“I’m excited to see what’s there,” said Rep. Scott Landry, D-Farmington. “I want to see what we can get for our community, though who knows if it’s going through or not with all the opposition out there.”

“Clean Energy Connect has the potential to significantly reduce New England’s climate-damaging emissions,” Sean Mahoney, the executive vice president and director of CLF Maine, said. “But any approval of the project must depend on CMP providing greater economic benefits for Maine families and businesses, better safeguards for our environment, and a clear path to boost local clean energy here at home.”

Public Advocate Barry Hobbins declined to comment Tuesday, but has publicly stated in the past that CMP should contribute $50 million to help low-income Mainers with electric bills, just like they're doing in Massachusetts.

In a statement Saturday, Sandra Howard, a spokeswoman for the opposition group Say NO to NECEC, said there is “no amount of short-term money” that could make up for the impacts to Maine’s natural environment and tourism.

“Parties that wish to settle for their own profit interests should dig deep into their conscience before selling out Maine to benefit corporate profit interests,” she said.

Mr. Baker testifies that "Transource PA feels that transmission line corridors are a common element in the landscape and that the presence of these features does not diminish the scenic aspects of an area for visual enjoyment from public rights of way."
Transource Statement No. 4-R at 37.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND?

As an initial matter, I am not aware that a corporation can have feelings. However, to the extent that Mr. Baker is expressing his own personal feelings, he is wrong. The proposed project would wholly diminish the scenic aspects of southern York County. The outpouring of opposition from the local community shows how the construction of another transmission line corridor would adversely affect the landscape in a damaging and permanent way.

Regardless of what efforts Transource may have undertaken to minimize the impacts of
the project...  the fact remains that the project would have significant and adverse impacts on...

Q.  WHAT IS THE PRIMARY TOPIC OF MR. SCHAFFER'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY?
Mr. Schaffer testifies about Transource's interactions with landowners, explaining that
the approach to these interactions is described in its Internal Practices for Dealing with the Public on Power Line Projects, which is Attachment 13 to the Siting Application. He claims that "Transource PA strives to be honest and act in good faith with landowners."
Transource Statement No. 6-R at 1-2. Mr. Schaffer further suggests that in most cases,
"the negative interaction is the result of a misunderstanding" and that it makes additional information available in these situations. Transource Statement No. 6-R at 2. He also explains what Transource does when it learns of a negative interaction between one of its representatives and a landowner and describes some of the key elements of its internal practices. Transource Statement No. 6 at 2-3.

Q.  PLEASE RESPOND.
While Transource may have an approach to interactions with landowners that is documented in a manual, landowners have been subjected to numerous instances of negative interactions, including situations of dishonesty and acting in bad faith. Attached as Citizens Exhibit No. 1 is a letter stating that many landowners had already granted Transource access to the property to conduct surveys. That was an untrue statement, as the opposite is actually true. In other instances, agents who were seeking permission and right-of-ways told landowners that many of their neighbors had already consented when in fact only one has signed to this day, of which I am aware. As Transource prepares to conduct drill tests on the land, the agents are telling landowners that they only have to give 24-48 hours' notice, when Section 309 of the Eminant Domain Code plainly states they are required to give 10 days' notice. 

Also, I note that Mr. Schaffer does not suggest
that any landowners received apologies as a result of a "misunderstanding." Nor does he
provide any data to quantify the number of negative interactions that have been reported,
offer any detail about the nature of the so-called misunderstandings or explain what additional information was subsequently provided to the landowner. It is also telling that Mr. Schaffer does not describe any disciplinary procedure that Transource has in place, much less discuss any actions that have been taken.

HOW HAS MR. CAWLEY CHARACTERIZED THE THINKING OF OPPONENTS OF THE PROJECT?

Mr. Cawley has characterized the thinking of the project's opponents as "parochial," "self-interested," and "provincial." Transource Statement No. 9-R at 13-14.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
Landowners from York County have repeatedly testified that if the project was needed for reliability reasons and no other reasonable alternatives existed, they would not be in this proceeding - spending their personal retirement and college funds and committing vast amounts of their valuable personal time- to oppose construction of this high voltage
transmission line. But, it is not needed for reliability in Pennsylvania or in the region, and other reasonable alternatives do exist, in the form of currently underutilized lines running through the area. Frankly, given the way that the landowners of York County have united and organized their efforts to oppose the project shows the depth of their commitment to preserve the entire area's farmlands, businesses, environment, natural resources and viewshed - not only for their families but for future generations and for visitors to the region. Their attitudes are far from "parochial," "self-interested" and "provincial."

Dear Governor Parson,

I own a small business in Missouri, pay Missouri taxes, donate to Missouri charities, and lived in Missouri for more than 30 years of my life. I am adamantly opposed to Clean Line Energy’s Grain Belt Express (GBE) transmission line project, which would usurp my family-owned small farming business for the private gain of an out-of-state company. I write to ask that you support Missouri’s farmers by opposing Clean Line’s application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC).

For over 40 years, my family has farmed in Ralls County, Missouri. More than a quarter century ago, my family initiated a 200+ acre habitat restoration project on Parham Farms in coordination with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, an effort which my brother and I continue to manage today. We
set aside this portion of Parham Farms for environmental protection because of its unique qualities. It is a rare swath of Missouri savannah habitat that plays a special role to biodiversity of the surrounding area. It is a hub for wildlife and includes prime habitat for the Indiana Bat, which is listed as endangered by both the State of Missouri and the U.S. Government. Savannah habitat—where the Eastern woodlands and Western prairies meet—was once predominant across Missouri. As savannah habitat declines, so does biodiversity across the state. Today, according to state and federal agencies, less than 1% of savannah habitat remains in Missouri.

Today, Parham Farms falls directly in the path of Clean Line’s planned GBE project, and Clean Line wants to condemn and forcibly take this property for their own use. That remaining 1% of native savannah habitat – which my family has painstakingly restored over decades – now faces destruction if the PSC approves Clean Line’s petition to build the GBE. I urge you to question if this is the kind of legacy that the PSC’s decision should leave.

The proposed route for the GBE would cut straight across Parham Farms – slicing through our most productive cropland. It would also disrupt prime habitat for the Indiana Bat, which depends on land covered
in mature, old-growth trees—exactly the type of habitat that we currently protect on Parham Farms. If the PSC allows Clean Line to take away our old-growth forest, it will take away the endangered Indian Bat population with it.

The PSC’s approval of Clean Line’s project will also tell large companies that Missouri welcomes out-of-state companies to forcibly repurpose family-owned small businesses for their own use—a truly dangerous precedent.

Clean Line does not have the right to tell me how my business should use my property, and the PSC should not grant it such authority. I ask for your support in protecting Missouri residents, landowners, farmers, and natural resources by not supporting Clean Line’s application for Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity.

Respectfully,
Austin Read Parham
President, Parham Farms

"We didn’t win the World Cup of transmission, which is what we were trying to do, but we put together great projects and [three of them] are [now] in the hands of people who can hopefully do them," said Skelly.

Skelly said: "Rock Island was killed by the Iowa legislature, which basically made above-ground HVDC illegal."

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.