipates making more than $30 million in payments to Arkansas landowners for easements and upfront transmission structure payments.

In addition, Clean Line will pay Arkansas counties that host the electric transmission project a total of approximately $140 million in voluntary payments over the first 40 years of operation, which will support local schools, fire departments and other community services.

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit and that we must push through gridlock to move the country forward. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects,” said Mario Hurtado, Clean Line’s executive vice president of development. “In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”

Hurtado, who recently told Talk Business & Politics that the multibillion dollar project is expected to get underway in early 2017, added: “The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is the largest clean energy transmission project in America and is moving full steam ahead.”

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project," said Mario Hurtado, executive vice president for development.

DOE executed the Participation Agreement, which creates a "Coordination Committee," which "shall be composed of two (2) representatives from Holdings and two (2)
representatives from DOE." One of Holdings' representatives is the chair of the Coordination Committee. Unless Clean Line has defaulted, the Coordination Committee requires a representative of both Holding and DOE to have a quorum. The Coordination Committee can only make "public announcements relating to DOE's involvement in the Project" if such public disclosure is approved by "one (1)
representative of each of Holdings and DOE on the Coordination Committee."

...explore the specifics of how to develop and maintain positive landowner relationships while negotiating in good faith for pipeline, electric transmission, wind and solar, rail and public sector projects. This would include whether pursuing site leasing, site purchase, easements, right of ways and/or workspace, and whether coming from the perspective of project management, design engineering, environmental, appraising, permitting, survey, right of way, inspections, construction, operations, and others, this presentation is a must in helping ensure a successful project, on time and on budget with happy landowners.

Recognize and understand landowner’s perspectives and the importance of dealing with unique differences in various landowners, their personalities and their needs/concerns.

Beyond the historical considerations of zoning, environmental, special use, conservation and damages determination, communities are becoming more and more vocal in their requirements in infrastructure development.  As social media and cyber-activism have become the norm (even for landowners not impacted by a project), companies need to become social-savvy in route planning, outreach and negotiations.  More often than not, whether in the electric industry or in other related industries, projects are successful or fail spectacularly due to communication issues, lack of messaging and poor understanding of the locale impacted.

Case Study: Delivering Wind Energy to Market

The United States possesses some of the best renewable energy resources in the world. However, continued growth of the renewable energy industry in the U.S. faces a serious challenge: the lack of transmission. Clean Line Energy is developing a series of long-haul direct current transmission lines to deliver low-cost renewable energy to communities that have a strong demand for clean power.

This presentation will focus on the Grain Belt Express Clean Line, which will deliver wind energy from Kansas into Missouri, Illinois and Indiana. The project has received its regulatory approvals in Kansas, Illinois and Indiana and is currently working through the final state approval process in Missouri. The presentation will provide an update on the regulatory, routing, and other milestones accomplished with a focus on the benefits this project will bring to Missouri.

Amy Kurt, Director of Development, Clean Line Energy Partners

Backers of the project are frustrated with landowners for their reluctance to host the transmission line. Climate Change!  Renewable Energy! How can landowners be so stubborn as to hold up what is so clearly progress? Landowners along the planned route are being drafted into the war on Climate Change without their consent. If the fight against climate change can only be won if Missouri is crossed by this unsightly collection of wires and poles, then the costs should be more widely borne. The company can negotiate those easements with willing sellers along the route, and they can pass the increased costs along to millions of electricity users in the eastern United States, instead of imposing all of the costs of saving the planet on 500 small landowners in Missouri.

The fight against climate change must not leave any community out or behind -- including the coal communities who kept America's lights on for generations.  Democrats will fight to make sure these workers and their families get the benefits they have earned and respect they deserve, and we will make new investments in energy-producing communities to help create jobs and build a brighter and more resilient economic future.  We will also oppose threats to the public health of these communities from harmful and dangerous extraction practices, like mountaintop removal mining operations.

However, most the attendees at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station meeting opposed the project. Dennis Daniels, who organized the meeting, said he has already been a victim of eminent domain once and does not want to go through the process again.
 
"Honestly I don't have any questions for (representatives)," he said. "I just don't want them to come through my property."
 
He's concerned that the power line will decrease property values, restrict further development on his land and be an eyesore.
 
"It bothers me most that it's a private, for-profit company," he said. "They're going to use eminent domain to take our property rights away to give to a company in San Francisco to make millions of dollars off of each year."

In a public meeting at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station just outside Starkville Thursday, Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley urged residents to reach out to representatives from Southern Cross Transmission if they have questions about the company's proposed wind energy transmission line.
 
"Let it not be said of you that you didn't call on these people and that you didn't file an objection," Presley said at the meeting.

While eminent domain is not out of the question, Presley said he believes the company will do everything in its power to avoid having to use it. Southern Cross representatives have told him they have put in similar lines in other parts of the country without resorting to eminent domain.

Presley said his office received a plethora of letters, emails and phone calls from property owners who received letters. In a meeting with company representatives, Presley said someone from the company has to meet with property owners one-on-one at the time and place of the landowner's choosing.
 
In an interview with The Dispatch Thursday, Presley said a Southern Cross representative had already begun meeting with landowners individually. Presley also had the company designate a point of contact for landowners to call. Since then, his office has received fewer calls from concerned citizens.
 
In June, Southern Cross Transmission sent letters to landowners whose property is within 500 feet of one of the proposed routes and promised to hold meetings and answer questions from landowners. The company then hosted an open house for property owners, but many left that meeting with more questions than answers, Presley said.
 
Legally, Southern Cross Transmission doesn't have to communicate with the public at all until it has decided on a route and filed a proposal with the Public Service Commission. But Presley wants to ensure that the company shows landowners the dignity and respect they deserve.

FERC has previously found that the interconnection of the Southern Cross Project to the ERCOT transmission system is in the public interest and that the Project will create substantial benefits both for the ERCOT and the Southeast regions.

Southern Cross Transmission plans to settle on a route and file its proposal with the commission this fall. Once that happens, Presley said, citizens have 20 days to file an objection, which gives them legal rights in the case.

He requested landowners write down whatever questions they have, take those questions directly to the company and wait until they had met with Southern Cross representatives before deciding whether to oppose the project.

Presley has also said he will not approve the project unless the company can prove it has some benefit to Mississippi.
 
"I'm as much for clean air and clean energy as the next guy, but it's got to be about more than renewable energy," he said. "For us, that's a plus, but there has to be other things."

"At the end of the day, the ability to connect into wind energy, which does not cost anything as far as burning coal, burning natural gas, (is) obviously an energy source that could have a benefit to the state," Presley said.
 
"That's the benefit," he added. "But also obviously if this electricity is low cost, I'm not going to be supporting trucking it through Mississippi to pump it to Atlanta, Georgia, and our people have cheap electricity ran over the top of their property and not being able to take advantage of it."