"The world has changed since MISO began this," said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, with offices in Chicago and Madison, serving as attorney for the Driftless Area organization. "It's sort of like saying it's important to build more telephone wires and poles to serve the additional landlines that people in Middleton and Cross Plains are going to use, and then all of a sudden, cell phones came in."
Learner, who has a home near Spring Green, said upgrades to local power lines would be more appropriate than a huge transmission line that will carry electricity produced by fossil fuel and nuclear plants, as well as wind power.
"This is not the right place ... unless it's absolutely needed to keep the lights on, and this line is not needed for that purpose," Learner said.

The Western District Court of Appeal’s holding means that, because Grain Belt does not have consent from the Caldwell County Commission for Grain Belt’s proposed transmission line to cross the public roads and highways in Caldwell County, this Commission cannot lawfully grant Grain Belt the CCN it requests for the Grain Belt transmission line project.

The law as expounded by the Western District Court of Appeals in its opinion in Case No. WD79883 requires that, because Grain Belt has failed to prove that it has the consent of Caldwell County required by § 229.100, RSMo., to cross the public roads and highways in Caldwell county, which consent the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals has held is required by § 393.170, RSMo. as a precondition to the Commission granting Grain Belt the CCN it requests, this Commission should dismiss this case, whether it does so by granting the Missouri Landowners Alliance’s motion to dismiss or otherwise.

Mark Lawlor, director of development for Clean Line, doesn’t believe that the standard applied in the case of Ameren’s project is pertinent to the Grain Belt Express.
“We’re saying these are two different things, with entirely different standards,” he said. He contends that the standards debated in the Mark Twain project apply to utilities seeking permission to provide service on a retail basis, and are not relevant to a merchant developer of transmission, like Clean Line.
The two standards “have gotten conflated into one confusing mess,” he said.

The salient facts here regarding Commission jurisdiction are no different than those in the Mark Twain transmission line case. Both are requests for CCNs for transmission lines that would traverse multiple Missouri counties. In both cases the applicants argue in every venue that their requests were made in reliance on §393.170.1, RSMo., for “line certificates” as addressed in State ex rel. Harline v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 343 S.W.2d 177, 182 (Mo. App. W.D. 1960). In Case No. WD79883, the Western District Court of Appeals rejected the argument squarely presented to it that the county consent required by § 229.100, RSMo., is not a prerequisite to the Commission issuing a CCN for a line, regardless of the Harline-based distinction between §393.170.1, RSMo., “line” certificates and § 393.170.2, RSMo., “area” certificates.

(D) When approval of the affected govern- mental bodies is required, evidence must be provided as follows:
2. A certified copy of the required approval of other governmental agencies;

If any of the items required under this rule are unavailable at the time the application is filed, they shall be furnished prior to the granting of the authority sought.

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.

The Trump administration could help by pushing for an infrastructure package that would see the government “buying down a portion of the capacity” on big transmission projects so they can enter construction more quickly, or perhaps through an investment tax credit, Skelly suggests.

“All the ideas come down to a temporary underwriting of the project so you can get these things over the top, or some sort of tax mechanism.”

Plains & Eastern is “pretty much fully developed at this point”, Skelly says. “We’re now in the commercialisation phase, matching chippers – that is wind developers – with utilities in the southeast.”

“It’s still a bit early to tell exactly what the administration will do to stimulate more infrastructure investment,” Skelly says. “But in terms of the things they’re talking about, with private-sector-led projects, it forms a pretty nice Venn diagram with transmission.”

Our Mission

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the association that represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide electricity for 220 million Americans, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a whole, the electric power industry supports more than 7 million jobs in communities across the United States. In addition to our U.S. members, EEI has more than 60 international electric companies as International Members, and hundreds of industry suppliers and related organizations as Associate Members.
 
Organized in 1933, EEI provides public policy leadership, strategic business intelligence, and essential conferences and forums.

Our Vision
EEI will be the best trade association.

We will be the best because we are committed to knowing our members and their needs. We will provide leadership and deliver services that consistently meet or exceed their expectations.

We will be the best because we will attract and retain employees who have the ambition to serve and will empower them to work effectively as individuals and in teams.

Above all, we will be the best trade association because, in the tradition of Thomas Edison, we will make a significant and positive contribution to the long-term success of the electric power industry in its vital mission to provide electricity to foster economic progress and improve the quality of life.

When third-party organizations or public service commission staffs have attempted to protect ratepayers from funding political organizations in recent years, their attempts have met with fierce resistance from the utility companies.

This report explores how regulated utility companies are including their Edison Electric Institute (EEI) annual payments, along with payments to other trade associations, in their operating expenses. The widespread practice forces ratepayers to pay for political and public relations activities with which they may not agree, and from which they do not benefit. It also has the effect of ratepayers subsidizing the political activities of EEI and other trade associations. Utility commissions have a responsibility to protect ratepayers from paying for industry groups and their political work along with public relations activities. But utilities have become adroit at using EEI, and other organizations, to effectively and quietly influence policy while sheltering their shareholders from the bulk of the associated costs. Almost no other political organizations have the luxury of subsidization enjoyed by EEI and other representatives of the regulated utility industry.

The evidence in this report reveals that EEI is primarily and inherently a political organization, and that much of its work targets policymakers throughout all levels of government to build influence, specifically for their member companies but also for the industry at large. While many states have their established practices of how to code trade association dues, they should revisit outdated guidelines due to the nature of EEI’s modern activities to ensure that they are adequately protecting ratepayers. Throughout the past three decades, some regulators and consumer advocates have acted to protect ratepayers, but scrutiny has waned dramatically. Precedent exists for public officials to act in every state to investigate whether or not EEI’s inherently political work ought to be funded by ratepayers.