Congress should create legislative authority for siting major electricity transmission lines that follows the authority it has already granted to siting major gas lines.

I want to site a new transmission line, but I am struggling to find the best way to work with private landowners who will be affected. Any suggestions?

Look to successful examples from around the country—like Montana Dakota Utilities and Clean Line Energy Partners. And consider new options to bring landowners to the table in a positive way—like Special Purpose Development Corporations or annual payments.

The first principle is to engage landowners early and often. Many utilities have found that holding landowner meetings earlier and more often than required can dramatically improve project efficiency. Innovative ideas include compensating private landowners via Special Purpose Development Corporations (which offer equity in the project’s success) or annual payments (which give landowners a stake in the life of the project). For example, Clean Line Energy Partners is now offering annual payments to landowners who will host a new DC transmission line intended to deliver 3.5 GW of power from Iowa to Chicago.

Of course, eminent domain often becomes an option once a transmission developer demonstrates that a new project is needed and the siting authority confirms that the project will serve the public interest. But cross-state transmission lines and third-party (non-utility) developers cannot always count on eminent domain. Regardless of whether eminent domain is an option, it should always be considered a last resort as there are many options to bring private land-owners to the table in a more positive way that can minimize friction in siting new lines. For example, Montana Dakota Utilities has not had to use eminent domain since 1983, mainly because the utilities consider themselves a part of the community, and have formed positive, trusting relationships with landowners.

For a more detailed treatment of these issues and further options for compensating private landowners, see pages 18-21 of Siting: Finding a Home for Renewable Energy and Transmission.

To illustrate these conflicts in energy transportation, Professor Rossi used two transportation examples that differ in geography, product transported, governing body historically responsible for regulation, and often in public perception. Despite these differences, both means of transportation face legal hurdles that require consideration of federalism principles. The examples include the Constitution Pipeline, a natural gas pipeline segment connecting Pennsylvania to New York, and the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Project, a direct current transmission line transporting wind energy from Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas to Tennessee, Arkansas, and the rest of the south and southeast.

After presenting these conflicts, Professor Rossi engaged the audience in discussions about the need for future collaboration between the federal and state authorities and the impact of the new administration on these battles.

Members of the Southern Corona Landowner Association (“Corona Landowners Association”) have executed long-term lease agreements for the development of Mesa Canyons on their properties. The Corona Landowners Association was formed in 2007 to facilitate wind energy development in the area.

The agreement also establishes a new committee on the board that will review NRG's initiatives, asset portfolio, capital structure and broad strategic plans, and make recommendations on those to the board, according to the SEC filing. Wilder will chair that committee.

For starters, there is this claim: “With more than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines across the three interconnected electric transmission grids … the lower 48 states’ power grid is at full capacity, with many lines operating well beyond their design.”

The fact is that 0 (zero) transmission lines are being operated beyond their design capacity. The grid has been and continues to be designed and constructed to cover projected peak demand years in advance. And every line is operated within its design limits. The ASCE claim is alarmist and wrong.

"What Rock Island is asking the Commission to do is grant it a CPCN so it looks like a 'public utility' for purposes of condemning private property to build its line, while at the same time it plans to offer only a token percentage of that line's capacity for 'public use'. The transmission service that Rock Island plans to provide on its transmission line does not meet the public use standard under Section 3-105 of the PUA." (R.V27, C6629).
These are the words of the ICC Staff at the close of a five day evidentiary hearing at the
Commission on Rock Island's Verified Petition. Rock Island is not a public utility, and it does not commit to serve the public. Despite the express language of the PUA, Rock Island, as a non-utility startup company, sought a CPCN from the Commission for which it is not statutorily eligible. Rock Island's public policy arguments regarding an apparent desire for an expansion to the statutory definition of''public utility" should have been, and still can be, made to the legislature.

Grain Belt Express is a merchant transmission company. It is proposing to build a participant funded transmission line. As such, neither the applicant nor the proposed project embody the business characteristics the Legislature authorized this Commission to regulate.

The Court recognized that when a private business enters into special contracts upon its own terms and not at a regular rate, there is not only no need for the Commission to regulate, to do so would be a violation of the constitution. The purpose of regulation is to bring the power of government to bear on a common carrier service. Private initiatives not devoted to the public use of all do not justify the comprehensive regulations dictated by the Public Service Commission Law. Stated another way, when facilities are not devoted to a public use, there is no need for the Commission. That is the situation before the Commission in this Grain Belt Express case.

The issues presented by this case are twofold: (1) whether Clean Line fits the statutory definition of an Arkansas “public utility” and is entitled to a CCN to provide public utility service in the state; and (2) if so, whether Clean Line is entitled to exemption from certain public utility statutes. For the reasons stated more fully below, the Commission finds that Clean Line does not meet the statutory definition of a public utility at this time.  The Commission’s ruling on the first issue moots the necessityof ruling on the second.
The Commission is a creature of the General Assembly, and it performs a legislative function in regulating all public utilities. Bryant u, Arkansas Pub. Sew. Comm‘n, 46 Ark. App. 88,877 S.W.2d 594 (1994); Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 267 Ark. 550, 593 S.W.2d 434 (1980).  The Commission’s statutory mandate extends to and includes “all matters pertaining to the regulation and operation of all ... electric lighting companies and other companies furnishing gas or electricity for light, heat, or power purposes.” Ark. Code Ann. 23-2-302.

The Commission’s decision in this case turns on the statutory definition of a “public utility” found in Ark. Code Ann,  23-1-101(9)(a) cited above. Although Clean Line’s presentation of its case was strong on policy considerations and certainly Clean Line worked hard to analogize its case to that of the SPP RTO, the Commission’s authority cannot exceed that which is delegated to it by the Arkansas General Assembly. The “public utility” definition requires “owning or operating in this state equipment or facilities for...transmitting...power to or for the public for compensation.” Ark. Code Ann. 23-1-101(9)(A).

The Parties’ legal filings and opening arguments at the December 7 hearing discussed to varying degrees what each of these key phrases means, but the Commission is not convinced the totality of the evidence satisfies this statutory threshold. Recognizing, as Clean Line pointed out, there is some circularity involved in the fact that Clean Line cannot own or operate regulated major utility facilities pursuant to Arkansas law in this state without first being declared a public utiliity, in isolation, this portion of the statute is not determinative of Clean Line’s utility status. However, read in tandem with the facts that the transmission of the power must also be “to or for the public for compensation’’ when Clean Line, to date, has no contracts for public utility service with any utility, including Arkansas utilities, and there also can be no transmission of power at this time, the Commission is not prepared to approve Clean Line’s CCN Application.

Rock Island’s plan offers the public the nondiscriminatory right to bid for transmission capacity. But it does not offer the public the nondiscriminatory right to use transmission capacity. Under well-settled authority dating back a century, Rock Island’s plan does not meet the “public use” requirement.

As a threshold matter, it is important to clarify what this means. As Rock Island’s witness makes clear in his testimony, the open season auction will be open to the public on non-discriminatory terms. In other words, any member of the public can bid. But there is a difference between being able to bid for a service through an auction and being able to actually use a service at a tariffed price. When Christie’s auctions a painting, any member of the public can bid on non-discriminatory terms; but only the winner takes the painting home.

The ICC points out that the open season will be “fair, transparent and non-discriminatory.” ICC Br. 25-26. ComEd agrees. But this simply means that the auction process will be fair, and that all bidders would have the same opportunity to bid. It does not mean that all members of the public can use the service on equal terms. Those who cannot pay the auction price are left with only the chance of receiving non-firm service and are expressly subordinated to anchor tenants and auction winners. Non-auction winners who do not, or who cannot use non-firm service, are left completely empty- handed.

Grain Belt Express is proposing a duplicate service to the existing, well-established transmission grid. It is seeking to provide discriminatory service to one particular customer to obtain this Commission’s approval. It is proposing as a merchant a service that is participant-funded. It wants to maintain that merchant status, free from the obligations imposed on an “electrical corporation” by the Missouri Public Service Commission Law. This unregulated utility will create many problems that the Missouri Public Service Commission Law was designed to thwart, such as destructive competition, damage to property from duplicative facilities, and the exercise of market power in a traditional monopoly service. Grain Belt is seeking the power of the state of Missouri granted by this CCN without any of the obligations imposed by the law. Show Me is concerned with one enterprise whose property is not devoted to the public service using the land (I think he meant to say "laws") of the state, particularly the eminent domain power of the state, for their own business interests. It is not just and it is not in the public interest of the state of Missouri.

 Among the sea of red t-shirts, jackets, hats and signs were small, blue stickers, each handwritten with a different number. It was a description, in feet, of how far their home was situated from a proposed JCP&L power line poles. For some, it was a couple thousand feet. For others, it a few hundred feet. And there were those whose number was expressed in two digits.

Buildings, building extensions and additions (homes, businesses, garages, barns), swimming pools, above ground fuel tanks, tall signs or billboards, tall trees, obstructions and mounding of soil in the right of way are encroachments that are prohibited.

[a] minimum of a 60 ft. wide corridor will be cleared (30 ft. from either side of conductor or approximately 45 ft. from centerline of the poles on the rail side and 15 ft. from centerline of the poles on the opposite side/vacant side of pole).

JCP&L will clear the NJT and JCP&L ROW to the specified width in accordance with the FirstEnergy Initial Clearing of Transmission Lines Specification and the FirstEnergy Detailed Property and Provision List. Trees located outside the ROW which are deemed Priority Trees shall be removed. Priority Trees are defined as trees located adjacent to transmission corridors that are dead, dying, diseased, structurally defective, leaning or significantly encroaching, where the transmission facilities are at risk of arcing or failing should the tree or portions of the tree (1) fall into or near the transmission facilities; or (2) grow into or towards the transmission facilities. JCP&L will obtain the necessary rights from applicable property owners before removing trees and vegetation both on and off the ROW.

“This meeting tonight was to hear what the public had to say,” said JCP&L spokesman Ron Morano. “We elected to not have any supporters speak at this event.”