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.

In 2012, the developers of a proposed transmission line between West Virginia and Maryland sought to recover $121.5 million the company had spent before grid operators decided the $2.1 billion project was no longer needed.
FERC later told the utilities they were ineligible for at least $7 million of the $121.5 million requested, including $6.2 million in advocacy, advertising and lobbying expenses.

There is significant uncertainty and risk to the Project due to its scope, size and long lead times, and because the Project requires approval from Iowa, Wisconsin and multiple federal agencies. In particular, there is a risk that the federal agencies may select a different river crossing than that authorized by the IUB or the PSCW. If this occurs, there is a risk of additional delay that may threaten the ability of the Project to move forward.
The Project also involves multiple owners which requires coordination. In addition, the Project may face challenges and objections in the easement acquisition process in Iowa.

These approvals and permits are not guaranteed to be granted, and the Project could be delayed or terminated, or the final route changed, if ATC is unable to obtain any of these approvals or permits. In particular, the federal agencies may select a different Mississippi River crossing than that authorized by the IUB or the PSCW, which could delay or result in termination of the Project.

The scope, size, cost, long-lead times and participation by multiple owners pose  inherent risks for the Project. As my description of the Project makes clear, the size, scope and complexity of the Project – involving approximately 102- to 120-miles of new 345 kV transmission line and a new substation and related facilities, spanning multiple states and jurisdictions, crossing the Mississippi River, with multiple owners for a cost of approximately $492 Million to $543 Million – is significant. Further, the easement acquisition process may be contentious, resulting in delays or increased costs.

The MLA respectfully contends that the type of “need” created by Grain Belt in inducing MJMEUC to buy its product is not a true “need” for the service in the sense envisioned in the Tartan case. By analogy, it seems safe to say that not every family in Jefferson City truly “needs” to own a Cadillac. But if a dealer were for some reason to offer a Cadillac to everyone in the City for say $5.00, would the fact that virtually every family in the City was now driving a Cadillac suddenly prove there really was a “need” for those cars after all?

To the contrary, the MLA submits that actual “need” for any product cannot be artificially created by practically giving it away, as Grain Belt has done here. “Need” is not the same as “Want”.

To begin with, the only meaningful means to determine what MJMEUC might have saved by using the Grain Belt line is to compare MJMEUC’s total cost of power from that line to MJMEUC’s next best alternative at the time it signed the contract with Grain Belt. The problem is, before MJMEUC signed the TSA with Grain Belt, it did not bother to solicit bids from any other party to replace the expiring Illinois coal contract. Therefore, neither MJMEUC nor anyone else will ever know what the best alternative would have been to signing the TSA with Grain Belt.

For the above reasons, the MLA respectfully submits that Grain Belt failed to prove that the need for the line in Missouri is anything but an illusion of its own making.

In short, all of the cases cited by Grain Belt on this issue merely support the reliance on the resources of Clean Line, and not those of a third party with no ownership in the Applicant.  Thus based on Grain Belt’s own analysis, it is asking the Commission to take a position here for which there apparently is no precedent.

A more fundamental problem with Grain Belt’s argument on this point is that it is once again taking for granted that future decisions of the Commission will be made in Grain Belt’s favor. Specifically, before the sale of Grain Belt to Invenergy may close, those parties need not only the CCN in this proceeding, but also the permission of the Commission for the sale of the Grain Belt project to Invenergy in a case which has yet to be filed. If that sale is not approved, then of course Grain Belt never gains access to the resources of Invenergy. Thus in asking the Commission to decide the two Tartan criteria on the basis of Invenergy’s expertise and stronger financial status, they are necessarily asking the Commission to assume that it will later approve the sale of Grain Belt to Invenergy. And this request is being made by Grain Belt before the Commission has even seen or heard a word of evidence in the case which will decide that issue.

This is particularly presumptuous on Grain Belt’s part, in that they have stated unequivocally that the Commission does not even have the authority to approve the proposed sale which they now take for granted will be approved.

Even if Grain Belt successfully manages to disavow its earlier position, which seems unlikely, it is totally inappropriate for Grain Belt to even suggest to the Commission that it should assume it will approve the sale of Grain Belt to Invenergy before that case is even filed.

Despite the prognoses of what the Commission will do in some unfiled case, as matters now stand there is no basis for granting a CCN to the Applicant on the basis of speculation about its possible access to Invenergy’s resources.

Grain Belt supports its position on this issue primarily with broad generalizations about the market for wind generation. And while it contends that “the economic feasibility of the Project continues to be strong”, it does not even attempt to make a case for the economic feasibility of the Missouri segment of the line, without access to the PJM market.

As the MLA and Show Me discussed in their initial brief on remand, there is a definite possibility that the line will ultimately terminate in Missouri, thereby precluding access to the very markets which could make the project economically feasible.

As the NRDC and Sierra Club suggest, Missouri might be a “loss leader” for Grain Belt. But as they then note, according to the concurring opinion the project relies for its economic viability on the higher prices in the PJM market. But of course if the project cannot reach the PJM market, it is left only with the loss leader segment of the line in Missouri.

We find discrepancies between the General Advertising amounts reclassified by PATH in its Compliance Filings compared to the General Advertising amounts the Commission required PATH to reclassify in Opinion No. 554.

On compliance, PATH must eliminate all General Advertising costs from its recoverable amounts, or else specifically justify each item in light of Opinion No. 554.  In making the compliance filing, PATH must provide the journal entries to reflect the adjustments, and workpapers necessary to explain the accounting corrections for that FERC Form No. 1 input that references back to the journal entries; and the revised/corrected draft Form No. 1 inputs.

Did you make a compliance filing, PATH?

No!  We don't need to!  We made an informational filing!

Are you sure you don't need to make a compliance filing, PATH?

No!  FERC meant an informational filing, not a compliance filing!

Where's our $70M?

PATH must submit a compliance filing with the Commission describing either:  (1) its plan for ending its operations and a timeline for when it intends to file a notice of cancellation of its transmission formula rates, or (2) the type of “transmission or sale of electric energy” that requires its rates to stay in effect.  We direct PATH to submit this compliance filing within 30 days of the date of this order.  To the extent that PATH intends to unwind, PATH must make the appropriate filings under FPA section 205, as necessary, to implement this action.  PATH shall notify the Commission within 10 days of the date that the closing out of business is complete.

FirstEnergy is planning to construct a new 69-kilovolt transmission line to connect two substations in the Aurora area.  This new line will improve system redundancy and reliability, allowing much faster restoration times should power outages occur like those in recent years.

The author of The Boom, “the best all-around book yet on fracking” (San Francisco Chronicle), turns his attention to renewable energy pioneer Michael Skelly, whose innovations, struggle, and persistence represent the groundbreaking changes underway in American energy.

Enter Michael Skelly, an infrastructure builder who began working on wind energy in 2000, when many considered the industry a joke. Eight years later, Skelly helped build the second largest wind power company in the United States—which was sold for $2 billion. Wind energy was no longer funny; it was well on its way to powering more than six percent of the electricity in the United States.

In Superpower, award-winning journalist Russell Gold tells Skelly’s story, which parallels our nation’s evolving relationship with renewable energy.

Along the way, we meet Skelly’s financial backers, a family that pivoted from oil exploration to renewable energy; the farmers ready to embrace the new “cash crop”; the landowners prepared to go to court to avoid looking at spinning turbines; and utility executives who concoct fiendish ways to block renewable energy.