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.

PJM cautions against approaching this analysis based on a ‘top down’ analysis based on what appears to be an attempt at optimizing the deployment of renewables across the nation.

New transmission advances clean energy goals by enabling greater access to clean energy resources, which can be in remote areas, far from load and the existing transmission system.

Transmission projects also frequently face public opposition or “not-in-my-backyard” concerns for various reasons. These challenges can lead to increased costs, schedule delays, or even project cancellations.

A significant portion of the higher congestion noted in the Report is associated with multiple transmission outages in support of approved upgrades. As a result, the congestion listed should not necessarily be considered a persistent level of congestion in the Mid-Atlantic.

The study was warmly welcomed by Chicago-based Invenergy LLC, developer of the proposed $7 billion Green Belt Express line that could help carry up to 5,000 MW of Great Plains wind power to Great Lakes and mid-Atlantic population centers.
A key 530-mile segment of the line, running from Kansas to central Missouri, is a candidate for a federal loan guarantee, according to DOE — one of the new or strengthened transmission initiatives provided for DOE in the infrastructure act.

“We are encouraged by the findings of the draft study which underscore the critical need for interregional transmission to deliver cost-effective generation, meet projected demand growth and usage shifts, and improve reliability and resilience, especially in the face of increasing extreme weather events, cybersecurity risks, and physical threats,” said Shashank Sane, Invenergy executive vice president for transmission, in a statement.
“The draft study rightly focuses on identifying market barriers to interregional transmission development to accelerate deployment of clean energy,” he added.

John Podesta, senior adviser to Joe Biden on clean energy, said that the loans office is “essential to the effective implementation” of the administration’s goal to eliminate planet-heating emissions by 2050. “Jigar is laser-focused on working with all levels of government, project sponsors and affected communities to deliver on that mission and realize results for the American people,” Podesta said.

...Shah, a debonair former clean energy entrepreneur and podcast host who matches his suits with pristine Stan Smiths, oversees resources comparable to the GDP of Norway: all to help turbocharge solar, wind, batteries and a host of other climate technologies in the US.

Deep in the confines of the hulking, brutalist headquarters of the US Department of Energy, down one of its long, starkly lit corridors, sits a small, unheralded office that is poised to play a pivotal role in America’s shift away from fossil fuels and help the world stave off disastrous global heating.

To conservatives, the loans office, which was founded in 2005, is forever tarred by the much-criticized decision during Barack Obama’s administration to loan $535m to Solyndra, the California solar firm, only for the company to file for bankruptcy two years later, in 2011.

The huge new financial arsenal at the office’s disposal risks “Solyndra on steroids”, according to Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the incoming Republican chair of the House energy committee. A group of Republicans led by Rodgers have said the new loan authorities “raise questions about increased risks of waste, fraud and abuse, especially if the administration uses the program for its rush-to-green agenda”.

The Board provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on the Administration's energy policies, the Department's basic and applied research and development activities, economic and national security policy, and on any other activities and operations of the Department of Energy, as the Secretary may direct. The duties of the Board are solely advisory.

For all aspects of DOE transmission funding, prioritize projects which will enhance the interregional ties that will help regions support one another during times of extreme load or generation shortages(e.g., extreme weather events and challenging market conditions).

Prioritization of interregional projects will help compensate for lack of interregional planning, though such projects should not be seen as full substitutes for robust planning.

Ensure that interregional transmission and distribution solution projects are meeting Justice 40 Initiative (e.g., community engagement) and Just Transition (e.g., community benefit agreements) priorities (e.g., preferential weighting criteria within RFP).

Screen all projects against interregional criteria, in part to ensure that there are no interregional projects which would create similar benefits at a lower cost.

After years of development, the United States is poised for a boom in long-distance transmission, Skelly said, pointing to projects such as Champlain Hudson, SunZia and TransWest Express.

The long-term expansion and extension of renewable energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act led to increased certainty that has flowed through to transmission development, according to Skelly.

“The easiest job in America right now is selling HVDC equipment,” he said.

Proactive engagement with all of these stakeholders can lead to stronger projects and better outcomes, increase transparency, and the reduction or elimination of associated risks that can often stall transmission projects before they can be constructed.

It’s thus critical that Congress pass permitting reform legislation that will add to America’s capacity to transmit clean electricity and speed up the approval of clean energy projects that are waiting to be built, while preserving communities’ ability to make their voices heard on the environmental and other impacts of proposed energy projects.

It is therefore the ORDER of this Court that Plaintiffs Petition in Eminent Domain is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court, pursuant to the requirements in Section 523.256 RSMo, orders Plaintiff to reimburse the owners for their reasonable attorney's fees
and costs incurred with respect to this condemnation proceeding. Defendants may file appropriate motions requesting the same.

monroe_co_gbe_findings.pdf
File Size:	3533 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

On direct, the appraiser for Plaintiff testified that he took into account the ingress/egress rights, in spite of omitting them from his report. The Court recognizes that it has the authority to consider the credibility of an appraiser's testimony at a condemnation hearing. Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. of Kansas City v. Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council, 316 S.W.3d 418,425 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010), as modified (June 1, 2010). This Court "is not required to take the appraisers' testimony at face value." Id. at 428. With that consideration, the Court gives more weight to the fact that the written appraisal report omits a significant portion of the easement rights sought in the Petition and thus did not include
compensation for the omitted rights. As to the appraiser's testimony to the contrary, the Court attributes bias to the witness who has already obtained significant compensation for his services and stands to gain significantly more in the course of this Project.

Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) established a federal loan guarantee program for certain projects that employ innovative technologies. EPAct authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make loan guarantees available for those projects.  Grain Belt Express, LLC (Applicant), has applied for a loan guarantee pursuant to the DOE Renewable Energy Project and Efficient Energy Projects Solicitation (Solicitation Number: DE-SOL-0007154) under Title XVII, Innovative Energy Loan Guarantee Program, authorized by the EPAct. The primary goal of the program is to finance projects and facilities in the United States that employ innovative and renewable or efficient energy technologies that avoid, reduce, or sequester anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Potential impacts on resources include, but are not limited to, impacts (whether beneficial or adverse; short term or long term) on air quality and GHG emissions; soils and paleontological resources; water resources, including surface and groundwater and floodplains; vegetation, wildlife, and special-status species; land use and recreation; socioeconomics and environmental justice; public health and safety; cultural resources and Native American traditional values; transportation; visual resources; and noise.

LPO will hold six public scoping meetings for the project, four in-person and two virtual meetings, at the following dates and times (Central Time). Registration for the virtual public meetings may be completed at the following web links:


• Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m., virtual meeting on Zoom ( https://us06web.zoom.us/​webinar/​register/​WN_​NOQzgumNTpOAIL5UoLVIeA)
• Thursday, January 26, 2023, 5 p.m.- 6:30 p.m., virtual meeting on Zoom ( https://us06web.zoom.us/​webinar/​register/​WN_​D619NGe1TGqMH0fcHx5SSA)

• Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Dodge House Hotel and Convention Center, 2408 W Wyatt Earp Blvd., Dodge City, KS 67801

• Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Municipal Auditorium, 201 W Rollins St., Moberly, MO 65270

• Thursday, February 2, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m. Corinthians Hill Event Center, 464 NE 20 Ave., Great Bend, KS 67530
• Thursday, February 2, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Fairview Golf Course, 3302 Pacific St., St. Joseph, MO 64507

All meetings are open to the public and free to attend.

Now more than ever, we need strong environmental review and public engagement processes to avoid harming communities while effectively speeding up development of much-needed infrastructure to enable a rapid clean energy transition.

A recent study from MIT concludes that a significant hurdle in developing clean energy infrastructure projects is local opposition --and early community engagement can avoid delays or cancellations. To address this major slow down and to ensure that our new transmission is developed in an equitable manner, we must work with the very communities that our infrastructure is supposed to serve and not against them.

1. Public Participation: Local residents (their legislative representatives and public agencies) oppose projects in which they believe their worries are not adequately being attended to by the developer.
   
   

"The purpose of the pre-filing process is to facilitate maximum participation from all stakeholders to provide them with an opportunity to present their views and recommendations with respect to the environmental impacts of the facilities early in the planning stages of the proposed facilities."

...an applicant may demonstrate that it has met the statutory good faith efforts standard by complying with an Applicant Code of Conduct in its communications with affected landowners.

...the term “environmental justice community” includes disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution. The term also includes, but may not be limited to, minority populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples.

... whether the proposed rule constitutes good policy, such as, for example, whether it will be beneficial in determining whether to site electric transmission projects when the states have not done so, or whether the rule will tend to ensure almost nothing is ever sited.

State regulators are much better prepared to deal with that myriad of local concerns, including concerns over routing and costs, than FERC. Furthermore, state processes are far more convenient and user-friendly than processes at FERC, if for no other reason than geographic proximity. So, waiting one full year to allow a state to “go first” and make its decision makes sense for a lot of reasons. One obvious reason is that if the line is truly needed, the state regulators will in all likelihood approve it, and no FERC staff time and resources will need to be expended at all. The whole mantra that goes “the states are blocking needed transmission all over the country!” is simply a political and special-interest narrative. The steadily mounting increases over the past decade in transmission rate base nationally, with concomitant skyrocketing increases in transmission costs to consumers, blows up the narrative that states are systemically blocking needed transmission lines. Contrary to the narrative, states need more authority to scrutinize transmission projects for need and prudence of cost, not less, to protect consumers.