As of March 23rd, 2018 DOE and Clean Line Energy Partners have mutually agreed to terminate their Participation Agreement as well as DOE’s participation in the Project. NextEra Energy Resources has acquired Plains and Eastern Clean Line Oklahoma LLC and all of the assets for the transmission project in Oklahoma. DOE remains committed to an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, improving our Nation’s electricity infrastructure, and increasing the reliability and resiliency of the electrical grid.

The hearing will be Wednesday, September 18th, and buses will leave Roosevelt at 3:30pm for the 7pm hearing in Mendota, IL. Transportation, a free dinner, and a t-shirt will be provided!

We want as many supporters to make it to the hearing as possible, so let us know what it will take for you to get to the hearing. Funding for gas, or other transit and travel needs can be provided.

"Do you want to help pass legislation for renewable energy in the Midwest? Then come to the only public meeting for The Clean Line Energy Project which, if passed, will connect enough wind power from Iowa to Illinois to power over 1.4 million American homes!
If you are interested in going to the only public hearing for this project, next Wednesday leaving @ 4pm, please comment on this! I will happily drive us, and it will be a super fun trip in the name of clean energy!!"

Support landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma!  Support energy infrastructure!  Support the Plains & Eastern Clean Line!

We need your help!

America's energy infrastructure needs your help!  Lobbying efforts at the white house level have inhibited the passage of an energy infrastructure project beneficial to citizens and landowners in Arkansas and Oklahoma!

........

Support energy infrastructure, land owners, and the Plains and Eastern Clean Line project by simply clicking the link below to sign the petition!  Every click makes a difference!

It is absolutely imperative to demonstrate support as a citizen!  The future of America's energy infrastructure is in your hands!!

The order of the Commission is hereby reversed and remanded where it granted a
nonpublic utility company the authority to construct and manage an electrical transmission line project under the Act's expedited review process without the requisite
finding that the applicant was a public utility.

Pursuant to section 8-406.1, the section utilized by GBX in the instant case, "[a]
public utility may apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to
this Section for the construction of any new high voltage electric service line and related
facilities (Project)."

Section 3-105 of the Act defines a "public utility" as follows:
"[E]very corporation, company, limited liability company, association, joint stock company or association, firm, partnership or individual, their lessees, trustees, or receivers appointed by any court whatsoever that owns, controls, operates or manages, within this State, directly or indirectly, for public use, any plant,
equipment or property used or to be used for or in connection with, or owns or controls any franchise, license, permit or right to engage in ***

We note, however, that the definition of "public utility" was recently clarified by the Illinois Supreme Court in Illinois Landowners Alliance, NFP v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 2017 IL 121302. In Illinois Landowners Alliance, NFP, our supreme court determined that when the Commission grants a company a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 8-406 of the Act, the "central question remains: Does it even qualify as a public utility under Illinois law so as to be eligible for such a certificate under section 8-406 of the Public Utilities Act?"

Our supreme court determined that Rock Island, a new entrant, was required to present ownership of utility infrastructure assets to qualify as a public utility, as defined in section 3-105, in order to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 8-406 of the Act. Id. ¶ 48. In order to qualify as a public utility, our supreme court concluded that "the company must also own, control, operate , or manage, within this State, directly or indirectly, a plant, equipment, or property used or to be used for or in connection with (or must own or control any franchise, license, permit, or right to engage in) the production, transmission, sale, etc. of one of the specified commodities or services." Id. ¶ 39. The supreme court noted that the statute is phrased in the present tense because it requires that a company must own, control, operate, or manage, within the state, a plant, equipment, property, franchise, etc. at the time it seeks certification by the Commission.

The supreme court reasoned that when the General Assembly repealed the prior language in section 3-105 of the Act, which defined a public utility as "every corporation *** that now or hereafter *** may own, control, operate or manage" specific plants, equipment, or property (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 1112/3, ¶ 10.3), it intended, as the court
must presume, to speak only to ownership in the present tense when it eliminated the words "that now or hereafter *** may." Id. ¶ 42. As a result, the court determined that courts must read the statute as "evincing an intention by the legislature to limit the definition of 'public utility' to situations where the subject entity meets the ownership test
at the present time."

Here, GBX similarly fails to establish that it was a public utility at the time it filed its application with the Commission. It is undisputed that GBX does not presently, or at
the time it filed its disputed application with the Commission, own, control, manage, or operate any plant, equipment, or property in Illinois used or to be used for or in connection with the production, transmission, sale, etc. of one of the specified commodities or services. Accordingly, GBX did not meet the definition of a "public utility" under section 3-105 of the Act at the time it filed its application with the
Commission.

...we are not persuaded that the legislature intended for the expedited review process to be an available avenue for nonpublic utility entities. The Commission's conclusion that any nonpublic utility may apply to be a public utility under section 8-406.1 ignores the express language set out in section 8-406.1(a). Significantly, section 8-406.1 of the Act clearly and unambiguously reads that "[a] public utility may apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to this Section ***."  As such, our interpretation of section 8-406.1 requires that the applicant must meet the definition of a public utility. In order to obtain status as a public utility, the applicant must meet the ownership test at the time of application, the same prerequisite in section 8-406, and the Commission must make this finding before issuance of a certificate. Here, GBX holds an option to purchase property that would serve as the site to place equipment for the proposed project. "[H]aving an option to buy something is not the same as owning or even controlling it," and an option agreement "does not involve the transfer or [sic] property or an interest therein." Illinois Landowners Alliance, NFP

The supreme court noted, however, that the Act does not prohibit new entrants from commencing development as a purely private project before applying to become a public utility in Illinois:
"Once their projects are further underway and they have obtained the ownership, management, or control of utility-related property or equipment required to qualify as public utilities, they may then seek certification to operate as public utilities if they wish to conduct their business in a way that would make them subject to the Public Utilities Act's regulatory framework."

As a result, the Commission must find that an entity is a public utility at the time of application in order to utilize the expedited review process in section 8-406.1 of the Act.
Unable to meet the requisite ownership test, GBX is not a public utility under section 3-105 of the Act, but rather an entity with a purely private project that does not require the
Commission's authority to proceed.

The party doesn't start without Michael Skelly Not in his own home, anyway.
On Tuesday evening, Skelly and his wife, Anne Whitlock, hosted an intimate bash for the Houston Parks Board inside their loftlike EaDo residence, Firehouse No. 2. The founder and president of Clean Line Energy Partners arrived fresh off a flight from Washington, D.C., making quite the midreception splash.

"We strongly disagree that JCP&L failed to prove the need for the Monmouth County Reliability Project," the utility said. "The initial decision contradicts the findings made by the regional grid operator and industry experts."

I FIND that the preponderance of credible evidence proves that JCP&L commenced studies to justify the MCRP as its preferred route months before any “problem” was even identified as needing a solution.

During the hearings, PJM concurred that JCP&L will not suffer any financial penalties if the Board rejects the MCRP. Both PJM and JCP&L agree that if the MCRP is not approved, they will return to the planning stage and find another way to solve the P7 contingency.

There were four alternative 230 kV lines into Red Bank on the narrowed list but apparently no technical studies were undertaken of them because they were considered by JCP&L to lack the appropriate level of “robustness.” Palermo could not find any definition for that term and was unfamiliar with its use generally in the transmission industry.

Applying these standards, I FIND that Dr. Moliver’s expert opinion is entitled to greater weight than that of McHale. I FIND that McHale’s credibility was undermined by his careless quotation of synopses of studies he never read. He utilized a general search engine that returned results for terms “effect of HVTL at 15 ft” and followed a link to a New Hampshire Siting Commission webpage, copied the summaries, and deleted the attribution footer from his reprint. As reluctant as I am to express this, in my opinion, such “scholarship” by a student would produce an “F” and subject one to claims of plagiarism. It is certainly not the work product of a professional entitled to much weight to count the number of supportive studies versus the number of unsupportive studies without regard for the study criteria and quality. The merits, depths, sampling size, and commonality must be taken into account before a study can be cited as persuasive to a novel setting. I also FIND that his opinion as an expert witness was blended with several lay perceptions that fell outside the scope of his presentation for the Company and were unverified.

The evaluation directed by JCP&L was both pre-emptive in the timeline of the “need” for the Project and created an unlevel playing field tipped in its obvious favor. This is not a close case of general public interest versus parochial interest, with a tie going to the public utility company. I CONCLUDE that JCP&L’s application for municipal waivers pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 must be denied because the Company has not supported its application by the preponderance of the relevant and admissible evidence. The MCRP is not a safe or reasonable response to the potential P7 violation.

The prepared summary of written statements indicates that eighty-three (83%) percent were opposed to the MCRP; and, seventeen (17%) percent in favor. Approximately twenty-five (25%) percent of the statements opposing the Project were form letters; and ninety-two (92%) percent of the statements in favor of the Project were form letters, of which eighty-eight (88%) percent were not from the impacted area.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.  --  Margaret Mead

The Republican Party’s current infrastructure spending bill is missing one item: a provision establishing federal siting authority for electric transmission lines. Oddly, this idea has few champions in Congress and only tepid support from environmental groups.

Problematically, the best locations for wind and solar power plants are far from population centers—in the windy central plains or the sunny southwestern deserts.

More than ever, consumers want green power.

Conservatives claim that federal transmission siting authority would threaten state sovereignty or landowner property rights, but those claims ring hollow. Why are those values worth protecting against transmission lines but not against natural gas pipelines?

Little is known about the opponents. A  consultant for Renewable Arkansas, a nonprofit offshoot of a group called  Americans for Affordable Energy, has placed an op-ed article recently opposing the SWEPCO project. The author, Grant Tennille, former director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, questioned the reliability of the savings estimate and also said it would provide an advantage to SWEPCO in continuing to sell excess electricity from existing coal-fired plants in Arkansas into the open market. Bringing in wind lowers the company's overall cost of power and makes the sales more profitable, he wrote. He has not responded to my email asking about his employer on the issue. He suggests, by the way, that SWEPCO should invest in solar power in Arkansas.

“A group known only as Protect Our Pocketbooks – which does not reveal the names of its backers or the sources of its substantial funding – is presenting misleading information to the public, including manipulation of statements by Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson,” said Brian Bond, SWEPCO Vice President of External Affairs.

Gov. Hutchinson wrote to the Arkansas Public Service Commission on Jan. 11 asking that the benefits of federal corporate tax cuts be passed on by utilities to Arkansas families and businesses. “In its latest television ad, Protect Our Pocketbooks misleadingly associates the governor’s comments about corporate federal tax cuts with the group’s campaign against Wind Catcher,” Bond said.

“The anonymous, tax-exempt opposition group claims that Arkansas gets none of the benefits of the project, which is incorrect and misleading. Arkansas will receive the benefits of generation with no fuel costs, cost savings immediately and over the life of the project, the full value of the federal Production Tax Credits available to the project, and the economic development benefits of wind turbine components being manufactured in Arkansas,” Bond said.