“My fear of that is the precedent it would set within the state of Missouri for any future developments,” Klusmeyer said.
Any utility system in the state, whether it’s water, sewer, electric or telecommunications, has the power of eminent domain, Klusmeyer said. The bill could be construed to limit the use of eminent domain for “pretty much any utility in the state,” he said, even though it’s limited to “above-ground merchant lines.”
“That can trickle down into just about any type of utility expansion that’s done, whether it’s through Missouri American, or maybe even Ameren or Associated (Electric Cooperative),” he said. “That’s my fear of what it’s going to do to any type of infrastructure improvement or expansion in the state.”

Private entities shall not have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purposes of constructing above-ground merchant lines. For the purposes of this subsection, "merchant line" means a high-voltage direct current electric  transmission line which does not provide for the erection of electric substations at intervals of less than fifty miles, which substations are necessary to accommodate both the purchase and sale to persons located in this state of electricity generated or transmitted by the private entity.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankford, would prohibit taking easements by eminent domain to make way for the Grain Belt Express, a planned $2.3 billion transmission line, which Chicago-based Invenergy bought last year. The line would carry electricity from the Iron Star wind farm in southwestern Kansas, across Missouri and Indiana, and into Illinois. The line would cross eight north Missouri counties, including Monroe and Ralls, which are represented by Hansen.

Targeted at the Grain Belt Express, the bill would also apply to similar projects. It bans all private entities from using eminent domain to acquire easements to build “above-ground merchant lines” if less than 12 percent of the power will be consumed by Missouri customers.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to regulate transmission, not the state legislature, said Mark Petty director of Kirkwood Electric. Every transmission project can be difficult for landowners to grapple with, which is why they are considered by a commission rather than elected officials who haven’t been reviewing all the facts, he said.

“It’s easy for an entity that objects to want to do an end run, even after all the other facts have been presented and laws been interpreted and reviewed,” he said.

Since the electricity is still coming to customers through public utilities, customers will have the same low rates and price stability, Petty said. The wind electricity from the Grain Belt Express is also cheaper than the alternatives, and Kirkwood could save up to a third of what it currently pays for electricity, Petty said.

Cities served by the public energy pool will also see savings, but not as large as Kirkwood. Each city would save about 3-4 percent, said John Grotzinger, vice president of engineering operations and power supply at the Missouri Public Utility Alliance. Those savings would be passed on to ratepayers, he said.

Q 1) Should the Commission retain the risks and challenges framework for evaluating incentive applications?
Q 2) Is providing incentives to address risks and challenges an appropriate proxy for the expected benefits brought by transmission and identified in section 219 (i.e., ensuring reliability or reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion)? If risks and challenges are not a useful proxy for benefits, is it an appropriate approach for other reasons?
Q 3) The Commission currently considers risks both in calculating a public utility’s base ROE and in assessing the availability and level of any ROE adder for risks and challenges. Is this approach still appropriate? If so, which risks are relevant to each inquiry, and, if they differ, how should the Commission distinguish between risks and challenges examined in each inquiry?

Q 4) Would directly examining a transmission project’s expected benefits improve the Commission’s transmission incentives policy, consistent with the goals of section 219? Are there drawbacks to this approach, particularly relative to the current risks and challenges framework? Q 5) If the Commission adopts a benefits approach, should it lay out general principles and/or bright line criteria for evaluating the potential benefits of a proposed transmission project? If so, how should the Commission establish the principles or criteria?
Q 6) How would a direct evaluation of expected benefits, instead of using risks and challenges as a proxy, impact certainty for project developers?
Q 7) Should transmission projects with a demonstrated likelihood of benefits be awarded incentives automatically? How could the Commission administer such an approach?

Q 8) If the Commission grants incentives based on expected benefits, should the level of the incentive vary based on the level of the expected benefits relative to transmission project costs? If so, how should the Commission determine how to vary incentives based on the size of benefits?

Q 9) Should incentives be conditioned upon meeting benefit-to-cost benchmarks, such as a benefit-cost ratio? If so, what benefit- to-cost ratios should be used?

Q 10) Should incentives be based only on benefit-to-cost estimates or should the Commission condition the incentives on evidence that that those benefit-to-cost estimates were realized?

Q 11) If an incentive is conditioned upon a transmission developer meeting benefit-to-cost benchmarks, what types of benefits and costs should a transmission developer include, and the Commission consider to support requests for such incentives? Should there be measurement and verification, and if so, over what time period? If expected benefits do not accrue, should the incentive be revoked?

Q 12) How, if at all, would examining transmission projects’ characteristics in evaluations of transmission incentives applications improve the Commission’s transmission incentives policy and achieve the goals of section 219? Are there drawbacks to this approach, particularly relative to the current risks and challenges framework? Would this approach result in different outcomes, as compared to the current risks and challenges approach for granting incentives?
Q 13) If the Commission adopts an approach based on project characteristics, should it lay out general principles and/or bright line criteria for identifying or evaluating those characteristics?
Q 14) If so, how should applicable criteria be established, and, in cases where more than one criterion applies, how should they be evaluated in combination?
Q 15) How would an approach based on project characteristics impact certainty for project developers, particularly relative to the current risks and challenges framework?
Q 16) Should transmission projects with certain characteristics be awarded incentives automatically? How could the Commission administer such an approach?

Private entities shall not have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purposes of constructing above-ground merchant lines. For the purposes of this subsection, "merchant line" means a high-voltage direct current electric  transmission line which does not provide for the erection of electric substations at intervals of less than fifty miles, which substations are necessary to accommodate both the purchase and sale to persons located in this state of electricity generated or transmitted by the private entity.

Marilyn O’Bannon of Monroe County says she will lose farmland and room to till:

“When do you give the right to somebody to take their business across your business. I’m going, as a landowner, to give up a lot of income. I’m not talking a few dollars here, a lot of income to allow something to come across my property that I will get no value from.”

The Public Service Commission ruled that the landowners would have to be compensated for use of the land and caps the amount of agricultural land used for each tower.

But the Public Service Commission on this past March voted unanimously to give Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC a “certificate of need and necessity.” Former Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon argued on behalf of the company.

The proposed line promises to deliver 3,500 megawatts of renewable energy from western Kansas to southeastern Missouri and into Illinois, and Indiana where it would connect to a grid that supplies energy to heavily populated northeastern states. 

Peggy Whipple, who argued on behalf of Clean Line before the Missouri Supreme Court and the PSC, says the commission decision legally deems the company to be a public utility, answerable to local regulators.
“We have legal control over this company that will develop this line for everything that we could hope to have it for, other than rates only.”  Rates would come from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and must be just and reasonable, she says.”

Small cities and their utilities spoke against the bill, saying they need the new power lines. Carroll County Commissioner Bill Boelsen:
“My previous job before I took on this job was high-voltage electricity. I traveled the entire United States working on substation transformers.  This country’s infrastructure is crap anymore. It’s 70, 80 years old at least.”

Stephen Franke, a businessman from Hannibal says they’ve been promised energy a third cheaper than the open market.
“Two cents a kilowatt-hour an entire third cheaper for a community with 20 percent poverty rate. That’s substantial. In addition, a 25-year contract, we’re locked in which means we can do capital planning, we can do reserve planning. We’re not exposed to the risk of an open and volatile market.”

The Missouri converter station will have bi-directional functionality, allowing Missouri utilities an additional means to earn revenue from off-system sales of up to 500 MW of excess power into the PJM energy markets.

The HVDC technology of the Project is the most cost-effective and efficient way to move large amounts of electric power over long distances and can transfer significantly more power with lower line losses over longer distances than comparable AV lines.

The Project is a participant-funded, “shipper pays” transmission line. Grain Belt would recover its capital costs by entering into voluntary, market-driven contracts with entities that want to become transmission customers of the Project.

Under FERC requirements, Grain Belt must broadly solicit interest in the Project, the rates negotiated must be just and reasonable and without undue discrimination or preference, and the service must not impair regional reliability and operational efficiency.
FERC has specifically found Grain Belt’s process to select customers and allocate capacity to be “not unduly discriminatory”.

The easement agreement limits the landowner’s legal rights and use of the easement property, including prohibiting any landowner activity that would interfere with Grain Belt’s use of the easement.

In 2021, MoPEP’s contract with Illinois Power Marketing Company providing 100 MW of coal energy and capacity to MoPEP will expire. MJMEUC’s agreements with Grain Belt and Iron Star would help MoPEP to replace the energy from Illinois Power Marketing Company with more affordable renewable energy.

The annual cost savings to MJMEUC member cities that participate in the Project will be dollar for dollar and will likely be passed through to their residential and industrial customers in the form of rate relief or invested in deferred maintenance to their electrical distribution systems.

Grain Belt has a transmission service agreement with an Illinois load-serving entity called Realgy, which has agreed to buy 25 MW of transmission service for delivery to Missouri and 25 MW to PJM.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has established aggressive and significant renewable energy goals, including: (1) to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, and (2) by 2025, to be supplied by 50 percent renewable energy. Additionally, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has set a science-based target to reduce emissions in its operations by 18 percent by 2025 through the deployment of energy efficiency and consumption of renewable energy.

Grain Belt currently has no employees.

Grain Belt has cash on hand, but not enough to complete either the development phase or construction of the Project.

Invenergy is not obligated to close on the Purchase Agreement unless (1) this Commission has approved the transaction proposed in the Purchase Agreement and has granted Grain Belt a certificate of convenience and necessity for the Project, and (2) the Kansas Corporation Commission has granted at least a 5 year extension of its certificate to Grain Belt and approved the change in ownership in the Purchase Agreement.

An interregional transmission line allows for low cost energy to be imported from a region with an excess of generation resources to a region with higher demand. The Grain Belt Project provides this benefit by moving wind power from Kansas (where there is an abundance of wind) into Missouri, MISO, and PJM, which will increase the supply of low- cost power in those markets.

Power prices in PJM are generally $10.00/MWh higher than prices that would be paid for the 500 MW of energy sold over the Project into the MISO market in Missouri. There is a very strong corporate demand for renewable energy in PJM, which contributes to Grain Belt being able to charge higher prices for that energy in PJM.

The wind industry will not need the federal production tax credit after 2023 because of continuing technology improvements.

The generation of electricity from wind energy results in no emissions, in contrast to traditional fossil fuel-fired generation. Grain Belt’s Project will provide an additional option for utilities to reduce their emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide), hazardous air pollutants (e.g., mercury), and carbon dioxide by purchasing cleaner renewable power for delivery on the transmission line in lieu of using existing or constructing new fossil fuel-fired generation assets.

The renewable energy delivered by the Project will reduce emissions in the Eastern Interconnection by displacing thermal generation, which emits sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide, and will decrease water usage, all to the benefit Missouri’s environmental and public health.

The Project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.

Approximately $14.97 million in easement payments will be made in the first year of Project operation.

Grain Belt developed the Missouri Landowner Protocol as part of its approach to right-of-way acquisition for the Project.

Grain Belt’s compensation package is superior to that of most utility companies.

If Grain Belt obtains an easement from a landowner, the property will still belong to the landowner and can be utilized for activities such as farming, recreation, and other activities that do not interfere with the operation of the transmission line. After construction of the facilities, the landowner will retain the ability to continue agricultural production on the entirety of the easement area except for the relatively small footprint of the structures, which typically occupy less than 1% of the total easement area.

If Grain Belt and a landowner have reached agreement on the form of easement but are unable to reach agreement on the appropriate compensation, then at the landowner’s request, Grain Belt will submit the issue of landowner compensation to binding arbitration under Missouri law. The option of binding arbitration typically costs less, has more simplified procedures, and results in a final decision more quickly than circuit court litigation.

Out of the 206 miles that the Project will traverse in Missouri, no more than nine acres of land would be taken out of agricultural production as a result of the structures installed for the Project in cultivated lands.

Grain Belt has created the Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocol, which establishes standards and policies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any negative agricultural impacts that may result due to transmission line and converter facilities construction and operation.

Grain Belt witness Richard J. Roddewig testified credibly that based on published research and Mr. Roddewig’s own research, transmission lines do not have a significant adverse impact on farmland prices and values.

The scientific weight of evidence does not support the conclusion that electric and magnetic fields cause any long-term adverse health effects, and the levels of electric and magnetic fields associated with the Project do not pose any known risk to human health.

Missouri courts have stated that for a company to qualify as a public utility, the company must be devoted to a public use for the general public. The evidence showed that when the Project is constructed and begins operation, it will transmit energy from wind farms in Kansas to wholesale customers in Missouri. In the case of MJMEUC, those customers are Missouri cities and towns that serve as electric providers to approximately 347,000 Missouri citizens. The hallmark of a public utility is the offering of utility service to the public without discrimination. Grain Belt will offer indiscriminate transmission service through an open access transmission tariff that will be filed and subject to the jurisdiction of FERC. While the Commission only has authority over facilities that are devoted to public use, an entity that constructs and operates a transmission line bringing electrical energy from electrical power generators to public utilities that serve consumers is a necessary and important link in the distribution of electricity and qualifies as a public utility. The Commission concludes that Grain Belt’s Project will serve the public use, and Grain Belt qualifies as a public utility.

Transmission projects can promote economic efficiency by reducing congestion, which allows efficient dispatch of resources, facilitating the interconnection of additional generation, and facilitating the transmission of additional generation to load centers. The Commission could tailor incentives to promote transmission projects that accomplish either of these two outcomes.

Are there barriers to non-public utilities’ ownership of transmission facilities? Should the Commission consider granting incentives to promote joint ownership arrangements with non-public utilities and, if so, how?

Of the 1163 affected land tracts, GBE has made 582 written easement offers to Kansas
landowners but only secured signatures from 129. Because of the regulatory uncertainty
in other states, GBE stopped pursuing easement agreements in 2015 and eventually
released 122 of the signed agreements rather than pay the final balance due on the
easement agreements.

As noted earlier in my testimony, GBE has acquired easements from only seven of the
affected tracts of land. At one time it had 129 signed agreements but stopped actively
pursuing easements in 2015 and eventually released 122 of the easements.

What impact has the delay in acquiring easements had on the affected Kansas
landowners?

Because of the approved routing, I assume the landowners are aware the transmission line
will cross their property. But they have no indication of when or if it will occur, and they
have not been compensated for the easement across their property.

Would you expect the approved route to affect land values of the landowners?

In my opinion, the impact on land values is unknown. However, I believe knowledge of
the pending transmission line easement would need to be revealed in any land sales
transactions, which may affect a potential buyer's decision to purchase.

Has GBE kept in contact with the landowners to keep them apprised of it plans regarding the GBE Project?

As per the conditions in the 13-803 Docket, GBE is required to file quarterly updates with the Commission on it progress. However, all of those updates are filed confidentially with Staff and not available to the public or interveners in the 13-803 Docket. In the past, GBE has sent newsletters to those that have requested to be on a list to receive updates.  However, GBE...  *** Whoopsie!  Confidential Information  ***

The only benefit that can be attributed to the landowners affected by the approved route
of the GBE Project would be the certainty of the line's impact on their property and
compensation for the line easements. In this case, certainty can be provided by the sunset
provision dismissing the approved route, or by GBE or its successor completing the purchase of the necessary easements through Kansas.

If the Commission approves the acquisition and agrees to extend the sunset provision in the 13-803 Docket, I recommend the Commission require Invenergy to make
preliminary payments or acquire the easements necessary to construct the Kansas portion of the GBE project regardless of its success in resolving its regulatory issues in the other affected states.

Invenergy shall make preliminary easement payments to all Kansas landowners affected
by the line siting within 12 months of a decision to extend the line siting sunset provision found in Docket 13-GBEE-803-MIS (13-803). If the sunset extension is not approved and Invenergy requests approval of a new line siting route, Staff recommends the Commission require Invenergy to make preliminary easement payments within 12 months of gaining approval for a new line siting.

“Invenergy is grateful for the thoughtful and thorough consideration given to the Grain Belt Express transmission project by the Missouri Public Service Commission and we are pleased with the Order granting Grain Belt Express a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity,” Conley said Thursday.

Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley praised the PSC’s action and said Invenergy put the project on solid financial ground.

“The order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for Missouri,” Conley said. “Invenergy looks forward to the next step in the regulatory process before the PSC and to bringing low-cost power, quality jobs and new tax revenue to Missouri.”

“The Grain Belt Express is important because it is a transformative infrastructure project that will provide access to more low-cost renewable power to American consumers and communities,” Conley said.

“Today’s order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for the state, and a good project is made stronger by Invenergy’s participation and we’re excited for what this means,” Conley said.

"The Order confirms that the Grain Belt Express project is in the public interest and is good for Missouri. The Grain Belt Express project is made stronger through Invenergy’s participation because of our strong record of project execution, strong financial position, community partnerships, and landowner relationships," company spokeswoman Beth Conley said in a statement.

The company is now focused on the separate regulatory matter of having its acquisition of the project approved in Missouri and Kansas, said Beth Conley, an Invenergy spokesperson.

Though Missouri had long been the only holdout among the four states on the project’s path, another hurdle arose last year in Illinois, which rescinded its approval on the technicality that Clean Line did not have a physical presence in the state and therefore could not qualify as a utility. Conley said there was still “no existing regulatory approval in Illinois” and “nothing pending,” as well.

Grain Belt Express also no longer has the OK to be built in Illinois after a state appeals court last year reversed the approval of the Illinois Commerce Commission. Conley said Thursday that “there is no pending regulatory case for the project in Illinois.”

Clean Line had been working on the proposed direct-current power line since 2010 and had said last year that it still hoped to bring the project online by 2023 or 2024.

Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley said that timeline has not been changed by the proposed sale of the project. The power line would be the largest transmission project undertaken by Invenergy.

Invenergy has experience building similar projects globally, and spokesperson Beth Conley said that background will help navigate challenges with residents.

“Invenergy has built more than 140 sustainable-energy projects around the world, and we’ve done that by really executing on our reputation as being a company that is committed to the communities that host our projects,” Conley said.

Conley, the Invenergy spokeswoman, said the company has established good relationships with landowners and community leaders in building its more than 146 worldwide projects and the company will bring “that same level of dedication” to stakeholders in the Grain Belt project.

Mission Statement
We will:

• ensure that Missourians receive safe and reliable utility services at just, reasonable and affordable rates;
• support economic development through either traditional rate of return regulation or competition, as required by law;
• establish standards so that competition will maintain or improve the quality of services provided to Missourians;
• provide the public the information they need to make educated utility choices;
• provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally.

The Commission granted a CCN to Grain Belt determining: 1) there is a need for the service; 2) Grain Belt is qualified to provide the proposed service; 3) Grain Belt has the financial ability to provide the proposed service; 4) Grain Belt’s proposal is economically feasible; and 5) the service promotes the public interest.

The Commission stated the evidence in the case demonstrated that the Grain Belt project will create both short-term and long-term benefits to ratepayers and citizens of the state. In addition, the project would have a substantial and favorable effect on the reliability of electric service in Missouri.

There can be no debate that our energy future will require more diversity in energy resources, particularly renewable resources,” said the Commission. “We are witnessing a worldwide, long-term and comprehensive movement towards renewable energy in general and wind energy specifically. Wind energy provides great promise as a source for affordable, reliable, safe and environmentally-friendly energy. The Grain Belt Project will facilitate this movement in Missouri, will thereby benefit Missouri citizens, and is, therefore, in the public interest.”

The Commission noted that any negative impacts of the project on the land and landowners will be mitigated by: 1) a landowner protocol to protect landowners; 2) superior compensation payments; 3) a binding arbitration option for easement negotiations; 4) a decommissioning fund-a fund for this type of project would be the first of its kind in the country; and 5) an agricultural impact mitigation protocol to avoid or minimize negative agricultural impacts. Agricultural impacts will also be reduced because no more than nine acres of land in Missouri will be taken out of agricultural production as a result of project structures, and the proposed route does not directly impact the operation of any existing center pivot irrigation systems.

“Many of the landowners’ concerns will be addressed through carefully considered conditions placed on the CCN,” said the Commission.