While the project is mainly using existing rights-of-way, there are “some limited areas” where the rights-of-way will have to be expanded to accommodate new transmission structures, according to the fact sheet.

Potomac Edison has “approached a handful of property owners in those areas (a mix of commercial or privately owned, undeveloped land) to discuss obtaining those easements for fair market compensation.”

Right now, Potomac Edison is conducting “preconstruction activities” along the transmission rights-of-way, according to the project fact sheet.
​
Company employees might be seen driving or walking the properties where the rights-of-way are, taking measurements, placing boundary flags, and gathering soil or vegetation samples.

Marilyn O'Bannon and her family on their Missouri farm. Marilyn is in the back row just above the word "For".

My story
by Marilyn O'Bannon
 
The day I was informed Grain Belt Express (GBE) merchant transmission had a proposed route to cross our family’s farms, it struck an emotion in me that I had never experienced.   I first thought if I’m just finding out about this project, then others need to know as well.  After searching for information on Google, my emotion immediately changed to anger as how could this happen in our county without people knowing about it?  Within minutes I called my US Representative, Sam Graves.  His legislative assistant informed me Rep. Graves was aware of project and there were constituents in favor of the project.  I was asked to get more information and call back.  I next called my State District Representative, Jim Hansen.  Rep. Hansen had more information on the project, informing me that Grain Belt representatives and lobbyists had been at the state Capitol asking for support of the project.  This was my first contact ever with Rep. Hansen, and he let me know he was not comfortable with the project and said he was willing to support Monroe County landowners.
 
After these initial calls, I felt overwhelmed realizing this was worse than I thought, especially after discovering the company, Clean Line, was planning to file an application with the PSC in March, and it was mid-December.  My younger son, said “Mom, you have to do something.”  I thought, what?  This actually motivated me—yes, do something!  I told my son, let’s visit the county commissioners as soon as possible.  A couple of days later, my son and I showed up unannounced to meet with the commissioners.  My thought previous to speaking with the three commissioners (men), was I need to let them know about this horrible project that is proposed to go through our county because they should do something.  As soon as I told them what I had learned, they smiled and said they had been meeting with Clean Line/GBE for almost two years, and that the county was going to receive a lot of tax revenue from the project.  I asked if they had verified that information, and they looked surprised and said well that is what project owner Clean Line's (CL) representatives told them.  I asked several more questions they couldn’t answer and then was told I should contact Adhar Johnson (from CL), she is really nice and good looking.  They gave me her number.  I reiterated that I could not believe I knew nothing about his project, and the commissioners told me, “you should have gone to the open house last summer.” I said what Open House?  CL had told commissioners all of the landowners were invited to the open house and the commissioners attended.  I asked if they saw any landowners on the proposed route at the open house, got a blank stare, then they recalled one landowner there and they thought he supported the project.  I said I can’t imagine why anyone would support a project like this.  Then one of the commissioners said, “you will get paid well for the easement.”  I replied it’s in the middle of our fields, no amount of money would be enough and asked, “would you want this line in the middle of your farm?”  The commissioner looked down and said no.   I told the commissioners it was evident more information was needed about the project, and I would be back the next week to see if they were able to verify the tax revenue and other project details.  I said I would try to call Adhar Johnson and report back.  

Following this meeting, I contacted several close neighbors and discovered no one was aware of the GB project.   I quickly became more motivated to get some answers and get all of the folks on the proposed route contacted.  My son recalled in a recent visit to his in-laws in northwest Missouri, he saw signs with words Block Grain Belt Express.  I contacted his in-laws to get contact information on Block Grain Belt Express.   I was able to get in contact with someone who was leading opposition of GBE for the past six months.  I returned to visit with the county commission, and discovered the commissioners were not able to verify the $800,000 tax revenue for the county that Clean Line representatives had told them.  Again, the commissioners seemed to think this project was good for the county and I stated there should have been a meeting organized by them in Paris, Missouri, the county seat.  I learned the commissioners had signed a letter giving support for the project.  
 
I knew at this point action must be taken.  I needed to rally support and get a meeting organized inviting all of the folks on the proposed route, neighbors nearby the route, county and state officials, and even our consolidated electric manager.  It’s now just after the first of January and I needed to get a meeting set up quickly.  After calling our local community center, I was informed they would not charge rent for the space.  Dividing the route in thirds, I contacted a landowner on the east end of the route and another landowner to the west, with myself taking the middle, to contact as many of the landowners as possible.  I sent information and the date of the meeting January 25th, to be distributed.  Local newspapers were contacted to inform of the meeting, and I started having conversations with Northwest Missouri opposition—what support!  They had signs and had already been working on lists of landowners to the south and east of them to begin informational meetings.  I think we both were overjoyed to connect the state.  Block GBE-Missouri had been getting advice and support from Block GBE-Illinois.  Joining this network gave the direction I was needing to focus efforts on opposition.  I invited Block GBE to our January meeting in Madison and they were happy to give a presentation and provide information for opposing such as how to contact Missouri PSC.  Prior to the meeting planned in January, I gathered about a dozen neighbors to meet with County Commissioners to let them know they were not aware of GBE, they were opposing the project, and asked the commissioners to rescind their support of the project.  The number in attendance made a huge difference in the attitude of the commissioners and they stated they would attend the meeting in Madison later in January, and also stated they would rescind their support of GBE. 
 
Prior to the meeting in January, I kept working to be more informed about the project to be able to have information for landowners planning to attend.   I was starting a contact list of landowners and folks interested in property rights, and emailing updates on a regular basis.  
 
The meeting was a huge success.  Close to a hundred in attendance.  Russ Pisciotta and his wife, (Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri) from northwest Missouri, gave an excellent presentation.  Strategies going forward were discussed and it was clear the opposition was growing as more people were getting informed and communicated with regularly by email and Facebook.  Two of the County Commissioners attended the meeting, and shared they were rescinding their support of the GBE project.   It was at this meeting that I was informed GBE was planning a media event in a few days in Jefferson City at the ABB plant.  This event was invitation only, but since the county clerk shared it with me, I decided to go and took three other volunteers with me.  Just to park, clearance was needed.  At the door, I was directed to a desk to check-in.  After I checked in, I was immediately swarmed by a few people who asked who I was and why was I there.  I learned quickly two of them were Mark Lawlor, GBE project manager and Adhar Johnson (the nice girl from CL).  Adhar threw her arms in front of me telling me to leave.  I stated I was there as a stakeholder and to learn, not to give any trouble.  Adhar yelled at me, stating you are a landowner and we are not ready to talk with you.  Immediately, this got the attention of the plant manager.  Adhar told him I should leave.  I explained it looked like a lot of people were in attendance, however most were senators and representatives.  He listened to GBE representatives complain about my attendance, and I said innocently, I’ve done nothing to these people.  The ABB manager apologized, telling me to leave.  At that point, I asked if could use the restroom before leaving. Adhar stated don’t let her.  Politely, the manager said he would escort me to restroom.  I was polite, as well, and as I was being escorted, I asked the manager if he did not notice their disrespect.  In fact, I got the manager’s business card and followed up with a letter of my appreciation for the bathroom break and the disrespect I received. 
 
Leaving that encounter with GBE, I was discouraged.  I called John Cauthorn (past state Senator), before leaving the parking lot and reported the treatment.  He asked me what I was going to do and I said, “go home.”   He said no, “go to the Capitol, stop anyone who will listen to you and tell them about GBE.”    
I’m thinking I’ve never done this before, I don’t know what I’m doing?  It’s 10 am, sure maybe we can stop by the Capitol and see how it goes.  This is when the activism kicked in gear.  We went from office to office, getting either appointments or catching a rep or senator to listen to us.  We were told to see office of Economic Development which we did and also see Senator Rupp who was scheduled for an appointment to the PSC in April.  One of the persons with me said his son hunts with Senator Rupp, so we had our connection.   Activism and Advocacy full force.  I think we left the Capitol around 4 or later that day.  My sister-in-law called me to ask how it was going and I said I think we need a lawyer.  Since she lived in Jefferson City, she said let me check into this.  Later that day, she called me with a name of an attorney, who by the way, just completed serving on PSC.  The next day, a meeting was scheduled with attorney.  We were just getting started.
Legislation was filed in next several weeks, and along with support of Block Grain Belt Express-Missouri, landowners were organized to make regular trips to the Capitol to promote the first House Bill which would not give the authority of eminent domain to a merchant transmission private, for-profit company.
 
Advice: Talk to your neighbors, relatives and friends.  Ask for help.  Organize an email list of contacts and follow-up with regular communication.  Work on leads.  People may know someone who will help, then accept any help they will give.  It’s a small world, someone always knows a person with background or expertise, and there are unknown connections you will find once you start reaching out.  As a point of contact, you can disseminate information to others.  Use social media.  
 
 
Become informed and connect with those who may have influence.  In our case, Missouri Farm Bureau, and other ag organizations:  Cattlemen’s, Corn Grower’s, Soybean Association, Pork and Sheep Producers.   Meet with legislators.  They may disagree with you, but keep them informed of your efforts.  
 
It doesn’t matter if you have never done anything like this before.  It’s your property, don’t let some company run over you. 
 
You don’t need a background in energy, find someone who does.  Be the communicator and stay in contact with those who want to help your cause.  You may be asked to be interviewed.  Step up.  If not you—who?   Reporters may edit your comments, but continue to speak out.
 
 
Focus on your constitutional rights!  
 
Be relentless, don’t give up.  It’s easy to find reasons to not get involved.  But for me, if I had to live with a project crossing my family, neighbors and friends’ farms, and chose to do nothing that was not an option.  
 
The base of my motivation has been my father saying, “work to do all you can, never give up until you know you have done everything possible.”  And, my close friend who said to me, “God does not call the equipped, He equips the called”
 
The journey may be long, like nearly 12 years and counting, but the connections with folks along the way, is a gift.  I still have a simple message from one I met early in 2014, “We will prevail!”
 
Find your motivation.  Are you like me?—I wondered for years how did something happen without my knowledge, then complained.   I would have never envisioned myself as an activist, but I could not stand by for this wrongdoing.  You can’t fight all the battles.  I’m passionate about my family, and want a world that is safe and secure for my grandchildren.  
 
My passion for property rights continues to grow, not waver.  At this point, it looks like we will never be done, but that only continues to motivate me.  I have been fortunate to work with some brilliant people, who I can call on for help.  Find your smart people, then do your work.  
 
These are some quotes that always lift my spirits:
 
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”  -- Margaret Mead
 
"Try your best, then you can let that thing go and try something else. Just be sure to finish what you start. See it all the way through, and don't give up so easily.” ― Queen Latifah

The purpose of the Public Service Commission is to ensure fair and prompt regulation of public utilities; to provide for adequate, economical and reliable utility services throughout the state; and to appraise and balance the interests of current and future utility service customers with the general interest of the state's economy and the interests of the utilities.

Thank you for contacting the Public Service Commission of West Virginia regarding the transmission line project. We are aware of plans for the proposed transmission line, but have not yet received a filing in this matter. We expect the developer to apply to the PSC for a certificate of convenience and necessity (under code section 24-2-11a) before beginning any construction. Once the PSC receives the application, there will be a public notice (the law requires newspaper publication in counties where the line is proposed to be located) and an opportunity for the public to comment and to file protests and to ask for the PSC to hold a hearing. We encourage you to share your comments once a case has been opened and is available for public input.

​This section of state code that got amended back in 2010.  It is WV Code §24-2-11a(c) available at this link:  

https://code.wvlegislature.gov/24-2-11A/


It says:  At least thirty business days before the deadline set by the Public Service Commission to file a petition to intervene with regard to the application, the applicant shall serve notice by certified mail to all owners of surface real estate that lie within the preferred corridor of the proposed transmission line. Notice received by a named owner who is the recipient of record of the most recent tax bill that has been issued by the county sheriff's office for a parcel of land at the time of the filing of the application is sufficient notice regarding that parcel for purposes of this subsection.

I have the right to intervene as an impacted citizen. I also have a right to intervene and participate in the case, not just file a comment.

You do have a right, as any citizen does, to ask to intervene in any case before the Commission.
However, in this case, there is no case before the Commission, so therefore we cannot take or act upon your request.
Until the company files a petition seeking our approval of the line, there is no case. That has not been filed by the company.
If such a request is filed, we will be happy to notify you and then you can petition to intervene.
In the meantime, I may suggest you file your protest with the company.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to call me at any time if I can be of assistance.

“People are trying to take approximately 5 acres of my property and giving me absolutely no information,”  she said. “They’ve called me, and they want to do a survey, but they won’t give me any information.”

“(PPL) was asking if (residents) would sign a document and if they didn’t sign the document, they couldn’t tell them about the project, I’m being told,” Walsh said. “Other people were being offered crazy low value for property.”
He said at least 10 people told him of instances like this....

Applying for CPCN/CCNs from the Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia state commissions is a threshold step for Valley Link during the pre-construction phase, because obtaining CPCN/CCNs will improve Valley Link’s ability to secure the needed land rights to support the Project Portfolio. Because the PJM Board only recently approved the Valley Link Portfolio Project on February 26, 2025, Valley Link has not yet initiated the CPCN/CCN process. Valley Link faces significant time pressure to initiate the CPCN/CCN process within the next few months because CPCN/CCN proceedings in these states can be lengthy.

Valley Link is committed to collaborating with residents, local governments and other stakeholders in the project communities at every stage of the process. Community engagement is crucial for making informed decisions that reduce or prevent potential impacts while delivering for the public essential infrastructure necessary to address large-scale reliability needs that the PJM grid faces both in the short term and for years to come.

On behalf of research teams at Data for Progress and World Resources Institute, I’m reaching out to ask if you would be willing to participate in a 30-min or 45-min confidential recorded interview to answer questions about your experiences with community engagement and transmission infrastructure projects. The opportunity to learn from your expertise with the PATH project would be a particularly valuable contribution to our research. 

We are inviting advocates both for and against transmission projects, policymakers, developers, community organizations, and other key stakeholders to these discussions. In the interview, we hope to learn about your familiarity with and views of community engagement efforts around transmission development, including what you view as working well or as areas for improvement. 
These interviews are part of a larger research project designed to examine barriers and opportunities for transmission deployment, including a specific focus on community engagement and understanding the role that community benefits (and tools like community benefits agreements) could potentially play in addressing some of these challenges, or if not, what their shortcomings are. We plan to synthesize what we learn from these interviews into a report which will also include evidence from case studies, focus groups, and survey data.
 
We would be grateful for the opportunity to include valuable insights from your unique expertise in our research. Your interview responses will be confidential and nothing you say will be attributed to you or your organization. Please reach out if you have any questions about the interview format.


If you’d like to participate in this interview, please let us know, and we would be delighted to set up a 30-min or 45-min Zoom discussion in the next few weeks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I’m not sure how I can help you with your project.  How many actual transmission opponents are you interviewing?  The fact of the matter is that once a transmission project is sited on private property, the impacted property owner will oppose it.  It doesn’t matter how many “benefits” the government or the transmission owner want to shower on others in the community who are NOT impacted.  For instance, if a transmission line is sited in my back yard and I will have to live with it in perpetuity, it doesn’t matter much to me if somebody wants to fund a new park across town, or in an adjacent community that is not impacted at all.  Community “benefits” are nothing more than a bribe to buy the advocacy of unaffected persons.  It doesn’t make the landowner whole.  “Benefits” to people who are not impacted do nothing to change opposition and only create arguments and bad feelings in local communities.  I wouldn’t throw my neighbor under the bus for my own personal gain, and I hope you wouldn’t either.

Maybe you should change your polling questions to ask people if they support a transmission line ACROSS THEIR OWN PROPERTY that will use eminent domain to take the land if the landowner refuses.  Or if a landowner is willing to sacrifice his home for the “benefit” of people who are sacrificing nothing for the effort.

The only opinions that matter here are the ones of impacted persons.

Have a great day!

P.S.  Transmission opponents are unlikely to give away our strategy to dark money transmission advocacy groups.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I completely understand if you do not wish to participate in this research project. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I respect the time you spent writing this reply and wanted to provide more context to you about this work. 

As an independent non-profit research organization, we hope to present a balanced view of challenges and shortcomings when it comes to how companies have approached transmission development, as well as opportunities to ensure that landowners have a meaningful say in these projects, including when that means organizing to stop them or to improve the conditions under which they do get built. We are representing a variety of perspectives across nearly 100 participants in our interview and focus group research, and have invited transmission opponents to participate in these interviews ranging from directly impacted landowners to county commissioners that have spoken out against projects. Our research included focus groups with rural landowners to understand their views on the important questions that you raise -- such as how they would feel about transmission infrastructure being built across their own property and their views on the use of eminent domain. You make valid points we've also heard during our research about the perceptions of benefits and their limitations, which will inform the analysis in our report. 

In case it is of interest to you, we are also conducting 15-20 minute anonymous surveys as part of this project. We'd welcome your response if you would want to participate in this in lieu of an interview, but we also respect your decision to decline participation in the project. 

Once again, I wanted to thank you for your time and the care you put into your reply. Have a wonderful weekend!

Recipients of low-interest LPO loans “incur lower financing costs for their qualifying infrastructure projects than if they had used commercial capital markets [and] will pass along the savings to customers”

Although it may seem profitable for landowners to reject offers and hold out for 150% compensation, going to court may be costly and not worth the risk, said James Owen, director of Renew Missouri, a local clean energy nonprofit organization.
“I do not believe it is going to be in anyone’s best interest to challenge this in court,” he said. “They’re going to have to pay attorney fees on that. It’s going to be dragged out."

When DOE first opened this program, we initially submitted applications for all projects in Invenergy's transmission portfolio to be considered.

20241213_motion_gbx_to_dismiss_petition.pdf
File Size:	301 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

20250110_response_petitioners_to_gbx_mtd.pdf
File Size:	964 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

GBX's Motion states that building an interstate transmission line across their properties does not constitute any “invasion of a legally protected interest.” (GBX Motion at 15). As GBX sees things, Petitioners’ objections to GBX’s likely condemnation actions, its subjection of Petitioners to forced sales of their lands, and its construction of its transmission line across their farms and properties are "purely academic concerns." (GBX Motion at 19).

GBX wants this Court to ignore the Illinois landowners' objections to GBX's entry on their lands because Petitioners’ objections are nothing more than "...general...moral, ideological or policy objection[s] to a particular [FERC] action" (GBX Motion at 15).

GBX’s contempt for the property rights of Petitioners would be bad enough if it stopped there. But having hit rock bottom, GBX begins to dig.  After omitting any mention of its need for eminent domain power and belittling Petitioners’ interest in avoiding forced sales of their properties, GBX tells this Court that Petitioners are a group of “…citizens who … roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing." (GBX Motion at 3).

But it was GBX, not Petitioners, who lobbied the Illinois General Assembly for custom-tailored legislative changes to provide a glide path for its transmission line project. (Petitioners’ Initial Brief, at 21).

It was GBX, not Petitioners, who inserted in its custom-tailored legislation a route through the nine Illinois counties in which Petitioners’ farms and properties are located. (Petitioners’ Initial Brief at 22).

And it was GBX, not Petitioners, who sent minatory letters to Petitioners stating that, if they didn’t sell their property to GBX voluntarily, GBX would file an eminent domain lawsuit against them to take their property anyway.  See Exhibit B to this Response.

So GBX is partly correct: there is one party to this appeal who has been roaming across the country looking to pick legal fights with strangers. But it’s not Petitioners.
​
FERC’s unlawful order makes possible GBX’s exercise of the power of eminent domain against Petitioners. GBX’s plan to take Petitioners’ lands involuntarily and to build its high voltage transmission line across their properties presents precisely the kind of particularized injury that affects Petitioners in a concrete and personal way required for standing.  TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (2021).