... some lawmakers in Missouri disagree. They’ve repeatedly played political games and tried to make up new laws to target this specific project. 

Their efforts are anti-progress, anti-business, and have failed every time. They’ve failed because the 39 communities affected by the project know a good deal when they see one.

The RD [Recommended Decision] confuses federal and state roles by attempting to overturn PJM’s transmission planning role as approved by FERC. It is undisputed that states retain jurisdiction over transmission siting and construction issues. However, FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate transmission planning and has approved PJM’s role as outlined in its tariff. FERC held in Order 1000 that the regional planning requirements, including transmission planning to address market efficiency considerations, were being adopted pursuant to FERC’s rate jurisdiction under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act. The Federal Power Act preempts state jurisdiction over the wholesale rates of electricity in interstate commerce.

to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic

They have purchased the Island of Manhattes from the savages for the value of 60 Guilders.

Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.

Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan...

Increased Local Delivery to Kansas and Missouri
As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers. For many years before lnvenergy Transmission acquired the project, local stakeholders called for more of Grain Belt's power to be delivered locally. This plan makes sense as demand for clean energy has grown in Kansas and Missouri. For the first time, this would open the option for Kansans to benefit from energy produced in-state, and in Missouri, it would expand access beyond the 39 communities across the state that are already contracted to receive service from the line.
Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt's 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers, who would see up to $7 billion in energy cost savings over 20 years. This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri, which would double the overall economic investment in Missouri to approximately $1 billion.

Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan, which would also allow for project construction to proceed prior to approval in Illinois. In the meantime, as the proposed changes do not affect the approved route, project development activities are proceeding based on existing regulatory approvals.

In Kansas and Missouri, Grain Belt has moved from monopole to steel lattice structures, resulting in more compensation for landowners per structure.

Grain Belt Express, along with its land partner, Contract Land Staff ("CLS"), is in active dialogue with landowners along the route as our team continues to sign voluntary easements in Kansas and Missouri. Thank you to those who have signed agreements to date. We value open conversations with landowners and landowners' attorneys to provide timely, accurate, and useful information that will allow you to make the best decisions regarding your land.

Our goal is to secure all easements voluntarily and to make informed facility design decisions
related to your property. That is possible only with open communication. If we have attempted to contact you and we have not yet reached you or your legal representative, please contact your CLS representative at your earliest convenience.

Positive Energy: Pass it Along
Finally, 2020 has brought some significant challenges to the world. We believe that Positive Energy is needed now more than ever. Grain Belt will bring affordable power for families and businesses, jobs for workers, and local investment in school districts, and public services - that's positive energy. With everything going on in 2020, we want to pass along positive energy to you, and hope you do the same. These days we all need it.

In this scenario, a zero-carbon electricity system would drive wholesale power costs of about $90 per megawatt-hour on average. That’s roughly three times higher than typical average prices today, but still much less than the estimated $135 per megawatt-hour for reaching zero-carbon in a system limited to state-by-state action alone. 

FERC is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act a report detailing how it will establish and operate the Office of Public Participation required under section 319 of the Federal Power Act, beginning in fiscal year 2022. As part of the report, FERC shall provide an organizational structure and budget for the office sufficient to carry out its statutory obligations. The report shall assume that funding for the Office of Public Participation will be derived through annual charges and filing fees as authorized by the Federal Power Act and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.

The intent of an “Explanatory Statement,” sometimes called “Report Language” is to emphasize, or clarify “Legislative Language.” All Divisions shall comply with the directives, reporting requirements, instructions and allocations within the specified time frames unless specifically addressed to the contrary in their particular Division “Explanatory Statement.” The Executive Branch of the Government could choose to ignore Directives. Rarely do Government Agencies fail to comply as they may face substantial repercussions.

(a)
(1) There shall be an office in the Commission to be known as the Office of Public Participation (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Office”).
(2)
(A) The Office shall be administered by a Director. The Director shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission. The Director may be removed during his term of office by the Chairman, with the approval of the Commission, only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
(B) The term of office of the Director shall be 4 years. The Director shall be responsible for the discharge of the functions and duties of the Office. He shall be appointed and compensated at a rate not in excess of the maximum rate prescribed for GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5.
(3) The Director may appoint, and assign the duties of, employees of such Office, and with the concurrence of the Commission he may fix the compensation of such employees and procure temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as is authorized under section 3109 of title 5.
(b)
(1) The Director shall coordinate assistance to the public with respect to authorities exercised by the Commission. The Director shall also coordinate assistance available to persons intervening or participating or proposing to intervene or participate in proceedings before the Commission.
(2) The Commission may, under rules promulgated by it, provide compensation for reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of intervening or participating in any proceeding before the Commission to any person whose intervention or participation substantially contributed to the approval, in whole or in part, of a position advocated by such person. Such compensation may be paid only if the Commission has determined that--
(A) the proceeding is significant, and
(B) such person’s intervention or participation in such proceeding without receipt of compensation constitutes a significant financial hardship to him.
(3) Nothing in this subsection affects or restricts any rights of any intervenor or participant under any other applicable law or rule of law.
(4) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to be used by the Office for purposes of compensation of persons under the provisions of this subsection not to exceed $500,000 for the fiscal year 1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 1979, not to exceed $2,200,000 for the fiscal year 1980, and not to exceed $2,400,000 for the fiscal year 1981.

In the simulation that PJM performed in 2015, the PROMOD model simulated a congestion cost of $110 million occurring on the AP South Reactive Interface in 2019. Tr. at 2936. According to the simulation, the AP South Reactive Interface had the highest congestion cost simulated in 2019 when compared to the Safe Harbor-Graceton, Conastone-Peach Bottom, and AEP-DOM constraints. Id. In reality, Congestion on the AP South Reactive Interface cost approximately $14.5 million in 2019, substantially lower than predicted by PJM’s forward-looking models. Tr. at 2921. This indicates the erroneous assumptions that were used to calculate the benefit-cost ratio that PJM relied upon when selecting the IEC Project for approval.

Transource is a foreign company asserting that economic congestion creates artificially low prices in the unconstrained region resulting in rates that are discriminatory and unfair for customers in the constrained region. I reject this premise as evidence to find “need” pursuant to the meaning of the term in 52 Pa. Code Section 57.76(a)(1). Economic congestion is not a form of rate discrimination that implicates the Commission’s authority, but may be an appropriate market-based response to the wholesale power market. Any difference in rates above versus below the point of congestion or constraint can represent reasonable differences in the cost to serve customers in the constrained region as opposed to those in the unconstrained region. I do not find rates in a constrained area necessarily per se discriminatory.

No one from Maryland or Washington D.C. testified at any public input hearing to complain about discriminatory rates in favor of the project. Some individuals from Maryland spoke against the project at public input hearings. For example, Patty Hankins of 229 St. Mary’s Road, Plyesville, Maryland testified against the project as there was insufficient cost updates from 2015 data to warrant the project. She feared projected costs kept escalating and she argued the existing Otter Creek to Conastone 230 kV line rebuilt by PPL could carry two 230 kV circuits but was currently carrying one as of June 1, 2018.  Ms. Hankins testified that the cost to add 230 kV lines to PPL’s existing transmission towers would cost less than the IEC project.

I heard no complaints from any individuals that rates were too high or prices discriminatory in Washington D.C. or in Maryland compared to Pennsylvania, or that they did not have reliable electric service in those areas. Only Transource’s witnesses testified that there was price discrimination. PJM did not identify or consider non-transmission alternatives to alleviate the projected congestion in the AP Interface.

PJM’s forward-looking model projects that if the IEC Project is constructed, the PJM region would only experience net benefits of $32.5 million over a period of 15 years and Pennsylvania, in particular, would experience a net increase of $400 million in wholesale power prices over that same period of time. This result would be produced by constructing a transmission project that is guaranteed to cost at minimum $476 million and will impact the natural, historic, scenic, and aesthetic lands of Franklin and York Counties, Pennsylvania, and the property rights/market values of those Counties’ landowners. Accordingly, while there may be some forecasted price differences in PJM’s forward-looking models, any reduction in “price discrimination” for regions below the constraints is outweighed by the anticipated harm caused to Pennsylvania by the IEC Project.

Route C selected as the Proposed Route for the West Portion of the IEC Project does not have less of an overall impact to the environment than would be utilizing at least in part the existing parallel route owned by West Penn Power already in existence. A separate bid by West Penn Power dubbed project 18h, was rejected by PJM during the competitive bidding process. However, from an environmental impact view, using a line and its ROW already in existence would have less environmental impact on Falling Spring, cross country course, organic farmland, vegetation, woodlands and wildlife along the West Portion of the IEC Project. Thus, I cannot find “minimum adverse environmental impact” as required by Section 57.76(a)(4). There is no evidence Transource and West Penn Power ever negotiated or agreed to any arrangement whereby West Penn Power’s existing parallel transmission system could be upgraded or utilized for an alternative route. I am persuaded by the business representatives, Superintendent, Quincy Township Supervisors, and landowners to find the environmental impact in Franklin County is not minimalized by the Western route.