I'm disturbed to see that you're regarding Lu Nelsen and Center for Rural Affairs as a primary source.  Center for Rural Affairs is not an intervenor in this project.  Center for Rural Affairs is a paid transmission advocate, through the RE-AMP program, it is paid to to promote transmission.

A CfRA Director also sits on the RE-AMP Steering Committee.   It's unfortunate that these facts are not included in your article -- this interest should be disclosed, because they are neither objective nor representing public interests or farmer interests.  If their paid advocacy was not disclosed to you, that's an even more significant problem.

FirstEnergy lost two large power plants during January's arctic-like weather -- the 2,490-megawatt coal-burning Bruce Mansfield plant in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, and right next door, one of its 900-megawatt nuclear reactors at its Beaver Valley power plant.

And then the company found it could not buy natural gas for its 545-megawatt gas turbine plant in Lorain. The shutdowns and inability to buy gas forced the company to buy power on the regional grid -- just as wholesale market prices soared.

Power purchases during the 10 days of sub-zero January weather knocked down earnings by 13 cents per share, Leila Vespoli, chief legal officer and executive vice president of markets, told financial analysts during a public teleconference Tuesday and now available on the company's website.

She said power purchases over the entire quarter reduced earnings by a total of 23 cents per share.

Then extra charges levied by PJM Interconnection, the manager of the grid in Ohio and 12 other states, nicked another 10 cents per share out of gross profits, she said, though the company is planning on recovering about half of that from commercial and industrial customers.

Higher prices exasperated the earnings impact of our power purchases.

It has been in the works for the past half-decade and will build two lines intended to connect the Midwest’s wind resources to surrounding areas with less potential to generate wind, such as Missouri and southern Indiana. About 7,000 megawatts of power in Oklahoma would become available to surrounding states.

"Mr. Lawlor has been through this before, in Kansas, where he says the company has completed buying the land it needs for that portion of the line."

The landowners know this isn't true. But there was some hope on my end that our land would no longer be impacted, so I called the St. Louis Dispatch and spoke with Deborah Peterson, Editorial Writer, who told me she was involved with writing the editorial. She assured me that what was printed was what Mr. Lawlor communicated to her.

So I tried to call Mr. Lawlor, his reputation for not answering his phone or responding to messages is accurate, so I called Clean Line's office and waited on hold rather than leave a message. I spoke with Grain Belt Express representative Ally Smith. She admitted they are still negotiating easements in Kansas, which conflicts with Mr. Lawlor's statement, and promised to check into the situation and call me back the next day to explain how something so wrong could be communicated/printed.

Three days go by, no call back. I called Ms. Smith again, but had to leave a message, no call back. Finally, this afternoon, Ms. Smith answers her phone, she claims to have tried to call me earlier in the day (I had no missed calls on my phone) but let bygones be.

Turns out there was a "miscommunication" between Mr. Lawlor and the STL Dispatch editorial board. That was the extent of the explanation. No mention of what he really meant or said, but to me it seems pretty hard to confuse anything with owning all the property they need in Kansas. (I wonder if lies count as miscommunication, I guess one could argue they do, I wonder, was Ms. Smith miscommunicating to me?).

I asked Ms. Smith about Clean Line's Code of Conduct found on their website and these lines specifically:

I c. Do not misrepresent any fact.
II h. Do not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend have signed a document or reached an agreement with Grain Belt Express Clean Line.
III b. Do not discuss your negotiations or interactions with other property owners or other persons.

It's pretty evident that some if not all of those codes have been ignored by Mr. Lawlor. I asked Ms. Smith who is responsible for enforcing those codes and what the penalty is. I was asked to be put on hold. Then she made efforts to dodge the questions, instead offered that they had contacted the paper to report the error, that it may or may not be corrected, and there is nothing else they can do. I asked again who enforces the code and what the penalty is, doesn't seem like that tough of a question for a company who touts their transparency and integrity and efforts to inform every chance they get, but Ms. Smith couldn't answer the question beyond "it's a managerial process". Perhaps Mr. Lawlor will enforce the code upon himself and penalize himself. I was told I must file a complaint regarding the code and their internal managerial process would determine its merits. I thought I was filing a complaint with my initial call, but it turns out it has to be in writing. I asked whether she could file a complaint on my behalf as she is aware of the situation now, turns out Clean Line employees can't file a complaint, they aren't in a position to hold themselves or each other accountable regarding their own Code of Conduct. So, how can their managerial process result in any penalty if they can't enforce it upon themselves?

Does anyone still think Clean Line will be accountable for any other promises or statements they make to property owners, commissioners, press, politicians or investors?

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Mr. Lawlor has been through this before, in Kansas, where he says the company has completed buying the land it needs for that portion of the line.

FirstEnergy Corp.‘s stock had its “sell” rating reiterated by stock analysts at Citigroup Inc. in a report issued on Thursday...

Local 102 represents about 690 of FirstEnergy’s linemen, substation workers, meter readers and technicians in the big electric utility’s Potomac Edison and West Penn Power territories.
About 125 of Local 102’s members work at Potomac Edison service centers in Williamsport; Frederick, Mount Airy and Thurmont, Md.; Martinsburg and Berkeley Springs, W.Va.; and Waynesboro and McConnellsburg, Pa.
Potomac Edison serves about 250,000 Maryland customers in an area stretching from Garrett County east to parts of Montgomery and Carroll counties, and about 132,000 customers in West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle.
West Penn Power, whose territory includes Pennsylvania’s Franklin and Fulton counties, serves about 720,000 customers.
In March 2013, FirstEnergy began negotiations with Local 102 for a labor contract to replace the three-year pact that was to expire April 30, 2013.
What happened next is in dispute.
The company said the contract expired and the union members have continued working under the terms of the previous contract. The union, on the other hand, said the contract was extended for one year until May 1, 2014 — 10 days from today.

Asked last week whether that means a deadline is looming, FirstEnergy spokesman Toad Meyers said, “We’re not facing a deadline from the company’s standpoint. The plans are to continue to negotiate.”
Meyers, who is the utility’s spokesman for comment on negotiations with Local 102, didn’t mention the talks in Detroit.
He said “at least seven more negotiations” are scheduled with Local 102 leaders before April ends. He said he has “no idea” where those talks are taking place.
Asked Thursday what happens if an agreement isn’t reached by May 1, Whalen said there’s a “variety of things that could happen.
“First of all, we continue to work day by day,” Whalen said. “Or, the union could agree to sign an extension to work under the (last contract’s) terms for ‘x’ number of days.
“Or, depending on what (FirstEnergy is) thinking, they certainly have the ability to lock us out when they want,” the legality of which would “depend on where it’s at in the negotiations,” Whalen said.
“And then, the last thing, if we don’t have an extension, we have the right to strike,” Whalen said.
If a strike or a lockout were to come, Whalen said neither could happen until at least May 1, when the “no-strike, no-lockout provision” expires with what the union said is still the contract.

Tell Uncle Tony to take a cut in pay, put a pair of di electric boots up his a$$ filled with concrete and take a plunge in the Delaware. Italian my a$$ he is a embarrassment to the nationality and the human race. Some would call him "Yellow" not Uncle Tony or possibly numb-nuts. Yell "Mafia" and I bet he pees his pants.

Mon Power is an a$$-hole company. The WV PSC allows them to screw over consumers of electric.

Project managers and regulators are well
aware of the effects of community issues on
project schedules, costs, and eventual success
or failure. Traditional public relations efforts
employed by project proponents and citizen
participation requirements of regulatory
agencies are often interpreted by communities
as what the proponent is planning to “do to
us.” There is a better way. Social ecology
includes the impacted communities into the
project so that citizens interpret proposed
actions as what the proponent is trying to “do
with us” to improve our quality of life.

Within three years, some Chicago area residents could be saving money on their electric bills, thanks to power generated 500 miles away.

Adding wind energy to the grid should push wholesale electricity prices down, Detweiler said. He thinks Illinois consumers could save about $320 million after the line’s first year.

“Wind is stranded because of a lack of transmission lines,” said David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, which represents the interests of utility customers in Illinois.

The Clean Line, he added, “has the potential to bring in a lot of low-cost power.”

The savings suggested by Detweiler are an estimate, but “there’s no question that it would reduce prices in Illinois,” Kolata said.

The $2 billion Rock Island Clean Line would take 3,500 megawatts of power created by thousands of wind turbines in Iowa and deliver it to Illinois. The project could be completed by 2017.

“As a nation [we] are moving toward renewable energy resources. We need a grid that reflects where those energy sources are found,” said Hans Detweiler, director of development for the project.

Wind-generated electricity could help Illinois meet renewable energy standards. By law, one-fourth of the energy used in Illinois must come from renewable sources by 2025.

And there is demand for renewable energy sources. Some Chicago suburbs seek out green energy through a process called “aggregation,” in which the suburb buys green energy in bulk for the community and passes along the savings, if any.

In Evanston, aggregation saved the average household $264 in its first year, said Jonathan Nieuwsma, vice president of Citizens for Greener Evanston.

Mr. Skelly’s visit comes amid an upsurge in opposition to the project.

Opponents recently have banded together in a bid to thwart Grain Belt Express, with some sessions held in Buchanan and Clinton counties. They contend landowners are being coerced into signing easement agreements.

However, Clean Line believes it is gaining more supporters rather than detractors and say the process in Kansas already has erased doubts.

“We’re having those conversations in Missouri,” Mr. Skelly said. “We’re out there having negotiations with landowners ... We find out that people get more comfortable with it.”

I can tell you how negotiations with landowners in eastern Kansas is going. They're telling Skelly where he can put his power line, to put it mildly. The vast majority of landowners in eastern Kansas have resolved to not even negotiate with Clean Line until they get regulatory approval in Missouri and Illinois. The routing approval handed down by the KCC last fall was contingent upon them gaining regulatory approval in these two states. Why would anyone want to sign an easement agreement with a company that will more than likely sell the easement pre-construction to a foreign interest like National Grid, and not even be around when and if construction ever begins.