Hydro-Quebec would gladly appear before the Maine Public Utilities Commission, but it has not been invited, said spokesperson Abergel.

“The PUC is doing its own process,” Abergel said. “If the PUC were to invite us, we’d gladly intervene. We’re very willing to collaborate in that sense.”

But that’s not how the commission process works. Individuals and organizations can intervene in cases, but the commission does not invite them to the proceedings, commission spokesperson Lanphear said.

Almost as though the Universe is saying "Listen up - there is no need for unreliable large scale expansion transmission lines. Improve existing infrastructures, support microgrid and community based renewables. Community decisions that benefit all residents and local environments rather than corporations are preferable options."

Spread the sensible and safe message!

Dear Governor Parson:
 
As a farmer and a Commodity Trader for one of the largest Grain Companies in Missouri and the world, I am writing today in opposition of Grain Belt Express as the proposed route will be crossing my family’s University of Missouri Extension Century Farm in Monroe County.  I am adamantly opposed to a private for-profit company applying to Missouri Public Service Commission for a Convenience and Necessity Certificate that if approved would give the authority of Eminent Domain.
 
On the coldest days of February 2015, our Missouri utility companies were selling excess power to PJM grid and making over million dollars a day.  That money was coming back to Missouri utility companies, workers and citizens as the cooperatives could pass along profits (patronage payments) to members. If merchant lines are allowed to cross our state, they will bring little benefit to Missouri in the way of power or full time jobs. We are basically as the saying goes “cutting off our nose to spite our face”. If these transmission lines were allowed, we would be taking money right out of our local utility companies and Missouri citizens’ hands and putting it in the pockets of few business owners in other states or countries.
 
This is big business and I doubt Grain Belt (Invenergy) will leave any extra money or savings on the table for the residents of Missouri. As mentioned, I’m a commodity trader for one of the largest Grain Companies in Missouri and in the world. Electricity is a commodity that is traded basically like any other commodity in the world. The first thing my company teaches every new commodity trader on the first day of the job is simple……“Always control the freight, then you always have the leverage”. Grain Belt Express (Invenergy) is trying to gain utility status in Missouri, even though they are not a producer or a seller of electricity. Grain Belt would only be the freight haulers. I see no benefit for Missouri or United States in this proposed project. As far as the “jobs created,” I see no long term employment.
 
This project is not the long term solution for our State. People will not be attracted to move or reside in a county with the highest voltage transmission line in the United States. I have asked myself many times if I would want to be part of a legacy that stood by and let the highest voltage transmission line in the history of the United States be erected and forced my neighbors, life-long friends and fellow Missourians to move from their homes and devalue their property so a private company can profit?
 
Please help to protect property rights, utility companies, and workers of Missouri by doing what is within your ability to stop the abuses of eminent domain for merchant transmission companies, and keep agriculture in Missouri for future generations.
 
Respectfully,
Jay O’Bannon

Improvements along public roads--location--control. 229.100. 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; and no poles shall be erected or such pipes, conductors, mains and conduits be laid or maintained, except under such reasonable rules and regulations as may be prescribed and promulgated by the county highway engineer, with the approval of the county commission.

Citizens raise concerns about Mark Twain Transmission Line construction

Project Manager Jim Jontry says that people in the area may see crews out clearing trees and installing access points.
He adds that a few residents in the area have raised concerns about the condition of the roads as heavy vehicles travel over them.

Jontry wants to assure citizens that roads will be restored.

"We are using roads in the area and making sure that those roads are kept in a condition that are passable. Working safely in the area is really our main priority and keeping the roads passable is a big part of that, so if there are any concerns, anyone can reach out to us and let us know, and we will address them as soon as we can."The anticipated in-service date for the Mark Twain Transmission Line is May of this year.

Dear Governor Parson,

As I sit here entering the eighth year after Grain Belt Express started their drive to build a transmission line through Missouri, to the East to deliver wind power, I wonder how this can still be going on. There have been sixteen public hearings before the PSC that I am aware of, hearings at Jefferson City, hundreds of letters of opposition, and hundreds of testimonies which have been overwhelmely opposed to this transmission line. Also Missouri citizens have had to spend an enormous amount of time, resources, and money against this attempt to illegally use the power of eminent domain for a private company. Even if they did qualify for a permit, statue 229.100 of Missouri law would require consent from each county commission before they apply to the PSC.

GBE has been denied a permit twice before the PSC and their status as a non public utility has not changed. I would think that should have been the last time GBE could apply before the PSC. However, The Missouri Supreme Court requested by GBE and former Governor Nixon, who was in support of GBE
while in office, sent the denial back to the PSC. Is there a limit as to how many times this process can go on? If GBE is approved then they would have the power of eminent domain the same as a public utility to seize private property. The only thing that has changed is that GBE has signed a contract to sell this project to the company lnvenergy. It was stated in GBE's easement agreement that their rights may be sold, mortgaged, or leased in whole or in part at any time. What kind of Pandora's box will we be subject to then?

As I understand, Missouri has ample wind and other power to meet its needs and it is questionable that GBE or lnvenergy would drop off any power in Missouri. Without being a public utility they could sell to the highest bidder. Giving a private company the power of eminent domain would not only give an unfair advantage to our existing public utility companies, it would set a dangerous precedence for the future of our state and it citizens.

My family and I have been on this land for eighty five plus years. This proposed line would cross five farms and three and one quarter miles of our most productive farmland. I have testified and written letters in the past as to the irreparable and sustained economic loss, and ability to farm the land, such a line would have on me and all people in its path. I and my family are firmly opposed to granting GBE this power of eminent domain and it is my hope that as Governor that you can do whatever is in your authority to protect the citizens of Missouri against such abuses of power. Thank you for your time in listening to my concerns.

Respectfully,
Kent Dye
Paris, MO

The plan would require Central Maine Power and Emera Maine to sell all transmission and distribution assets to the proposed Maine Power Delivery Authority. Bill supporters said the authority would use low-interest revenue bonds to make the multibillion-dollar purchase, allowing the new consumer-owned utility to provide electricity to most Maine residents at lower rates than those charged by the two investor-owned utilities.

The proposal is, in part, a response to the controversies that have dogged CMP since an October 2017 windstorm left some customers without power for more than a week, as well as massive bill spikes reported by thousands of customers.

“Maine people want and deserve a utility that will keep the costs down and the lights on and put its Maine customers and workers first,” said Berry, the co-chairman of the Legislature’s Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee. “Our current utilities have failed us in every respect, with the clear exception of our own consumer-owned utilities.”

...the state create[s] a nonprofit, consumer-owned transmission and distribution utility, and have it take over CMP and Emera’s assets and operations.

“A Maine power delivery utility that purchases at a fair price the assets of CMP and Emera Maine, and shakes their hands and says, respectfully, ‘goodbye,’” he says.

That could cost at least $4 billion, the value of the combined CMP and Emera assets according to 2017 filings with state regulators. Berry says it would be affordable though, because the state would float revenue bonds to finance the purchases — bonds that are not taxed by the federal government.
“This is not magic, it’s not sleight of hand. We are refinancing at different interest rates. That’s all it is, and that’s how we would reduce rates,” he says.

And Berry says that in addition to the debt-cost savings, ratepayers in the newly created Maine Power Delivery Authority would also benefit because their rates would no longer have to return profits to private investors — returns that routinely rise over 10 percent in Maine. That tax savings and the lack of a the need to generate profits for shareholders, he estimates, would cut electricity delivery rates by 15 percent while improving service reliability.

CMP spokeswoman Catherine Hartnett said few details of Berry’s bill – which is still in the legislative drafting office – have been released but the company has “strong concerns about the state seizing private property.” Hartnett questioned how the proposed authority would match the professional experience and on-the-ground knowledge of CMP workers.

“Every time it has come up before (in the Legislature), it has been rejected first of all because of the questionable benefits, but also because of the constitutional issues,” Hartnett said.

Hundreds packed a public open house convened by FirstEnergy Monday night to reveal plans for the Northern Portage Reliability Project.

The big room at Christ Community Chapel was built to hold 350 and it was so packed that people were turned away within the first half-hour of what was to be a two-hour event.
As the open house began at 6 p.m., traffic was backed up for almost half a mile between the chapel just off Ohio 306 and Ohio 82 to the south.

FirstEnergy employees, contractors and consultants staffed themed tables around the periphery of the room. They included stations entitled Engineering & Construction, Vegetation Management, Environmental, Real Estate and Route Selection. The company created a large centerpiece with big photos on easels showing various points where the company wants to put in power lines. The event was designed for people to circulate, but the crowd made navigation around the room difficult. Some attendees complained that there was no public give-and-take between the company and residents as one might have at a town-hall style event.

According to FirstEnergy, the cost to run the lines underground along the rail corridor would be three to seven times more expensive than using utility poles.

First Energy has said the underground scenario could create a 10-fold increase in the cost of the project and the above-ground rerouting would be longer that the former rail line, and would send the lines over roadways and home owners’ yards.

Jennifer Young, a spokeswoman for the company, said the lines will be carried by 60-foot wood poles and those might be reduced to 45 footers, making them lower than nearby trees.

Beach said FirstEnergy measures the viability of various routes by their potential impact on property owners. The western route could affect 111 homeowners (although the company would need right-of-way access from about half that number), and the eastern route could affect up to 177 homeowners with right-of-way access from half that number. He also said many of those properties would have utility poles going up in the front of their properties.

“We have the opportunity to build this and maintain it in the right-of-way with one parcel that’s 100 feet wide for the most part,” said Beach.

Dear Governor Parson,

On behalf of Missouri agricultural producers comprising nearly 100, 000 family farms,
concerned citizens, and taxpayers, I know you understand our interests and want to
preserve the number one industry in Missouri today. In fact, as our Governor you have
been quoted as saying, "To prepare the next generation of Missourians who will be a
part of this industry, we must unite and focus on important issues that matter to all of us."

Farming and agriculture are threatened by the proposed private use, merchant transmission line, Grain Belt Express Clean Line (GBE). This line is currently proposed to cross through eight Missouri counties, and if approved would set a terrible precedent that will sacrifice our state's agricultural heritage, and its future, for the benefit of out-of-state energy speculators.
Most folks affected by the project did not become aware of it until late 2013, however the company had been working behind the scenes to gain support from county governments and legislators since 2011. In fact, the company's Houston-based CEO has bragged that getting local governments on board before affected landowners find out about a project gives the people nowhere to turn for help. Since 2013, grassroots opposition to GBE has grown like wildfire, with membership in opposition groups numbering in the thousands. These citizens have worked diligently through the legal processes to block GBE for more than five years, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their hard
earned money simply to preserve their homes, businesses, and local economies from investment speculators from other states who seek to gain riches at our expense.

Landowners don't seek to gain if they win, they will merely be awarded the right to continue to live their lives and run their agricultural businesses unencumbered. The Missouri Public Service Commission has now denied two applications filed by GBE, but yet the company persists. The Missouri Supreme Court, at the request of GBE and former Governor Nixon, remanded the last denial back to the PSC. In the interim, GBE's owners have signed a contract to sell the transmission project to out-of-state wind energy generation company lnvenergy. Evidentiary hearings on the remand concluded in December and once briefing has completed this month, a decision could be made at any time.

If approved by the PSC, the GBE private electric transmission company would have the
same status as a Missouri utility company to take private property for its own use through eminent domain. However, GBE is not at all similar to our state public utilities that serve all customers equally. As originally created, GBE intended to sell transmission service at negotiated rates under federal supervision that would prevent self-dealing and unfair bidding. GBE owned no generation interests that could receive undue preference and therefore received federal authority to begin negotiations. While GBE received approval of its negotiation plan from the federal government, that authority cannot pass to lnvenergy without federal approval. lnvenergy owns substantial wind generation assets in Kansas and Oklahoma, near the starting point of GBE. Without federal supervision, lnvenergy may favor its own generation interests while selling transmission service on GBE, and lnvenergy may use GBE to serve only its own
generation interests in other states, turning GBE into a private highway through Missouri
that does not serve the public. Furthermore, under different federal rules, lnvenergy's private generation tie transmission line could be protected from a public use by Missouri
utilities or generators.

Utilities that do not serve the public do not qualify as a "public use" deserving of eminent
domain authority. However, GBE and lnvenergy have stated in PSC testimony that the company will need to exercise eminent domain on 700 properties in Missouri immediately upon approval of the PSC. GBE needs easements on 739 properties in Missouri and has only secured 39 voluntarily, requiring the use of eminent domain on 95% of its route across the state. The companies propose to begin condemning property before their project is approved in other states, and before they find enough customers to financially support its construction. lnvenergy plans to undertake condemnation first, while maintaining the option to change the route, need, and purpose of its project later. We urge great caution here, for condemnation cannot be easily undone if lnvenergy later changes GBE into its private electric delivery highway through Missouri.

GBE has been proposing the same old, outdated, overhead line technology for the past ten years. New technology can make burial alongside existing public rights-of-way
possible, such as along highways. Burial of GBE along highways would provide much needed lease revenue for MO DOT to improve our roadways, without new taxes for our citizens, and eliminate eminent domain on private property.

We are pleading with you as our Governor to please help us preserve our agriculture in Missouri. We are not against progress or renewable energy, but we do object to granting eminent domain authority to a private business for its own profit. GBE is not
guaranteed to provide any future benefit to Missouri and could end up transporting energy produced in other states to the west across Missouri for use by other states to the east. Eminent domain authority awarded to a speculative, private venture will permanently damage our agricultural businesses. For example, crops grown under the proposed line must be less than 10 feet high, making corn production impossible in fields crossed by the project. As a result, how can we expect those in agriculture to carry this burden when every bushel counts for our livelihood?

Thank you for your support of agricultural interests. We hope you share our concerns about condemnation by a non-public utility and will strive to take whatever action is within your power to make sure Missouri property owners are sufficiently protected from Grain Belt Express.

Sincerely,
Russell Pisciotta
President
Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri

New technology and new businesses hold out hope. Twitter bots exist for good and evil. Just as there are Russian bots spreading fake news, there are bots which respond with carefully selected and edited reality. It’s possible to build social media responses with mixtures of professionals and automation now, and to respond without rancor to disinformation campaigns. There are social-media savvy firms which know how to mobilize effective pro-development efforts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.