Ensure that any representative acting on the applicant’s behalf states their full name, title, and employer, as well as the name of the applicant that they represent, and presents a photo identification badge at the beginning of any discussion with an affected landowner, and provides the representative’s and applicant’s contact information, including mailing address, telephone number, and electronic mail address, prior to the end of the discussion.

Ensure that all communications with affected landowners are factually correct. The applicant must correct any statements made by it or any representative acting on its behalf that it becomes aware were:
(i) Inaccurate when made; or
(ii) Have been rendered inaccurate based on subsequent events, within three business days of discovery of any such inaccuracy.

Ensure that communications with affected landowners do not misrepresent the status of the discussions or negotiations between the parties. Provide an affected landowner upon request a copy of any discussion log entries that pertain to that affected landowner’s property.

Provide affected landowners with updated contact information whenever an applicant’s contact information changes.

Communicate respectfully with affected landowners and avoid harassing, coercive, manipulative, or intimidating communications or high-pressure tactics.

Except as otherwise provided by State, Tribal, or local law, abide by an affected landowner’s request to end the communication or for the applicant or its representative to leave the affected landowner’s property.

Except as otherwise provided by State, Tribal, or local law, obtain an affected landowner’s permission prior to entering the property, including for survey or environmental assessment, and leave the property without argument or delay if the affected landowner revokes permission.

Refrain from discussing an affected landowner’s communications or negotiations status with any other affected landowner. 

​Provide the affected landowner with a copy of any appraisal that has been prepared by, or on behalf of, the applicant for that affected landowner’s property, if any, before discussing the value of the property in question.  

impacted_landowner_comments.pdf
File Size:	620 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."  -- George Orwell

The final rule should be seen for what it is:  a pretext to enact, through administrative action, a sweeping legislative and policy agenda that Congress never passed.  The final rule claims statutory authority the Commission does not have to issue an absurdly complex bureaucratic blizzard of mandates and micromanagement to be imposed on every transmission provider in the United States for the transparent goal of spending trillions of consumers’ dollars on transmission not to serve consumers in accordance with the FPA, but instead to serve political, corporate, and other special-interest agendas that were never enacted into law.  The rates for transmission that will result from the final rule will not only be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory and preferential, but grossly unfair to tens of millions of American consumers already burdened with rapidly growing monthly power bills.   

...the final rule inflicts staggering costs on consumers by promoting the construction of trillions of dollars of transmission projects, not to serve consumers in accordance with the FPA, but to serve a major policy agenda never passed by Congress, to serve the profit-making interests of developers of politically preferred generation, primarily wind and solar, and to serve corporate “green energy” preferential purchasing policies.

 In fact, the final rule is not even about planning transmission, but is about planning policy, and it is very preferential about the policies it wants to promote.  As with the Great Oz, pulling back the curtain exposes the final rule for what it really is:  An essential component in a comprehensive plan by the current presidential administration to push what the media describe as “green policies” designed to prefer and promote the wind and solar generation it favors while simultaneously forcing the shutdown of the fossil fuel generation it disfavors, both needed to meet its political commitment.  Let me emphasize:  Whether the policies being promoted in this final rule can be described as “green, purple, red or blue” is irrelevant.  The point is that FERC, as an independent agency, has no business promoting the policies of any one party or presidential administration, especially when, as here, the effort to do so goes far beyond FERC’s legal authority and fails to perform our consumer protection function under the FPA.

Put most simply, the final rule is a shell game that plays this way: 
Step One:  For planning and cost allocation purposes, throw transmission projects that solve specific reliability problems or reduce congestion costs into the same bucket as projects designed to promote public policies or corporate “green energy” preferences and disguise the purpose of very different projects by re-labeling all projects in the new bucket with the innocuous-sounding name “Long-Term Regional Transmission Facilities.”
Step Two:  Mandate planning inputs that must be used in determining which projects get selected for regional plans, which starts the money flowing from consumers to developers before any state has even evaluated the need for, or cost of, the projects. 
Step Three:  Mandate benefits that will ultimately affect the allocation of costs to consumers across a multi-state region.  Combined with Steps One and Two, this makes consumers involuntary “beneficiaries” who will then be forced to pay for projects that promote another state’s public policy or corporate “green power” commitments. 
Step Four:  Order all transmission providers to develop and file a cost allocation formula that will automatically be the default applicable to the entire bucket of Long-Term Regional Transmission Facilities. 
Step Five:  Remove the NOPR’s requirement that states must consent to the details of Steps One through Four before their consumers can be burdened with costs.

Instead, what we have in today’s final rule is a patent instance of regulatory capture with the singular goal to build out preferential policy and corporate-driven projects, steamrolling the states and consumers alike.

Today’s final rule is much less the product of reasoned decision-making or the agency’s specialized expertise, as of political pressure and special interest lobbying.   In the chapter on “regulatory capture” in future economics textbooks, today’s final rule should be a featured case study.

​By doing nothing about the consumer-paid “FERC candy” incentives that this Commission regularly hands out to developers, and even removing the provisions dialing back the CWIP incentive—and with its overall aim to pile trillions of dollars of additional costs for big corporate and politically-driven transmission on consumers, which will largely flow to the increased profits of wind, solar and transmission developers—the final rule could be the inspiration for one of the great country and western songs “Lord Have Mercy on the Working Man.”  Warner Bros. Nashville 1992 (“Why’s the rich man busy dancing while the poor man pays the band?  Oh they’re billing me for killing me, Lord have mercy on the working man!”).

Mary O’Driscoll, FERC approves incentives for AEP, Allegheny grid projects, Greenwire, July 21, 2006 (“The approvals came as the commission finalized rules intended to promote transmission-grid additions that outline specific rate and other incentives that FERC will consider for future construction projects — the ‘FERC candy’ that critics contend gives the utilities incentives but not much in the way of corresponding requirements.”) (emphasis added), https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2006/07/21/ferc-approves-incentives-for-aep-allegheny-grid-projects-234508.

​Said Jones, “Let’s just say we figured out how to keep it under wraps.”

The Needs Study is not intended to displace existing transmission planning processes and is not intended to identify specific transmission solutions to address identified needs, but it does identify key national needs that can inform investments and planning decisions.  ​

The findings of this Needs Study are intended to inform regional and interregional planning, as well as help guide the Department in the execution of its transmission-related authorities. The Department understands the factors that drive industry transmission planning today and the entities and institutions that perform such planning. This Needs Study is not meant to displace these planning processes or the reliability standards they address. Rather, the Department believes it will be an important addition to overall industry and government planning efforts to reduce transmission congetion and capacity constraints that adversely affect consumers. 

A few individuals express opposition to the basis of the Study and what they view as political or parochial goals of the Study. One individual, Keryn Newman, criticizes the discrepancy between needs identified in the 2020 Congestion Study and the draft Study, stating that in 2020, DOE did not find a need to designate transmission corridors. In contrast, this report finds significant transmission need “in an area so vast that if the DOE were to designate corridors to solve it, the entire continental U.S. would be one gigantic ‘corridor.’” Newman concludes that this discrepancy can only be attributed to the fact that the studies “are not based on data and science, but on political goals. 

Keryn Newman criticizes the Study’s conclusion that large-scale transmission build-out is cost-effective. Newman cites the Study’s “vague claims of ‘economies of scale,’” arguing they are never justified and allow DOE to avoid a comprehensive analysis of the cost of transmission. 

Keryn Newman argues that the Needs Study does not include adequate consultation with landowners, whom Newman identifies as those who will most experience the devastating impacts of transmission development. Newman argues that the Study identifies landowner concerns as a barrier to transmission deployment but does not bother to consult these “barriers” or to devise solutions to mitigate their concerns. For this very reason, Newman also objects to the FERC Report on Barriers and Opportunities for High Voltage Transmission, which is cited in the Needs Study. Additionally, Newman argues that landowner interests should be represented on DOE’s Technical Review Committee. ​

Department Response
In response to comments from parties requesting additional, targeted stakeholder and Tribal outreach and continued stakeholder engagement, the Department has made additional efforts to engage with entities beyond the Department’s consultation with states, Tribes, and regional entities pursuant to Section 216(a) of the FPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. §824p(a)(1)). The Department has continued to accept meeting requests from commenting and interested parties to discuss draft Study findings.
Further, the Department has created regional and national fact sheets to be appended to the final Study and released concurrently to help make Study findings more accessible. The Department hopes the final Needs Study will be used as an educational tool to engage communities in discussion about grid needs. Departmental communications on final Study findings are a tool to solicit additional feedback from stakeholders on what future iterations of the Needs Study should entail.
The Department agrees with commenters that landowner, community, stakeholder, and Tribal engagement is imperative. The Department added Section V.e. Siting and Land Use Considerations (pages 95–108) to the final Study on subjects of unique interest to the communities. This section contains discussion of best practices for developers in engaging with landowners and other affected parties. 

Keryn Newman objects to the Needs Study’s statement that “large amounts of low-cost generation potential exist in the middle of the country and accessing this generation through increased transmission is cost-effective for neighboring regions.” Newman argues this approach is only low-cost due to taxpayer-funded subsidies and lower-cost lands and that “turning rural America into an energy serfdom to provide power to far-away cities” benefits urban communities that do not want to build infrastructure in their own backyard. Newman also argues that the statement exhibits “cultural and political elitism.” Furthermore, Newman argues that the Study dismisses legitimate landowner concerns as “NIMBYism” and barriers to transmission development without attempting to address them. Accordingly, Newman concludes that the Study lacks awareness and empathy. 

The Department stresses that addressing landowner concerns is critical to ensuring just and equitable outcomes in transmission deployment. The Needs Study makes no reference to “NIMBYism” and the Department has taken care to ensure that landowner concerns are not presented as a barrier to transmission deployment in the final Study. 

Transmission can share much of its rights-of-way with other activities, such as agricultural fields or recreational paths, and are considered a “mixed use” activity. 

Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of Project structures.

The Project is designed to have a minimal impact to land.  In Phase I for the HVDC Main Line approximately 9 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. For Phase I Tiger Connector approximately 0.2 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. And for the Phase II HVDC Main Line, approximately 7 acres will be taken out of agricultural production. 

There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources. We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement toward renewable energy. The energy on the Project provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally-friendly energy that will increase resiliency of the grid. The Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, with the conditions set out below, in the public interest. 

Grain Belt has a viable plan for raising the capital necessary to finance the cost of constructing the Project on a project financing basis. Specifically, after advancing development and permitting activities to a status at which developers of wind and solar generation facilities and other potential customers of the transmission line are willing to enter into commercial agreements for an undivided interest (purchase or lease) or long-term contracts for transmission capacity on the Project, Grain Belt will enter such contracts with interested parties that satisfy necessary creditworthiness requirements. Grain Belt will then raise debt capital using the aforementioned contracts as security for the debt.


Grain Belt anticipates utilizing a combination of commercial and governmental sources of financing, and, at this time, is still evaluating all potential options for financing. Options for governmental sources of financing include the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP); and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Transmission Facilitation Program; Department of Energy loans to non-federal borrowers for transmission facilities pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act and potentially other government funding options. Additional equity capital may also be raised to help finance construction of the Project, or Grain Belt’s existing investors may make additional equity investments in the Project.

Consistent with the Commission’s requirements for obtaining and maintaining negotiated rate authority, Grain Belt Express’s negotiated rates will continue to be just and reasonable. In the context of negotiated rates, the Commission considers whether the merchant transmission developer has assumed the full market risk for the cost of constructing its proposed project, and is not building within the footprint of the developer’s (or an affiliate’s) traditionally regulated transmission system. The Commission also considers whether the merchant transmission owner (or an affiliate) owns transmission facilities in the same region as the project, what alternatives customers have, and whether the merchant transmission owner is capable of erecting any barriers to entry among competitors, and whether the owner would have any incentive to withhold capacity.
Here, Grain Belt Express has assumed, and will continue to assume, the full market risk for the cost of constructing the Project. Grain Belt Express has no captive pool of customers from which it could recoup the cost of the Project. ​

Niskanen represents landowners impacted by interstate gas projects approved by the
federal government despite a demonstrated lack of public or market need in court and
administrative proceedings, including before FERC. Best practices and lessons-learned from
Niskanen’s substantial work with impacted landowners and communities on such proposed interstate gas projects inform and guide our comments here on FERC’s proposed revisions to its Backstop Authority regulations. Niskanen aims to establish a purposefully defined federal role in electricity transmission infrastructure siting and permitting, including specific circumstances under the Backstop Authority, to enable a repeatable, scalable process for the development of much-needed interstate transmission lines.

There is a Need for Increased Transmission Development and Use of the Commission's Backstop Authority

rm22-7_final.pdf
File Size:	503 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---