“We will review the order in detail to determine next steps for the project,” adds Skelly. “We are currently assessing all existing authorities available to move the Grain Belt Express project forward, including but not limited to legal appeals.”

Clean Line executives said Wednesday that they were weighing their options for the Grain Belt Express power line, though they acknowledged that the “legal and regulatory conundrum” could add many months or years to the project if they decide to keep trying.

"So, the Grain Belt Project will deliver enough power for over a million homes, and will do so at costs that are extremely competitive with wind energy that is clean and renewable.”

“We absolutely want to do the project,” said Mark Lawlor, development director for Grain Belt Express. But he added: “Unfortunately, the message that we’re getting from Missouri is that investments of these kind might be better spent in other places.”

Lawlor said the four commissioners’ belief that the project was worthwhile but not approvable under state law “makes for an interesting argument” if Clean Line decides to instead seek federal permission to proceed.

Clean Line director of development Mark Lawlor said another hearing would be sought, but that the company also was exploring legal options.

He added that Clean Line would push ahead with the project, despite the setback in Missouri.

“This is a Missouri problem, it’s not just a Grain Belt problem. This says any transmission line looking to build in Missouri cannot set foot on the commission’s doorstep until there’s permission from counties for a road permit,” said Lawlor.

“It’s too important to our country, and to our energy future, to just walk away,” said Lawlor. “This project is just as valuable today as when we started and probably more so.”

The project’s developers and other supporters harshly criticized Wednesday’s PSC ruling.

“It’s going to apply to future infrastructure projects — not just ours, but anyone who wants to come to Missouri and build transmission lines or pipelines, they’re gonna pay attention to this,” said Mark Lawlor, vice president at Clean Line. “It sends a bad signal to the marketplace.”

He argued that Grain Belt Express and projects of statewide significance should be decided by the PSC.

“It’s certainly not what the legislature intended,” Lawlor said. “It’s certainly not how the commission has worked in its 113-year history, but that’s somehow where we found ourselves today.”

Lawlor said Clean Line would need time to determine its next course of action.

A lawyer representing clean-energy interests said that another appeal is a near-certainty. Mark Lawlor, Clean Line’s vice president for development, wasn’t quite as definite.

“I think it’s sort of placed the burden on Clean Line to go ask the courts to sort this out,” he said. “Because of this legal quagmire, the project can’t move forward. It’s a broken system. It’s a problem for Missouri.”

Lawlor said there are a few options that he and his staff are evaluating. One is to essentially take the case back to the state appeals court – the same body that took the position that in part has led to this “quagmire,” as Lawlor called it.

There is actually a chance that the same court that ruled against Clean Line’s interests could see things differently, according to Renew Missouri’s James Owen.

“There are aspects of this that haven’t been presented before,” he said. “We can point out things that haven’t been thought about.”

The legislature is another avenue, according to Lawlor. He suggested they might want to study the pertinent law and ask themselves, “Is this what we meant to do here? Is this what we want, to have county commissions decide which infrastructure moves forward in the state?

“It would be in legislature’s interests to sort this out.”

There is also a federal avenue through which Lawlor said private developers can partner with the Department of Energy to develop infrastructure.

But Lawlor claims that the issue goes beyond Clean Line’s desire to build a high-voltage transmission line across Missouri. The new administration of Gov. Eric Greitens “has made a point of saying, ‘Missouri is open for business, we want investment in our state.’

“This decision runs counter to that.” As it now stands, he predicted that, “Other investors are going to look at Missouri and this will enter into their decision as to whether this is a good place to invest money.”

“It’s impossible if you’re building a multi-state transmission line to get agreements from all 30 counties that you might cross,” said Michael Skelly, the president of Houston-based Clean Line, which is planning about $9 billion of power lines across the Great Plains, Midwest and the Southwest. 

Clean Line has at least three options it is considering, according to Skelly. It can appeal the decision, seek a change of state law or bypass the state by asking the U.S. Energy Department to approve it.

“If none of those three work, we’re toast,” Skelly said in an interview Wednesday.

Clean Line’s other options, said spokesperson Sarah Bray, include asking the PSC for a rehearing, working with the state’s legislature to revise pertinent laws or seeking U.S. Energy Department approval under Section 1222 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The latter would authorize the department to take part in “designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining or owning” new transmission.

“The project is certainly not dead,” Bray said.

Bray told RTO Insider that Clean Line was “encouraged by the PSC’s determination that the project is in the public interest and will benefit the State of Missouri.”

The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests.

“All the ideas come down to a temporary underwriting of the project so you can get these things over the top, or some sort of tax mechanism.”

Plains & Eastern is “pretty much fully developed at this point”, Skelly says. “We’re now in the commercialisation phase, matching chippers – that is wind developers – with utilities in the southeast.”

“It’s still a bit early to tell exactly what the administration will do to stimulate more infrastructure investment,” Skelly says. “But in terms of the things they’re talking about, with private-sector-led projects, it forms a pretty nice Venn diagram with transmission.”

Our Mission

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the association that represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide electricity for 220 million Americans, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a whole, the electric power industry supports more than 7 million jobs in communities across the United States. In addition to our U.S. members, EEI has more than 60 international electric companies as International Members, and hundreds of industry suppliers and related organizations as Associate Members.
 
Organized in 1933, EEI provides public policy leadership, strategic business intelligence, and essential conferences and forums.

Our Vision
EEI will be the best trade association.

We will be the best because we are committed to knowing our members and their needs. We will provide leadership and deliver services that consistently meet or exceed their expectations.

We will be the best because we will attract and retain employees who have the ambition to serve and will empower them to work effectively as individuals and in teams.

Above all, we will be the best trade association because, in the tradition of Thomas Edison, we will make a significant and positive contribution to the long-term success of the electric power industry in its vital mission to provide electricity to foster economic progress and improve the quality of life.

When third-party organizations or public service commission staffs have attempted to protect ratepayers from funding political organizations in recent years, their attempts have met with fierce resistance from the utility companies.

This report explores how regulated utility companies are including their Edison Electric Institute (EEI) annual payments, along with payments to other trade associations, in their operating expenses. The widespread practice forces ratepayers to pay for political and public relations activities with which they may not agree, and from which they do not benefit. It also has the effect of ratepayers subsidizing the political activities of EEI and other trade associations. Utility commissions have a responsibility to protect ratepayers from paying for industry groups and their political work along with public relations activities. But utilities have become adroit at using EEI, and other organizations, to effectively and quietly influence policy while sheltering their shareholders from the bulk of the associated costs. Almost no other political organizations have the luxury of subsidization enjoyed by EEI and other representatives of the regulated utility industry.

The evidence in this report reveals that EEI is primarily and inherently a political organization, and that much of its work targets policymakers throughout all levels of government to build influence, specifically for their member companies but also for the industry at large. While many states have their established practices of how to code trade association dues, they should revisit outdated guidelines due to the nature of EEI’s modern activities to ensure that they are adequately protecting ratepayers. Throughout the past three decades, some regulators and consumer advocates have acted to protect ratepayers, but scrutiny has waned dramatically. Precedent exists for public officials to act in every state to investigate whether or not EEI’s inherently political work ought to be funded by ratepayers.

For years the citizens of Maryland have been waiting to find out whether the Public Service Commission really cares about justice and protecting the public. We have our answer. The answer is NO!

The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) in their recent Order has taken a position in support of Potomac Edison (PE) on the major issue, against ratepayers’ interests. The Commissioners’ decision is in conflict with both their own Judge’s determination and the West Virginia Public Service Commissioners on the same issue.

The most important decision on this matter was whether or not to require PE to read meters monthly. The PSC Commissioners, as usual, supported the utility company when they overturned the Order issued by the Judge who heard the case.

This should have been expected because in every meeting and mediation, PE’s attorney would declare that PE will not do monthly reads! Apparently lawyers and attorneys trump justice every time! We now know our PSC stands for money in politicians’ and big businesses’ pockets without concern for the problems and concerns of the people or justice at all.

As a brief history, in May 2012, as President of Sugarloaf Conservancy (Doug) filed a formal complaint with the PSC asking them to “establish a formal case to investigate this matter” in response to members’ complaints about PE meter reading practices.  These practices included the failure of the company to read meters bimonthly as required, using inaccurate estimations, which caused substantial over and under billings. Both situations have negative ramifications causing harm to those who can least afford to pay overcharges or large catch-up bills.

A case was finally opened in April 2013. After years of delay the Judge in May 2016 ruled against PE. In part of his Order he stated, “I find that PE's meter reading tariff must be modified to require an actual reading on a monthly schedule...” (as is the case with all other electric utilities in Maryland).  PE appealed the Judge’s Order. A year passed without any decision by the Commissioners. On May 16th, in a letter sent to the PSC, we insisted they fulfill their obligation. Finally on June 19th, the PSC issued an Order.

The Order upholds most of the findings of the Judge’s ruling, including that PE must submit a monthly report for 24 months; pay a minor penalty of $25,000; offer a payment plan to those customers who receive a substantially low estimate bill, followed by a substantial catch up bill the following month; modify their bill to clearly show when an estimate occurs and the reason for not reading the meter.  The reversal of the Judge’s Order to require PE to read meters monthly is in stark contrast to a similar case in West Virginia. West Virginia took less than a month to open a case after the issue was raised whereas the Maryland PSC waited a year after we asked for an investigation; Maryland dragged out the case for four years before the Commissioners issued a final Order; West Virginia issued a comprehensive ruling against PE including the requirement that they read meters on a monthly basis after only a year.  Maryland PSC Order required PE address only 4 areas of concern whereas in West Virginia their PSC hit PE on twelve major requirements.

There is great concern that this slap on the wrist will embolden PE to resume their past business practices, which have caused severe harm to so many.  Unfortunately the losers will be the senior citizens on a fixed income and the poor who can least afford to either pay for electricity they have not consumed or be hit with a sizable catch-up bill.  The Commissioners, through this Order, confirmed their past history of supporting utility companies at the expense of ratepayers in Maryland. This pattern should be disturbing to everyone and unfortunately will not likely change.

Slane acknowledged, though, he didn’t know about the legal dispute between Minnesota and North Dakota.

Other high-profile projects listed from around the country are entangled in legal and political problems, too.

A proposed high-power transmission line that would deliver wind energy from Oklahoma to several southeastern states is under fire. The federal government approved the line in 2016 despite objections from landowners and the Arkansas Congressional delegation.

Since then, several landowners have sued to stop the line and several members of Congress introduced legislation that would require projects to receive state approval. Officials representing the company believe the line will be approved.

And private investors are not going to build the projects without a return on investment, which might come from tolls for a new road or higher utility rates for an energy project, for example.

Greg DiLoreto with the American Society of Civil Engineers says that difference is important.

“Financing infrastructure is not the funding of infrastructure,” he said. “Financing is access to capital to do that funding, but at the end of the day you have to have cold, hard cash to build these projects that need building…”

The PSC said the two projects are expected to yield more than $1.8 billion of in-state spending. The agency says the projects are estimated to create nearly 9,700 new direct and indirect jobs and contribute $74 million in state tax revenues over 20 years.

The PSC's decision is contingent on approval by the federal government of the developers' site assessment plans, as well as construction and operations plans.

The plan includes a focus on developing port facilities in the Baltimore area and Ocean City. It calls for developers to invest at least $76 million in a steel fabrication plant in Maryland and at least $39.6 million for upgrades at Baltimore County's Tradepoint Atlantic shipyard, formerly Sparrows Point.

Commissioner Michael Richard said the wind farms will "enables us to meet our clean, renewable energy goals using energy generated within the state while conditioning our approval on holding project developers to their promises of creating jobs and spurring economic growth."

Congress should create legislative authority for siting major electricity transmission lines that follows the authority it has already granted to siting major gas lines.