It is therefore the ORDER of this Court that Plaintiffs Petition in Eminent Domain is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court, pursuant to the requirements in Section 523.256 RSMo, orders Plaintiff to reimburse the owners for their reasonable attorney's fees
and costs incurred with respect to this condemnation proceeding. Defendants may file appropriate motions requesting the same.

monroe_co_gbe_findings.pdf
File Size:	3533 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

On direct, the appraiser for Plaintiff testified that he took into account the ingress/egress rights, in spite of omitting them from his report. The Court recognizes that it has the authority to consider the credibility of an appraiser's testimony at a condemnation hearing. Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. of Kansas City v. Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council, 316 S.W.3d 418,425 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010), as modified (June 1, 2010). This Court "is not required to take the appraisers' testimony at face value." Id. at 428. With that consideration, the Court gives more weight to the fact that the written appraisal report omits a significant portion of the easement rights sought in the Petition and thus did not include
compensation for the omitted rights. As to the appraiser's testimony to the contrary, the Court attributes bias to the witness who has already obtained significant compensation for his services and stands to gain significantly more in the course of this Project.

Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) established a federal loan guarantee program for certain projects that employ innovative technologies. EPAct authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make loan guarantees available for those projects.  Grain Belt Express, LLC (Applicant), has applied for a loan guarantee pursuant to the DOE Renewable Energy Project and Efficient Energy Projects Solicitation (Solicitation Number: DE-SOL-0007154) under Title XVII, Innovative Energy Loan Guarantee Program, authorized by the EPAct. The primary goal of the program is to finance projects and facilities in the United States that employ innovative and renewable or efficient energy technologies that avoid, reduce, or sequester anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Potential impacts on resources include, but are not limited to, impacts (whether beneficial or adverse; short term or long term) on air quality and GHG emissions; soils and paleontological resources; water resources, including surface and groundwater and floodplains; vegetation, wildlife, and special-status species; land use and recreation; socioeconomics and environmental justice; public health and safety; cultural resources and Native American traditional values; transportation; visual resources; and noise.

LPO will hold six public scoping meetings for the project, four in-person and two virtual meetings, at the following dates and times (Central Time). Registration for the virtual public meetings may be completed at the following web links:


• Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m., virtual meeting on Zoom ( https://us06web.zoom.us/​webinar/​register/​WN_​NOQzgumNTpOAIL5UoLVIeA)
• Thursday, January 26, 2023, 5 p.m.- 6:30 p.m., virtual meeting on Zoom ( https://us06web.zoom.us/​webinar/​register/​WN_​D619NGe1TGqMH0fcHx5SSA)

• Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Dodge House Hotel and Convention Center, 2408 W Wyatt Earp Blvd., Dodge City, KS 67801

• Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Municipal Auditorium, 201 W Rollins St., Moberly, MO 65270

• Thursday, February 2, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m. Corinthians Hill Event Center, 464 NE 20 Ave., Great Bend, KS 67530
• Thursday, February 2, 2023, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and 4 p.m.-6 p.m., Fairview Golf Course, 3302 Pacific St., St. Joseph, MO 64507

All meetings are open to the public and free to attend.

Now more than ever, we need strong environmental review and public engagement processes to avoid harming communities while effectively speeding up development of much-needed infrastructure to enable a rapid clean energy transition.

A recent study from MIT concludes that a significant hurdle in developing clean energy infrastructure projects is local opposition --and early community engagement can avoid delays or cancellations. To address this major slow down and to ensure that our new transmission is developed in an equitable manner, we must work with the very communities that our infrastructure is supposed to serve and not against them.

1. Public Participation: Local residents (their legislative representatives and public agencies) oppose projects in which they believe their worries are not adequately being attended to by the developer.
   
   

"The purpose of the pre-filing process is to facilitate maximum participation from all stakeholders to provide them with an opportunity to present their views and recommendations with respect to the environmental impacts of the facilities early in the planning stages of the proposed facilities."

...an applicant may demonstrate that it has met the statutory good faith efforts standard by complying with an Applicant Code of Conduct in its communications with affected landowners.

...the term “environmental justice community” includes disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution. The term also includes, but may not be limited to, minority populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples.

... whether the proposed rule constitutes good policy, such as, for example, whether it will be beneficial in determining whether to site electric transmission projects when the states have not done so, or whether the rule will tend to ensure almost nothing is ever sited.

State regulators are much better prepared to deal with that myriad of local concerns, including concerns over routing and costs, than FERC. Furthermore, state processes are far more convenient and user-friendly than processes at FERC, if for no other reason than geographic proximity. So, waiting one full year to allow a state to “go first” and make its decision makes sense for a lot of reasons. One obvious reason is that if the line is truly needed, the state regulators will in all likelihood approve it, and no FERC staff time and resources will need to be expended at all. The whole mantra that goes “the states are blocking needed transmission all over the country!” is simply a political and special-interest narrative. The steadily mounting increases over the past decade in transmission rate base nationally, with concomitant skyrocketing increases in transmission costs to consumers, blows up the narrative that states are systemically blocking needed transmission lines. Contrary to the narrative, states need more authority to scrutinize transmission projects for need and prudence of cost, not less, to protect consumers.

Otherwise, GBX will be placed in the position of having to decide whether to commit millions of dollars in security or cash pursuant to the executed TCA before it understands its total upgrade cost exposure associated with the Injection Rights.

The renewables spurred by the IRA require a considerable transmission buildout. Accomplishing it will be no mean feat. The most oft-proposed solution is to federalize ever more of the transmission planning and permitting process. That may sound better in theory than in practice.

Furthermore, the federal government has a dismal record in streamlining infrastructure permitting, even when it is needed. Look no further than the Western U.S., where federal lands are often an obstacle to transmission, rather than a facilitator of it.

Infrastructure opponents have had increasing success obstructing projects with a federal nexus. FERC’s natural gas pipeline certification program is a good reference point. Activists have blocked needed energy projects through the aggressive use of litigation at every step of the permitting and review process. Without meaningful reform to federal laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act, all those litigation weapons will now be in the hands of interveners seeking to stop electric transmission lines.

Beyond just educating the neighbors of a proposed project, former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-Mass.), now managing director of Citizens Energy, said developers and utilities should explore ways to ensure that the expansions directly benefit those communities.

Such arrangements can prove worthwhile even to for-profit companies by alleviating residents’ concerns that large transmission projects could lower property values or disrupt their neighborhoods with no visible benefit to them, Kennedy said. The costs of the delays or resiting of projects can often well exceed the expense of profit sharing with those communities, he argued.

Former FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable, now a partner at Reed Smith leading the firm’s energy regulatory group, noted that getting all parties on board with a project in the early phases can reduce the likelihood of prolonged, and expensive, delays at FERC and the federal courts.

“You’re in trouble if you have a matter pending and the first time you hear them is when they object,” she said.

Likewise, she said incorporating equity into the work done by RTOs can be accomplished by examining what voices are missing at the table and including those stakeholders who aren’t represented.

“We’re well on our way because the project has obtained an overwhelming majority of the easements, now has Public Service Commission approval, and now has a legislative framework,” said Petty.

“Invenergy has always been more than generous to the farmers with their compensation for access to their property. Its supported the generous compensation spelled out in a legislative compromise that was reached in 2021,” said Petty of Kirkwood Electric.

“While a few farmers still remain skeptical about Invenergy’s intention to make this a win-win situation for all, over 70% of the landowners and a majority of folks do understand it and are on board,” Petty added.

... Grain Belt Express, which has scored some recent successes.

...Chicago-based Invenergy, which has now navigated objections to the line from rural legislators and groups like the Missouri Farm Bureau.

State legislators with ties to the fossil fuel industry have opposed the wind energy project. Farm groups also have fought the project for years over opposition to the use of eminent domain for siting of transmission towers.

Some rural landowners and farmers supported legislation meant to derail the project, including one proposal that would have given county commissions veto power over transmission projects. Farmers wanted more money for land acquisition, and resulting legislation could have killed the project.

According to Petty, Missouri cities like Hannibal, Springfield and Kirkwood have supported the energy project for years. He said everyone is “jumping on the bandwagon now” and the cleaner, cheaper energy for Missouri will save money for homeowners and businesses.

“While a few farmers still remain skeptical about Invenergy’s intention to make this a win-win situation for all, over 70% of the landowners and a majority of folks do understand it and are on board,” Petty added.

According to Petty, it’s just a matter a time before everyone will be on the same page with the Grain Belt project.

“If the design and engineering of the project is materially different from how the Project is presented in Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC’s Application, Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC must file an updated application with the Commission for further Commission Review and determination.”