John Arnold, a billionaire from Houston, is making a big bet on modernizing the outdated transmission infrastructure in the United States to transport electricity to areas where it is needed, including the distribution of wind and solar energy to towns and cities nationwide for the clean-energy transition. 
Arnold told Bloomberg he has invested "several hundred million dollars" into Houston-based Grid United, a company he co-founded with transmission line developer Michael Skelly, to purchase land, easements, and the necessary permits for constructing electric highways that can stretch hundreds of miles.

Arnold and Skelly are planning long-haul transmission lines across multiple states on private land that might be very difficult to achieve because failing to win over every landowner could quickly scuttle the entire project.

"We are trying to break this chicken and egg cycle by acquiring the land position first."

The Landowner Alliance and YTI both assert that Section 8-406(b-5) constitutes special legislation in violation of Article IV, Section 13 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and violates the Equal Protection and Separation of Powers Clauses of Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution. The Landowner Alliance notes that Intervenor Bradley Daugherty filed the Lawsuit in the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Clark County, Illinois which asserts that Section 8-406(b-5) is unconstitutional for the same reasons outlined by Landowner Alliance and YTI. The Landowner Alliance agrees with GBX’s position that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to declare the special legislation enacted for GBX unconstitutional and that this challenge is properly before the Circuit Court in Clark County. Cinkus v. Vill. of Stickney, 228 Ill.2d 214 (2000); Bd. of Educ. of Peoria, 2013 IL 114853, ¶38. The Landowner Alliance raised the constitutional challenges under the Special Legislation Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Separation of Powers Clause of Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution before this Commission to avoid any challenges based upon exhaustion of remedies or waiver raised by any party who asserts that Section 8-406(b-5) is constitutional.

The Landowner Alliance argues that determining whether a law runs afoul of the Special Legislation Clause requires a determination of whether the statutory classification discriminates in favor of a particular group, and second, if it does, whether the classification is arbitrary. Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328, ¶34, appeal allowed, 163 N.E.3d 713 (Table). The Landowner Alliance asserts that “arbitrary” can mean motivated by caprice, politics, or bias. Foreman v. Civil Service Comm’n of the City of Chicago, 7 Ill. App. 2d 122 at 126 (1st Dist. 1955). Also, “arbitrary” can also mean whether it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Moline School District v. Quinn, 2016 IL 119704, ¶26.
The Landowner Alliance states that prior to the enactment of Section 8-406(b-5) a non-public utility like GBX with no ownership or control of assets to be used for the production, transmission or furnishing of electricity could not utilize the rocket docket process available only for public utilities under Section 8-406.1. The Landowner Alliance argues that after GBX failed to obtain its CPCN as a non-public utility in 2015 and the Third District Appellate Court held that Rock Island Clean Line’s project did not satisfy the public use requirement, Invenergy Transmissions, L.L.C. lobbied the General Assembly, which enacted the new Section 8-406(b-5), which allows the Commission to issue a CPCN to a “qualifying direct current applicant,” defined as “any entity” that “seeks to provide direct current bulk transmission service for the purpose of transporting electric energy in interstate commerce.” 220 ILCS 5/8-406(b-5).
The Landowner Alliance points out that if the qualifying direct current applicant has a “qualifying direct current project,” the certificate can be issued “without the taking of additional evidence on these criteria.” Id. The Landowner Alliance states that it is obvious that the amended section tracks the application of GBX almost exactly. The Landowner Alliance argues that while GBX did not have to put forth any evidence relative to Section 8-406(b), every other entity or utility has that obligation. It goes on to argue that Section 8-406(b-5) essentially states that GBX does not need to meet the requirements of Sections 3-105, 8-406(b), or 8-406.1(f)(1) and does not need to meet the public use requirement to offer services in a non-discriminatory manner.
The Landowner Alliance argues that if GBX is allowed to side-step the public use requirement, the asset ownership requirement, and Sections 8-406(b) and 406.1(f)(1) and proceed with its “qualified direct current project,” on or before the arbitrary date of December 31, 2023, the door closes, and no other entity will qualify under Section 8-406(b-5).
The Landowner Alliance further argues that Section 8-406(b-5) arbitrarily discriminates against landowners, including the Landowner Alliance, that own land within Pike, Scott, Greene Macoupin, Montgomery, Christian, Shelby, Cumberland, and Clark Counties, Illinois (the “Enumerated Counties”), to the benefit of landowners that own real estate outside of the Enumerated Counties. Section 8-406(b-5) arbitrarily and unfairly subjects the landowners within the Enumerated Counties to the possibility of the Project traversing through their property without the same level of review by the Commission that is afforded landowners in non-Enumerated Counties.
The Landowner Alliance argues that there is no rational basis for this legislative purpose, and Section 8-406(b-5) is arbitrary and unreasonable. The classification created by the statute is not based upon reasonable differences in kind or situation, and whether the basis of the classification is insufficiently related to the statutory purpose. Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328, ¶36, citing Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367, 394 (1997).
The Landowner Alliance concludes that GBX is the only entity that will be using 8-406(b-5) for its project. Section 8-406(b-5) was passed for the benefit of only one entity, GBX, to enable it to bypass the requirements of Sections 3-105, 8-406(a) and (b) and 8-406.1.
The Landowner Alliance asserts that this special legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution. The Landowner Alliance argues that under the new legislation, Section 8-406(b-5), landowners in the nine counties are deprived of their right to a full evidentiary hearing and were forced to participate in the rocket docket process, which is available only to public utilities, before a CPCN is granted to a non-public utility merchant transmission line developer. The Landowner Alliance claims that no other project falls within the qualified direct current project designation and that both the qualified direct current applicant and the qualified direct current project are elements of the same denial of Equal Protection.
According to the Landowner Alliance, the legislature looked at the requirements that GBX and Rock Island Clean Line failed to meet under the Act and Illinois common law, and then passed special legislation custom tailored to make sure that GBX could obtain a CPCN. As a result, the Landowners are being treated differently from all similarly situated individuals in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The Landowner Alliance further asserts that Section 8-406(b-5) violates the Separation of Powers Clause of the Illinois Constitution. It is the Landowner Alliance’s position that the General Assembly’s purpose in enacting subsection (b-5) was to expressly order the Commission to approve GBX’s Project and grant it a CPCN. The Landowner Alliance states that the portion of Section 8-406(b-5) declaring the Project a public use violates Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution because, by arrogating to itself the power to declare something a public use, the General Assembly is exercising the judicial power to determine whether a particular use is public or private. The Landowner Alliance argues that it is well settled Illinois law that the determination of whether, for purposes of exercising the power of eminent domain, a proposed use is a public use is a decision for the courts, not the legislature.
The Landowner Alliance further argues that if this portion of Section 8-406(b-5) is allowed to stand, the General Assembly will have acquired sole power to define what the term "public use" means in Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution. According to the Landowner Alliance, the General Assembly's eminent domain power would then be left unchecked because there would be no branch of government that could review its public use decisions. The General Assembly would have eminent domain power by fiat: it could merely declare something a public use in order to affect the involuntary transfer of private property from one party to another, which has never been the law in the State of Illinois. The Landowner Alliance concludes that in the public use declaration in Section 8-406(b-5) the General Assembly unconstitutionally usurps the judicial power. The Landowner Alliance contends that GBX’s Application should be denied due to these constitutional concerns, along with the other arguments that it has raised in this proceeding.

The fact these long-in-the-works projects are reaching similar milestones appears to be coincidence; no single policy is moving them forward. They are, however, advancing at a time of increasing understanding by local communities and even traditional opponents — including some conservation groups — of the need to move clean energy from rural outposts and to build more durable electric systems after a series of weather and climatic events have felled grids in recent years.

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.