Proactive engagement with all of these stakeholders can lead to stronger projects and better outcomes, increase transparency, and the reduction or elimination of associated risks that can often stall transmission projects before they can be constructed.

It’s thus critical that Congress pass permitting reform legislation that will add to America’s capacity to transmit clean electricity and speed up the approval of clean energy projects that are waiting to be built, while preserving communities’ ability to make their voices heard on the environmental and other impacts of proposed energy projects.

It is therefore the ORDER of this Court that Plaintiffs Petition in Eminent Domain is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court, pursuant to the requirements in Section 523.256 RSMo, orders Plaintiff to reimburse the owners for their reasonable attorney's fees
and costs incurred with respect to this condemnation proceeding. Defendants may file appropriate motions requesting the same.

monroe_co_gbe_findings.pdf
File Size:	3533 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

On direct, the appraiser for Plaintiff testified that he took into account the ingress/egress rights, in spite of omitting them from his report. The Court recognizes that it has the authority to consider the credibility of an appraiser's testimony at a condemnation hearing. Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. of Kansas City v. Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council, 316 S.W.3d 418,425 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010), as modified (June 1, 2010). This Court "is not required to take the appraisers' testimony at face value." Id. at 428. With that consideration, the Court gives more weight to the fact that the written appraisal report omits a significant portion of the easement rights sought in the Petition and thus did not include
compensation for the omitted rights. As to the appraiser's testimony to the contrary, the Court attributes bias to the witness who has already obtained significant compensation for his services and stands to gain significantly more in the course of this Project.

Each compliance monitoring report shall: (1) identify any known violations of Commission regulations that occurred during the applicable period, including a description of the nature of the violation and what steps were taken to rectify the situation; (2) describe all compliance measures and procedures FirstEnergy instituted or modified during the reporting period related to compliance with Commission regulations; and (3) describe all Commission-related compliance training that FirstEnergy administered during the reporting period, including the dates such training occurred, the topics covered, and the procedures used to confirm which personnel attended.

Over the course of several sets of data requests and three site visits, DAA requested various information related to FirstEnergy’s lobbying and governmental affairs expenses and accounting.  FirstEnergy responded to those requests in both written and oral form throughout 2019 and early 2020, and submitted an affidavit from a senior FirstEnergy executive, which stated that FirstEnergy’s responses to the data requests were “to the best of [his] knowledge and belief . . . complete and accurate.”  In March 2020, the DAA audit team previewed its preliminary audit findings for FirstEnergy.

On July 21, 2020, prior to the completion of the audit report but after DAA had previewed its preliminary audit findings, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio unsealed a criminal complaint charging the then-Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives and others with a racketeering conspiracy relating to the passage of Ohio House Bill 6.

While FirstEnergy provided DAA with certain information related to its lobbying and governmental affairs expenses and accounting during the Audit, it did not provide any information related to its efforts on Ohio House Bill 6 and associated payments or payments related to Generation Now, the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, or the Chairman of the Ohio PUC.

Each compliance monitoring report shall also include an affidavit executed by an officer of FirstEnergy stating that it is true and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge.

liar_settlement.pdf
File Size:	199 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) established a federal loan guarantee program for certain projects that employ innovative technologies. EPAct authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make loan guarantees available for those projects.  Grain Belt Express, LLC (Applicant), has applied for a loan guarantee pursuant to the DOE Renewable Energy Project and Efficient Energy Projects Solicitation (Solicitation Number: DE-SOL-0007154) under Title XVII, Innovative Energy Loan Guarantee Program, authorized by the EPAct. The primary goal of the program is to finance projects and facilities in the United States that employ innovative and renewable or efficient energy technologies that avoid, reduce, or sequester anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Potential impacts on resources include, but are not limited to, impacts (whether beneficial or adverse; short term or long term) on air quality and GHG emissions; soils and paleontological resources; water resources, including surface and groundwater and floodplains; vegetation, wildlife, and special-status species; land use and recreation; socioeconomics and environmental justice; public health and safety; cultural resources and Native American traditional values; transportation; visual resources; and noise.

LPO will hold six public scoping meetings for the project, four in-person and two virtual meetings, at the following dates and times (Central Time). Registration for the virtual public meetings may be completed at the following web links:


• Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m., virtual meeting on Zoom ( https://us06web.zoom.us/​webinar/​register/​WN_​NOQzgumNTpOAIL5UoLVIeA)
• Thursday, January 26, 2023, 5 p.m.- 6:30 p.m., virtual meeting on Zoom ( https://us06web.zoom.us/​webinar/​register/​WN_​D619NGe1TGqMH0fcHx5SSA)

• Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Dodge House Hotel and Convention Center, 2408 W Wyatt Earp Blvd., Dodge City, KS 67801

• Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Municipal Auditorium, 201 W Rollins St., Moberly, MO 65270

• Thursday, February 2, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m. Corinthians Hill Event Center, 464 NE 20 Ave., Great Bend, KS 67530
• Thursday, February 2, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Fairview Golf Course, 3302 Pacific St., St. Joseph, MO 64507

All meetings are open to the public and free to attend.

Now more than ever, we need strong environmental review and public engagement processes to avoid harming communities while effectively speeding up development of much-needed infrastructure to enable a rapid clean energy transition.

A recent study from MIT concludes that a significant hurdle in developing clean energy infrastructure projects is local opposition --and early community engagement can avoid delays or cancellations. To address this major slow down and to ensure that our new transmission is developed in an equitable manner, we must work with the very communities that our infrastructure is supposed to serve and not against them.

1. Public Participation: Local residents (their legislative representatives and public agencies) oppose projects in which they believe their worries are not adequately being attended to by the developer.
   
   

"The purpose of the pre-filing process is to facilitate maximum participation from all stakeholders to provide them with an opportunity to present their views and recommendations with respect to the environmental impacts of the facilities early in the planning stages of the proposed facilities."

...an applicant may demonstrate that it has met the statutory good faith efforts standard by complying with an Applicant Code of Conduct in its communications with affected landowners.

...the term “environmental justice community” includes disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution. The term also includes, but may not be limited to, minority populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples.

... whether the proposed rule constitutes good policy, such as, for example, whether it will be beneficial in determining whether to site electric transmission projects when the states have not done so, or whether the rule will tend to ensure almost nothing is ever sited.

State regulators are much better prepared to deal with that myriad of local concerns, including concerns over routing and costs, than FERC. Furthermore, state processes are far more convenient and user-friendly than processes at FERC, if for no other reason than geographic proximity. So, waiting one full year to allow a state to “go first” and make its decision makes sense for a lot of reasons. One obvious reason is that if the line is truly needed, the state regulators will in all likelihood approve it, and no FERC staff time and resources will need to be expended at all. The whole mantra that goes “the states are blocking needed transmission all over the country!” is simply a political and special-interest narrative. The steadily mounting increases over the past decade in transmission rate base nationally, with concomitant skyrocketing increases in transmission costs to consumers, blows up the narrative that states are systemically blocking needed transmission lines. Contrary to the narrative, states need more authority to scrutinize transmission projects for need and prudence of cost, not less, to protect consumers.

Otherwise, GBX will be placed in the position of having to decide whether to commit millions of dollars in security or cash pursuant to the executed TCA before it understands its total upgrade cost exposure associated with the Injection Rights.

Data shows the public, including communities hosting wind and solar projects, approve of renewables and want more of them.

Unfortunately, proposed wind and solar projects have faced an avalanche of local opposition in recent years...

Unfortunately, proposed wind and solar projects have faced an avalanche of local opposition in recent years, often based on misinformation or outright fallacies. Opposition groups, following a playbook organized by a fossil-funded think tank, spread fallacies about impacts to wildlife, property values, health, and more, sowing fear and anger.

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word "grassroots". The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a "true" or "natural" grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a "fake" or "artificial" appearance of support.

“Local community opposition is real and will likely continue to make siting and permitting a challenge,” but might be addressable, said University of Notre Dame Associate Professor of Sustainable Energy Policy Emily Grubert, who has worked with federal agencies on related issues.

To earn a community’s trust, development proposals “should explain why a project is needed, why the community’s resources are needed, and how the community can benefit,” Grubert said. They should also “assure the community its concerns have been heard and it will be protected,” she added.

DOE’s formal Community Benefits Agreements, which are used for new infrastructure development and stipulate the benefits a developer will deliver for the community, “could also have a powerful impact on streamlining siting and permitting,” Grubert said.

“No project should go ahead without a Community Benefit Agreement to assure real benefits for the host community,” agreed NRDC’s Greene. But in many places, “political polarization has turned reasonable project development questions into obstructive, misinformation campaigns,” Greene said. “Overcoming that will take a lot of work,” he added.

neighborhood associations, faith-based organizations, unions, environmental groups and others representing the interests of a community that will be impacted by development(s).

A CBA is an agreement signed by community benefit groups and a developer, identifying the community benefits a developer agrees to deliver, in return for community support of the project.

1.  Research development proposals in their region to identify any that have the potential to offer benefits to the residents they will be operating near;
2.  Organize a broad-based coalition of community interests and recruit stakeholder organizations;
3.  Hold public meetings and maximize turnout with help from local leaders; and
4.  Engage the developer with sustainable community objectives, via open dialogue as well as transparency.

“People, especially in smaller communities, can get very passionate, and even exchange death threats, which shows how important and undervalued trust is,” Grubert agreed.

[community] support would raise the probability of state or local government approvals for zoning variances, state permits, and other regulatory approvals.

This summer, the Midwest faced a heightened risk of blackouts due to a supply shortfall that could’ve been filled if only a fraction of the projects stuck in limbo had been online.   Luckily, we made it through the summer without major incident, but no one should be complacent—new supply is urgently needed. Fossil fuel dead-enders complain that we’re shutting down dirty power plants too quickly. In reality, the clean energy to replace them is ready and waiting, stuck in utility bureaucracy.