It is my understanding based upon public information that Clean Line requested the use of federal powers of eminent domain through an arrangement with the U.S. Department of Energy under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for the Plains and Eastern project. This request required the development of an Environmental Impact Statement under  the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) within which the specific purpose and need for the project, siting considerations, and specific environmental impacts for the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project were assessed and considered in order to receive final approval through a Record of Decision for the Plains and Eastern project.

Witness Hurtado has not provided any additional insight or discussion in his responses as to what potential additional permitting requirements and schedule risks may be associated with using a portion of right of way for the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project that was originally acquired for a project that was approved under a different purpose and need, under a different regulatory authority, and potentially, with different permitting requirements.

While not yet ready to begin construction, Hurtado said the next big milestone isn't far off, and Clean Line has turned its focus to finding key customers.

"We've been at it for a while, and we're very close to the finish line," he said.

Clean Line has yet to announce any firm agreements with Southeast utilities for transmission. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

"We think that there's a time-sensitive opportunity," Hurtado said. "I'm not comfortable waiting too much longer. The sooner we can get this done, the better. There are always risks, and you want to manage that really prudently. We're already in pre-construction. The sooner we get into full-fledged construction, the better."

"Obviously, the trick is to make sure that you have capacity at the right price to the people that are actually winning the contracts in the Southeast," Hurtado said. "There's direct commercial discussions that are going on that are confidential. There are RFPs [requests for proposals], and that's still moving forward. It's part of our overall commercial discussions that we've got that are sort of focused, but they're all sort of in the works."

One potential customer, the Tennessee Valley Authority, so far hasn't shown an interest in taking transmission service from the Plains and Eastern.

TVA signed a memorandum of understanding with Clean Line in 2011, but the utility currently has no need for more energy on its system as its long-range plans show no demand growth for the next decade, said spokesman Scott Brooks.

And any older power plants being shut down by TVA are generally being replaced with natural-gas-fired generation, Brooks said.

Plains and Eastern is open to PSO or other utilities customers owning all or a portion of the transmission line, commensurate with their transmission needs. In addition, Plains and Eastern is open to PSO or other utilities managing part or all of the Plains & Eastern Project's construction.

If there is a demand for Oklahoma Panhandle wind in eastern Oklahoma, the Project's first phase could be built solely in Oklahoma. Subsequent phases could be built at a later date if market demands warranted such action.

While Plains and Eastern's efforts have been focused on HVDC transmission, other technical
solutions could be constructed in the Project's right-of-way, such as 345kV AC or 765kV AC. Plains and Eastern is open to modifying the
Project to a different technology or voltage level if it offers the best value to customers.

The Project begins near Wind Catcher's generation position in the Panhandle and the route runs within 50 miles of PSO's Tulsa North substation, the proposed interconnection point for the Wind Catcher line.  In eastern Oklahoma, there are also other potential interconnection points in PSO's service territory that are even closer to the Plains & Eastern Project's route than the Tulsa North substation and could be utilized to serve PSO load and other loads.

Furthermore, the Plains and Eastern team has received many questions from landowners and other stakeholders in Oklahoma about the Wind Catcher project. The team has been asked if Plains and Eastern can be involved or assist in the Wind Catcher project given that Plains and Eastern has a construction-ready, long-haul transmission project that runs from the Oklahoma Panhandle to the east and has acquired easements on more than 750 parcels in Oklahoma.

After being approached by representatives of PSO, Oklahoma landowners have asked the Plains and Eastern team if they should work with PSO even though they have already signed an easement with Plains and Eastern.

The power markets have evolved substantially since Plains and Eastern received its order from this Commission in the past eight years and eastern Oklahoma is now a strong delivery point for the Plains & Eastern Project. The Project could be utilized to accommodate high-voltage either direct current ("HVDC") and alternating current ("AC") transmission solutions to accomplish this interconnection in eastern Oklahoma and Plains and Eastern is willing to engage to consider either option. Mr. Hurtado stated that he would explain that Plains and Eastern is open to building a first
phase of the Project that is located solely in Oklahoma.

SPP has no plans to build new transmission
lines in the next decade, making independent transmission necessary to enable large amounts of new wind farms to be built in the Oklahoma Panhandle.

Plains and Eastern has also secured all key regulatory approvals necessary for construction on that route.

The DOE independently analyzed the proposed route and several alternative routes in its
EIS and ultimately approved a preferred route through its Record of Decision.

Plains and Eastern's careful and open approach to landowner interaction and easement acquisition established the company as a solid partner and good neighbor in Oklahoma

Many landowner conversations are on-going, and Plains and Eastern is highly confident that all right-of-way necessary to start construction could be completed in time to allow for construction to start in 2018 and an on-line date in 2020.

We heard about the valuable role agriculture plays in this region and our engineers worked to ensure typical farming practices in **INSERT COUNTY NAME HERE** County, from crops to orchards, could continue to exist within the right-of-way.

The electric utility supply of the United States is based on a sharing of facilities and energy sources for both purposes of supply and reliability. There are two transmission corridors whose final sections exist for the benefit of Sudbury, Maynard, and Concord. One begins in Medway and passes through Sherborn, Natick, Framingham, and Wayland. The second, which begins in Waltham, passes through Weston. In effect, the citizens of Medway, Sherborn, Wayland, Weston, Waltham, Framingham, and Natick have had to sacrifice some of their environment for the benefit of Sudbury.

A large group in Sudbury, Protect Sudbury, opposes this line, either overhead or underground, if built along an existing MBTA right-of-way. The group also opposes any overhead line through any route in Sudbury. If only the citizens of Wayland and Weston could have successfully opposed the construction of transmission towers in their towns that supply Sudbury! No tower, no power!

Higgins also said three different alternative energy companies were looking at locating in the Golden Triangle. He also said the Southern Cross Transmission project, a 400-mile wind energy line across the state that will end with a $300 million converter station in the Caledonia area, only needs four more land owners to approve using their property. 

WTAD wishes to issue a correction to this story. We had earlier reported that the case was being heard by the Missouri Supreme Court. That's not correct. It's being heard by the Eastern Missouri District Appeals Court. Clean Line has asked the Missouri Supreme Court to hear the case, but they have not yet ruled in the case. We regret the error.

The state regulators said they couldn’t approve of the Grain Belt Express because they felt bound by a ruling made by the western district of the state court of appeals. That court ruled that a different transmission project could not proceed because it had failed to get approval from the counties along the route. The state’s regulators said they had to comply with that ruling.

Lawlor has characterized the earlier rejection as a gross misinterpretation of state law, effectively giving county commissions the power to make final decisions on large infrastructure projects. And that, he claims, “would have a chilling effect on investment on infrastructure in Missouri. When other utilities and investors look at where they want to spend money, they will look at Missouri and see a Do Not Enter sign.
“The case is really simple: it’s who has ultimate jurisdiction over utilities? Is it the counties or the public service commission? For over 100 years, it’s been pretty clear: it’s the purview of the public service commission. But for the last few months, it’s been turned on its head.”

No person or persons, association, companies or corporations shall erect poles for the suspension of electric light, or power wires, or lay and maintain pipes, conductors, mains and conduits for any purpose whatever, through, on, under or across the public roads or highways of any county of this state, without first having obtained the assent of the county commission of such county therefor...

Emotional challenges to a project can cause projects sponsors to respond with facts, but those facts are often drowned out if the parties are unwilling to compromise. In this presentation, we will have an in-depth analysis of how to respond to exaggerated or false claims and how to manage project opposition explained with real-life case study/scenarios.

The participation of Mr. Sims [PJM witness] in this proceeding as an enthusiastic cheerleader for an expensive and blighting transmission project even after being presented with a feasible non-generation solution to the P7 contingency raises very serious questions about the neutrality of PJM. As is the case with other RTOs, PJM is by law and FERC decisions supposed to be scrupulously neutral.  While this is ordinarily taken to mean that it cannot discriminate in favor of one or more member utilities or independent power producers, it also means that PJM cannot be in the business of advocating a solution that has been given an “exclusive” to one of its member utilities. The Board should express condemnation of PJM’s role in this case.

During testimony, RAGE unveiled its alternative to the transmission line plan — an alternative the group says would cost 70 percent less, and present less danger to the community.

The group’s solution, backed by a power flow analysis and an engineering expert, includes the addition of two STATCOM devices — each about the size of an RV — at the Red Bank substation. It also calls for updating 11 of the existing 34.5 kV lines coming out of Red Bank.

“That’s it — all you need to do is update some existing lines that probably need replacing anyway, and add two big boxes to Red Bank, Kanapka said. “Do these two things and the P7 violation goes away, for a total estimated cost of just $30 million.”

In its most recent estimate, JCP&L said their project could cost $111 million, and that does not include the fee for usage of NJ Transit’s property.

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.