The Plains & Eastern Clean Line – the first new transmission line sited in this country in 45 years – would generate more than $9 billion in new investment.

In my opinion, this whole project is an attempt by a small group of investors to make a large amount of profit from the wind energy generation from Kansas. They have offered the proverbial 30 pieces of silver to local governments. Some have apparently taken it. I for one will not choose to do so. They promise Ralls County a whole million dollars (they must think this is 1960) to sell out our future. It is asking a lot of us to have our land taken by force to enable a few to get rich. I believe that other elected office holders should think beyond just today.

I think Mr. Tregengo’s assessment of the benefit to school districts and other county taxing jurisdictions is misleading because the facts are materially understated. 

I believe his overall discussion is short sighted because it does not address the tax revenues generated by the Project after it goes into service. Nor does it address the long term net tax benefits or losses. Therefore I regard most of his testimony as having little significance to an overall assessment of the longer term tax benefits to Missourians.

Basically, I believe that he spoke in generalizations which might leave the reader to see a much brighter prospect than actually exists for tax revenue benefits to Randolph and the other seven counties on the line. He omitted a discussion of which taxing jurisdictions receive little or no tax benefit.

Essentially, the value of a property is based on the perception of the buyer. Understanding that perception drives value is the foundation in analyzing the effect that electric transmission lines have on property value.

This perception does not have to be based on a scientific or engineering fact, it is based on what a buyer believes. An example of perception driving value based solely on belief is the haunted house. A home cannot be proven scientifically to be haunted. Yet, there are several homes throughout the nation thought to be “haunted” which stigmatizes the property resulting in a diminished selling price.

Just as in the last case, Grain Belt still has no memorandums of understanding with wind generators, and no firm commitments from any load serving utilities to buy capacity on the proposed transmission line.

Grain Belt fails to mention that MJMEUC may without penalty or cost elect to take no capacity over the new line, and that decision will be made sixty to ninety days before the line is then expected to enter service.

The TSA is nothing more than an option agreement.

In short, there currently is no commitment from MJMEUC to buy any capacity on the proposed transmission line.

The only support provided for the $10 million estimate from the MJMEUC was an eight-row spreadsheet in response to MLA’s Data Request MJM.13.

It is a flawed calculation of the cost of transmitting 100 MW and 200 MW of wind power from SPP to MISO. There is no calculation of, or comparison to, buying wind power over Grain Belt. The spreadsheet also contains an error in calculating the loss component of the costs. The total costs end up including addition of megawatt-hours and dollars which is flawed mathematics.

1. Mr. Lawlor asked how we felt about this move. We told him we would be thrilled not to have the line crossing our property, but that we did not want it moved to our neighbor’s property either. We couldn’t bring ourselves to benefit at the expense of our neighbors.
   
   
2. He said that the proposal to move the line seemed like a viable option, but that they expected something in return from us. My husband asked what he meant. Mr. Lawlor never did tell us exactly what they were expecting in return for moving the line off our property, but said it would be nice to have something from us.
   
3. We eventually told Mr. Lawlor that we could not agree to a move that would be detrimental to our neighbors, and that we would continue to oppose the Grain Belt Project. They thanked us for our time and left. That was the last we heard from Grain Belt about rerouting the line.
   

I will rebut Grain Belt witnesses James Arndt’s and Lanz testimonies regarding how the Grain Belt Express project could impact farming operations as well as discuss other issues regarding the negative impacts to farming and land as a result of large transmission projects like the Grain Belt project. Specifically, I will address the following negative impacts: Compaction of Soil; Erosion; Irrigation Equipment Interference; Difficulty in Aerial Applications to Crops and Pastures; Possible GPS Interference; Problems Maneuvering Large Farm Equipment around Towers; Precision Farming Problems; Concerns about Storm Recovery; and Eminent Domain.

Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC’s supposed promises to sell power to Missouri municipalities should be recognized for what they are: a political stunt to create pressure for approval of this project by giving small benefits to local governments at the massive expense of landowners’ rights. Those municipalities in support will bear none of the burden from Grain Belt’s proposed project. It is instead Missouri’s rural landowners that will experience significant disruptions in their operations if Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC is given the power to force land sales through eminent domain takings. This development does not change the underlying nature of the Grain Belt Express proposal. The project remains an attempt to engage in the abuse of eminent domain for private gain.

In summary, based on Staff’s review: 1) Grain Belt does not have the consent of the Caldwell county commission for its proposed transmission line to cross the public roads and highways in that county, the validity of its consent from the Monroe County Commission is being challenged in court, and, presently, the prefiled evidence does not include any such consents by the county commissions of Buchanan, Clinton, Caldwell, Carroll, Chariton, Randolph, Monroe and Ralls Counties; 2) There is not a clear need for the Project; 3) Grain Belt is qualified to construct, own, operate, control and manage the Project, but additional expertise will be needed once engineering and safety issues have been resolved; 4) Grain Belt has the financial ability to undertake the Project; 5) It is not clear whether the Project is economically feasible due to the lack of various RTO studies and the uncertainties surrounding the ATXI Mark Twain transmission line and its effects on the Missouri converter station and corresponding congestion; 6) A determination cannot be made at this time as to whether the Project is in the public interest since there is still uncertainty related to the economic feasibility and the safety of the Project.

It is expected that the MoPEP cities will save approximately $10 million annually by utilizing the Grain Belt Express and Infinity wind contract in their power supply after the IPM contact ends in 2021.

Clean Line’s owners are GridAmerica Holdings Inc., a subsidiary of National Grid USA (“National Grid”); Clean Line Investor Corp., a subsidiary of ZAM Ventures, L.P. (“ZAM Ventures”); Michael Zilkha; and Clean Line Investment LLC.

Clean Line Investment LLC is a vehicle for service providers and employees to invest in Clean Line, and is a small, minority shareholder in Clean Line.

Michael Skelly
Michael Zikha
Jayshree Desal    
James Glotfelty    
Mario Hurtado    
David Berry

While all these things seem kind of academic, it's pretty clear from Mario Hurtado's interview with NewsOK that the truthiness of this list isn't going to stop Clean Line from spinning it in a way they can use to preen (beg?) for financing and to pressure landowners.

"When the Trump campaign was looking at infrastructure, we thought it was a good thing to mention. We're just happy to be part of the conversation."

Like, when did you just happen to mention it? Did you run into them in the grocery store? How much did that conversation cost?

... a GOP penchant for infrastructure projects and commerce-building is expected to favor endeavors like the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, a $2 billion plan for transmitting wind power across 12 Arkansas counties from Oklahoma to near Memphis.

Academic voices say the trend toward renewables may be too entrenched to be crippled by Washington. Trump “can eliminate subsidies for solar power as well as electric cars, and he may not be very supportive of renewable energy, but ultimately technology and market forces will be the determining forces,” said Rajesh Sharma, an Arkansas State University assistant professor and expert in renewable energy technology. “Clean technology is advancing every year and costs are going down.”

Skelly sees opposition to the Clean Power Plan as “probably a net negative” to his ambitious project...

Clean Line recently announced an agreement with Southwire, designating Southwire as the preferred supplier of the overhead transmission wire for the Rock Island Clean Line. The agreement anticipates that the wire will be produced in Southwire’s facility in Flora, Illinois, where the company employs approximately 130 people. Clean Line and Southwire announced the agreement on March 6, 2012, at the American Wind Energy Association’s Regional Wind Energy Summit- Midwest.

A leader in technology and innovation, Southwire Company, LLC is one of North America’s largest wire and cable producers. Southwire and its subsidiaries manufacture underground and overhead Utility products, Renewable Energy products, building wire and cable, metal-clad (MC) cable, portable and electronic cord products. Southwire also provides OEM wire products, engineered products, continuous casting technology, and products made by Technology Research, LLC and Watteredge, LLC, both subsidiaries of Southwire Company.

Southwire’s Flora, Illinois plant has more than 40 years of experience in the design and manufacturing of overhead transmission conductor. Today, the plant leverages that expertise to support large-scale transmission projects like Grain Belt Express. The Grain Belt Express project could require as much as $35 million in materials from Southwire, depending on commodity prices and other variables.

SPRINGFIELD (Nov. 12, 2015) – The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) today approved an Order granting Clean Line Energy a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the Illinois portion of the 780-mile direct current Grain Belt Express Clean Line.

The project will bring approximately $700 million of private investment to the state of Illinois, create about 1,500 jobs and support Illinois manufacturing.

Clean Line is also committed to supporting local businesses and has designated Southwire Company a preferred supplier for wire for the transmission line. Southwire will manufacture the wire at its plant in Flora, Illinois.

“The Illinois Chamber of Commerce applauds Clean Line Energy and Southwire Company for coming together to support manufacturing jobs in Illinois,” said Todd Maisch, President and CEO of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. “Through this agreement, the Grain Belt Express Clean Line will create vital work orders for a local company. Clean Line’s commitment to hiring locally whenever possible will ensure that the Grain Belt Express will be an economic boon to the state.”

Preliminary calculations, assuming existing production tax credits for wind project participation in the project, could reduce costs by as much as $10M/year or $10 per megawatt hour compared to delivery of other wind projects from SPP to MISO.

This will be GE’s first HVDC project in the United States since acquiring Alstom’s energy portfolio last year. This addition to our portfolio was critical.

The Grain Belt Express Clean Line wind energy project has made significant steps towards getting the final green light from the Public Service Commission.

“It wouldn’t make a lot of sense to build a line around Missouri,” Lawlor said, adding that he is confident the PSC will rule fairly on the merits of the project, not the factor. “They’re going to judge the case on its merits and whether it meets the standards that Missouri has under its statutes. They will ask, ‘Is there a need for the project and is it it in the public interest?’ We have put forth a strong argument that there’s a need.“

While Indiana and Illinois signed onto the project before Missouri, Missouri was always seen as the most integral partner of the project. Lawlor says that belief can cause some to believe Missouri would not get much benefit out of the project, even though Missouri would get roughly 500 MW from wind energy as a result.

“Some folks get distracted this is something going through Missouri, the reality is that this is delivering power to Missouri,” he said. “From day one, it was just going to be a Kansas to Missouri line, but we found the Missouri grid couldn’t take that much power.

“Missouri’s key to this whole thing and we hope and expect we can bring those benefits to the state,” Lawlor said.

A reporter attempted to interview Faughn about his companies’ money troubles. The Missouri Times is headquartered at 129 East High St. in Jefferson City. A reporter found Faughn there at the top of a two-story walkup, inside a darkened room resembling a lounge.

Faughn was standing behind a bar in the room with a laptop computer in front of him. Liquor bottles stood on shelves on the wall behind him. Black and white photos of politicians covered the other walls of the room.

Faughn declined a face-to-face interview. He said he would consider written questions sent by email. Questions were emailed March 17. Faughn acknowledged receiving them March 21, but said he could not respond until next week.

Faughn, the former mayor of Poplar Bluff, launched the Missouri Times in 2013 with former Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton. Faughn was Jetton’s former campaign manager. Jetton has since severed ties with the operation.

The PATH project is an example of a project that faced significant public opposition.

As part of its analysis of the public interest, the PSC acknowledged the substantial opposition to the project expressed by business owners, farmers, and individual landowners across whose properties the project was proposed to cross. The Missouri PSC noted, “In this case, the evidence shows that any actual benefits to the general public from the Project are outweighed by the burdens on affected landowners.”

The National Park Service, for example, required significant and expensive mitigation measures from the developers for the Susquehanna-Roseland project in order to gain its approval for completion of the portion of the line that crossed the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, which it is mandated to protect.

The development of a transmission project is a commercial venture involving investors who are prepared to incur significant, yet ultimately limited, up-front development costs in return for the opportunity to earn future profits from the sale of transmission services and/or a regulated return on invested capital. Adopting a developer’s perspective enables us to look at the factors reviewed in this report as ones that affect either the cost or time required to construct a transmission project. The extent to which these factors represent barriers to the implementation of transmission projects is thus an assessment of whether these costs or time requirements are avoidable or necessary.

There are documented examples of project developers who have sought to reduce these costs and associated time requirements through up-front information sharing and joint (and early) development of mitigation approaches (including abandonment of early proposed and development of new routing options). The success of these activities has hinged largely on the extent to which they lead to meaningful engagement and tangible commitments to address public concerns over line routing.

The state-centric public-interest issue that arises most vividly for multi-state transmission projects involves the so-called “fly-over” states. These states are situated between the states that are the starting and ending points for a long-distance transmission project. The initial decisions by the Missouri PSC to deny the CPCN application for Grain Belt Express exemplify this issue. The public-interest issue raised by states in the middle is that, at bottom, they are being asked to bear significant portions of the cost or adverse impacts of a project, yet they do not believe they are being provided with sufficient opportunities to share in the benefits of the project.

The need to satisfy a middle state’s public-interest requirements is a classic example of what economists describe as the role and importance of “side payments.” In this instance, the gains from trade must be sufficient to cover side payments to affected parties who have standing but who would not otherwise benefit from the transaction. Thus, the situation faced by developers, such as those for the Grain Belt Express project, is tangibly and fundamentally (but not solely) commercial in nature. Notably, as discussed, the developers for Grain Belt Express recently reached an agreement to sell power from the project to an association of municipal utilities in Missouri and, based on this agreement, plan to re-file their request for state regulatory approval. It remains to be seen whether the fact of a Missouri entity signing an agreement that could be seen as demonstrating the public-interest value of the project in Missouri will result in the Missouri PSC approving the project on its third attempt in the state.

Developing a transmission project involves simultaneously managing two categories of commercial risk. One is the risk associated with securing the capital necessary to build the project. Eto (2016) focused on one example of capital risk: that associated with seeking regional cost allocation. The other category encompasses risks associated with the actual construction of a project. This report is focused on a key subset of these project-construction risks: the cost of satisfying the due process requirements of state and federal agencies involved in permitting and siting lines, which is often increased when there is organized public opposition to the project. These are necessary costs associated with transmission-line construction. Some can made more manageable through proactive actions by developers. Still others can be made more manageable through the actions of federal and state agencies to enhance the efficiency and accountability of their processes. Thus, while the project review process can be slow and add costs to project development, on the whole transmission lines are being built. Moreover, there are promising signs that both groups are taking actions to improve the processes, both in terms of their duration and the quality of the decisions that get made. We found examples of merchant transmission projects successfully gaining needed approvals and being constructed. Their experiences, in particular, suggest that if the economics of potential projects are sound, someone will find a way to build them.