As you may be aware, a group of Illinois landowners appealed a recent decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to somehow "continue" Grain Belt's Negotiated Rate Authority at the same time it granted completely new authority. Of course, FERC can't do these completely opposite things at the same time. The basis for Invenergy's intervention in the case and request to dismiss the case is that the Illinois landowners have no standing to bring the case because they have no interest in the outcome.
| 20241213_motion_gbx_to_dismiss_petition.pdf |
The landowners responded to Grain Belt's weak motion, asking, "What's it to ya?" Only Paul Neilan could write a brief with that phrase in it! His response was engaging and spelled out exactly why the Illinois landowners had an interest to bring this case. When GBE applied for its Illinois permit, it told the ICC that it had negotiated rate authority from FERC. The ICC based their approval on that fact, along with others. If it turns out that GBE did NOT have negotiated rate authority at that time, then that is grounds to have the approval thrown out and GBE would have to reapply. Of course, GBE's bespoke legislation that allowed it to apply for a permit in the first place has expired. Therefore, GBE would have to get new legislation passed in Illinois that allowed them to apply again. Because what FERC did in the Order under review tried to say GBE had "continuing" negotiated rate authority when FERC also claimed to have reviewed GBE's request anew, what happens in the FERC case is pivotal to what happens in Illinois. Even a dense person could see that the Illinois landowners have standing. You can read a copy of the landowner's brilliant response here:
| 20250110_response_petitioners_to_gbx_mtd.pdf |
GBE and FERC are caught between a rock and a hard place, claiming that FERC never needed to approve the sale of GBE from Clean Line to Invenergy under Sec. 203 of the Federal Power Act. If that's true, then why didn't Invenergy notify FERC when it bought the project?
Neilan writes extensively about GBE's attempt to belittle Illinois landowners by calling them "A group of citizens who roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing." How disrespectful can you get?
Neilan writes extensively about GBE's attempt to belittle Illinois landowners by calling them "A group of citizens who roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing." How disrespectful can you get?
GBX's Motion states that building an interstate transmission line across their properties does not constitute any “invasion of a legally protected interest.” (GBX Motion at 15). As GBX sees things, Petitioners’ objections to GBX’s likely condemnation actions, its subjection of Petitioners to forced sales of their lands, and its construction of its transmission line across their farms and properties are "purely academic concerns." (GBX Motion at 19).
GBX wants this Court to ignore the Illinois landowners' objections to GBX's entry on their lands because Petitioners’ objections are nothing more than "...general...moral, ideological or policy objection[s] to a particular [FERC] action" (GBX Motion at 15).
GBX’s contempt for the property rights of Petitioners would be bad enough if it stopped there. But having hit rock bottom, GBX begins to dig. After omitting any mention of its need for eminent domain power and belittling Petitioners’ interest in avoiding forced sales of their properties, GBX tells this Court that Petitioners are a group of “…citizens who … roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing." (GBX Motion at 3).
But it was GBX, not Petitioners, who lobbied the Illinois General Assembly for custom-tailored legislative changes to provide a glide path for its transmission line project. (Petitioners’ Initial Brief, at 21).
It was GBX, not Petitioners, who inserted in its custom-tailored legislation a route through the nine Illinois counties in which Petitioners’ farms and properties are located. (Petitioners’ Initial Brief at 22).
And it was GBX, not Petitioners, who sent minatory letters to Petitioners stating that, if they didn’t sell their property to GBX voluntarily, GBX would file an eminent domain lawsuit against them to take their property anyway. See Exhibit B to this Response.
So GBX is partly correct: there is one party to this appeal who has been roaming across the country looking to pick legal fights with strangers. But it’s not Petitioners.
FERC’s unlawful order makes possible GBX’s exercise of the power of eminent domain against Petitioners. GBX’s plan to take Petitioners’ lands involuntarily and to build its high voltage transmission line across their properties presents precisely the kind of particularized injury that affects Petitioners in a concrete and personal way required for standing. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (2021).
Someone is respecting landowners and their rights, and it's not GBE or FERC. Let's hope the DC Circuit Court of Appeals can set things right again!
RSS Feed