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...

“(This) otherwise is not a federal project. It is a Clean Line project,” Wimpy argued. “Clean Line owns all the assets, all the benefits, and the federal government is simply participating in the project. It may sound bad, but the plaintiffs believe Clean Line is just buying the DOE’s power of eminent domain. That’s what it looks like on the ground.”

In one humorous exchange with DuBois, Marshall asked the DOJ attorney if Clean Line was a “quasi-agent” for the federal government.
“Yes. A quasi-agent with a checkbook. That’s the best kind,” DuBois said, adding that Congress intended for Section 1222 to allow the federal government to improve the nation’s energy grid by attracting private investment.
Marshall also asked DuBois if the DOE’s request for proposal to participate in the three-state energy project was the Obama administration’s way of circumventing the will of the state of Arkansas after the plan was reviewed and rejected by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC).
“Was that a workaround based on what happened before at the PSC?” Marshall asked the DOE counsel.
DuBois replied that Clean Line participation in the project was in response to the DOE RFP, adding that states such as Arkansas have no authority over federal energy infrastructure projects unless it is “specifically given” by Congress.
“The statute does not give states veto power over national grid infrastructure projects,” DuBois told Judge Marshall. “The federal government has successfully shifted care of the national grid to private partners by encouraging private investment. That is what the statute is designed to do — using OPM – ‘other people’s  money.’”

But Wilson, part of the DOJ’s Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Defense Section, went back-and-forth with Judge Marshall for several minutes arguing that until property was actually condemned by Clean Line, she couldn’t say for certain what steps the DOJ would take to enforce the DOE’s right of acquisition for the three-state project.

The Arkansas landowners have asked Judge Marshall for a summary judgment to halt the project. If the court rules in the DOE’s favor, Clean Line officials have said they plan to begin construction on the project in the second half of 2017 and complete it sometime in 2020.

After the four hours of oral arguments were completed, Judge Marshall said he had planned to rule from the bench, but decided he needed more time to consider complexities of the case.
“This onion has many layers, and the federal layer onion may be the most important,” he said, adding that he would file an order as soon as possible.

‘‘(B) the applicant for a permit is a transmitting utility under this Act but does not qualify to apply for a permit or siting approval for the proposed project in a State because the applicant does not serve end-use customers in the State;

Given the short amount of time to make big changes at DOE -- Azar was, after all, picked by Chu, who himself resigned last February -- she said she mapped a timeline for tapping into existing transmission siting authorities and helping critical projects get started.
"I'm much more about where the rubber meets the road than high-level policy debates," Azar said.

She rejected the notion the controversial memo was all her doing or representative of a top-down approach.

As laid out in the memo, she also championed Texas-based Clean Line Energy's application to partner with DOE through its never-before-used authority under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, which would allow a PMA with federal authority to site the line and overcome state opposition.

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.

First, the rate benefit to residential ratepayers is a one year benefit of $11.52. The Companies provided no evidence of rate impacts beyond December 2018. The absence of this information is intentional.

As originally proposed by the Companies, if the acquisition of Pleasants is approved, there will be a $31,486,971 net decrease in rates for the 16-month period of September 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018, which is a 1.6% overall decrease. Residential customers would experience a decrease of about 0.9%. The decrease for a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month would be $0.96 per month, which would result in a decrease to $111.52 from 112.48 per month.  It is important to note that the decrease in customer rates is guaranteed only through December 2018.

West Virginia captive ratepayers are not hedge managers or virtual traders in the PJM markets. If the Commission approves this transaction that is what they will become: buyers of significant surplus capacity that Companies are betting (on their behalf) will provide benefits for years into the future. Pleasants was rejected by FirstEnergy as too risky. The overwhelming evidence in this case contradicts all Companies’ claims that there will be any benefits to captive ratepayers. Now FirstEnergy wants Companies to manage that risk for 500,000 ratepayers. As the legal representative of ratepayers, no thank you. The Pleasants acquisition should not be approved.

The CAD must begin by emphasizing that if this transaction is approved the harm that redounds to West Virginia captive ratepayers will be a legacy of this Commission.

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.

Grain Belt’s case seeks to have the PSC divested of its role in exclusive role of deciding on whether utility projects are in the state’s best interest. “The urgency in answering this question is driven by a statewide financial impact on hundreds of thousands of Missouri electrical consumers who will pay higher power prices if the Grain Belt Express wind transmission line is not built,” the company said in its announcement.

No party to this proceeding is contesting the fact that before Grain Belt may build the line, at some point it must obtain the necessary County Commission consents under § 229.100. In fact, Grain Belt has conceded that point throughout these proceedings.

Thus the basic issue in this case is whether Grain Belt must obtain the county consents before the CCN may be issued, or whether it is allowed by law to obtain those county consents after the PSC issues the CCN. In either event, as Grain Belt concedes, the County consents are required before the line may be built.

Grain Belt Express has entered a transmission service agreement (“Services Agreement” or “TSA”) with the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (“Joint Municipalities” or “MJMEUC”) to purchase up to 250 MW of capacity from the Project, which would save hundreds of thousands of electrical consumers millions of dollars annually.

The Project has received regulatory approval from the relevant utility commissions in Kansas, Illinois and Indiana. Each state independently determined the Project is in the public interest and issued certificates for construction of the Project across those states. Missouri is the final state in which regulatory approval is needed for the Project to proceed.

The Commissioners identified numerous benefits the Project would have had in the public interest: “lowered energy production costs in Missouri by $40 million or more”; “a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri”; “positive environmental impacts”; “supported 1,527 total jobs over three years, created $246 million in personal income [including easement payments], $476 million in GDP, and $9.6 million in state general revenue for the state of Missouri, and $249 million in Missouri-specific manufacturing and personal service contract spending”; and resulted in “a total of approximately $7.2 million” in yearly property tax benefits to affected counties.

In contrast, § 229.100 is a non-PSC law that relates to county roads. It requires those who wish to erect poles and power wires, or lay pipes across public roads of any county to obtain the assent of county commissioners under rules established by the county engineer.

The Court should accept transfer to secure for all Missourians the full extent of the benefits identified by the PSC, including substantial and proper leasehold payments to landowners, and to allow Missourians to begin enjoying these benefits immediately.

The Services Agreement between Grain Belt Express and the Joint Municipalities allows the Joint Municipalities to purchase up to 250 MW of from the Project.

The savings expected under the Services Agreement are indicative of what other energy purchasers throughout the state would realize and will ultimately be passed on Missouri energy consumers.

The availability of these PTCs substantially lowers overall development costs of wind-generation projects, which allows Grain Belt Express to pass on the cost savings to its customers. Grain Belt Express, like many other industry members, is relying on the availability of PTCs to complete the Project as cost-effectively as possible to deliver maximum cost-savings to energy consumers. Without the benefit of the PTCs, the completion of Project is in jeopardy and the savings to Missourians at risk.