On the other hand, a fully utilised and well-managed 50-plus-year merchant wire asset delivering an initial several gigawatts of electric power could be a potential overhead cash register for its owners.

Eminent Domain:  the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.

But it’s also because developers still have an inflated sense of the cost of undergrounding lines. The news hasn’t widely spread that modern lines require less conducting metal, horizontal drilling has been perfected by natural gas frackers, and inverter stations are as little as 25 percent the size they used to be.
Here’s what Dr. Christopher Clack, an energy modeler at Vibrant Clean Energy (VCE), told me:
"Data that I was provided from Tier 1 transmission vendors shows that the cost of underground HVDC transmission has a similar price point to the same overhead capacity of HVAC when the transmission line is over approximately 250 miles. This includes the cost to build inverter and rectifier stations at each end."

And of course the sticker price of building overhead lines does not include the unpredictable expenses of regulatory hassles and intransigent landowners. A line can not be cheap if it never gets built.

In terms of long-distance transmission, underground HVDC is now the smart choice.

Invenergy spokeswoman Beth Conley said the bill was expected and is no different than previous efforts to use property right concerns as a fake reason to derail the delivery of “clean energy” overwhelmingly supported in Missouri and across the country.

Asked if the federal government needed to preempt the states to overcome opposition to the siting of transmission lines, Manchin said the solution is to “follow the money.”

“If the utility companies would share some of the revenue [resulting from] that project with the states and counties they go through, you’d cure that problem like that,” he said.

The House Finance Committee passed HB 3000 on Friday, following an early morning Public Hearing on the bill in the House Chamber, and a marathon Judiciary Committee meeting earlier in the week. Both committees made significant changes to the original bill, primarily dealing with how the tax monies would be used. As it stands now,the utility companies will pass on the tax to West Virginia rate payers, and the rate payers will get none of the relief that governor Manchin first promised. Instead,all the monies will go to fund state and county block grants and infrastructure projects.

Every week you open your browser, scan the headlines, and see something to the effect of, “fossil fuels are out and clean energy is in”. The recent court decision upholding the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline and Dominion and Duke’s decision to abandon their Atlantic Coast pipeline project indicate a changing tide in how consumers and utilities view our energy future.

Most Americans want clean energy. People want electric vehicles and a cleaner environment. But, our policies on building the infrastructure to deliver this clean energy future have not caught up to public sentiment.

In June, the leading renewable energy trade associations made a goal to reach 50% renewable energy by 2030. Meanwhile, if elected, Joe Biden will push for a carbon-free power sector by 2035. Goals aside, the fact remains we need more transmission to move cheap wind and solar from more rural areas to load centers if we want to reach ambitious clean energy goals. We need a new wave of electron pipelines.

The Plains & Eastern transmission project exemplifies this problem. In 2009, Clean Line Energy Partners announced plans for a transmission line that would carry 4,000 MW of clean power from Oklahoma to load centers in the southeast and Mid-Atlantic. Years of navigating state and local regulations and gathering, then losing, federal support ensued.

By 2019, Clean Line had divested most of their transmission projects, including the Plains & Eastern Clean Line project, selling them off with the hopes someone else could overcome the endless regulatory and political battles associated with interstate transmission lines.

In addition to state input, there should be back-stop federal authority when transmission projects reach an impasse. The 2005 Federal Power Act attempted to give FERC this authority, but the rule framework was convoluted and limited in scope, leading to several court challenges. Through a clearer and more definitive act of Congress, FERC can serve as the final decision-maker when a transmission project cannot garner all permits from state and local authorities, or the permitting process is delayed beyond a year.
If the majority of a transmission line’s route has received proper permits, but a small portion has been denied or delayed by regulatory challenges, a transmission developer should be able to bring the case before FERC for final adjudication.

To address the aesthetic concerns of high voltage transmission lines, policy-makers can consider tax incentives or direct pay reimbursements for companies that bury their power lines near residences and towns or work with communities to design more aesthetically-pleasing structures.
To aid in the clean energy future, these incentives should only be available to power lines that predominately transfer renewable energy. This would allow transmission developers to accommodate the very real concerns of citizens and not break the bank.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
defendant herein, corruptly gave, offered, and agreed to give things of value, namely, jobs, vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts, for the benefit of Public Official A and Public
Official A's associates, with intent to influence and reward Public Official A, as an agent of the State of Illinois, a State government that during each of the twelve-month calendar years from 2011 to 2019, received federal benefits in excess of $10,000, in connection with any business, transaction, and series of transactions of $5,000 or more of the State of Illinois, namely, legislation affecting ComEd and its business;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2).

Hiring of Public Official A's Associates as Vendor "Subcontractors" Who Performed Little or No Work for ComEd

ComEd employees and agents, including third-party consultants and lobbyists were subject to Exelon's Code of Conduct. Exelon's Code of Conduct, applicable beginning in 2015, required employees and agents to: (a) "(k]eep accurate and complete records so all payments are honestly detailed and company funds are not used for unlawful purposes"; (b) "[c]onduct due diligence on all potential agents, consultants or other business partners"; and (c) "[n]ever use a third party to make payments or offers that could be improper." Exelon's Code of Conduct also prohibited bribery and listed as an example of a prohibited bribe: "Providing something of value for the benefit of a public official in a position to make a decision that could benefit the company." Beginning no later than in or around 2011, Public Official A and Individual A
sought to obtain from ComEd jobs, vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts for various associates of Public Official A, such as precinct captains who operated within Public Official A's legislative district. In or around 2011, Individual A and Lobbyist 1 developed a plan to direct money to two of Public Official A's associates ("Associate 1" and'' Associate 2") by having ComEd pay them indirectly as subcontractors to Consultant 1. Payments to Associate 1 and Associate 2, as well as later payments to other subcontracted associates of Public Official A. continued until in or around 2019, even though those associates did little to no work during that period.
Consultant 1 agreed in 2011 that Public Official A's associates would be identified as subcontractors under Consultant 1's contract and that ComEd's payments to Consultant 1 would be increased to cover payments to those subcontractors. Between in or around 2011 and 2019, Consultant 1 executed written contracts and submitted invoices to ComEd that made it falsely appear that the payments made to Company 1 were all in return for Consultant 1's advice on "legislative issues" and "legislative risk management activities," and other similar matters, when in fact a portion of the compensation paid to Company 1 was intended for ultimate payment to Public Official A's associates, who in fact did little to no work for ComEd. Consultant 1 and Company 1 did little, if anything, to direct or supervise the activities of Public Official A's associates, even though they were subcontracted under and received payments through Company 1. Moreover, because they were paid indirectly through Company 1, the payments to Public Official A's associates over the course of approximately eight years were not reflected in the vendor payment system used by ComEd, and as a result, despite that Public Official A's associates were subcontracted under and receiving payments through Company 1, no such payments were identifiable in ComEd's vendor payment system.

To meet its climate goals, the country needs to build cross-state High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission lines to significantly ramp up renewable electricity generation. The five HVDC transmission lines Clean Line Energy Partners unsuccessfully tried to develop to deliver renewable energy across the country are high-profile examples of these challenges.

... requiring DOE to designate broad areas as corridors before project proponents have developed specific, narrow proposals can strain relationships with landowners and communities. Allowing project proponents to apply for corridor designation after having laid the groundwork with landowners and communities may be better.

Consistent with requirements under NEPA, Congress should amend the Federal Power Act to clarify that FERC may exercise backstop siting authority for an interstate electric transmission facility within a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor if one or more states have approved the project, but one or more states have denied the proposed project or have withheld approval for more than two years.

Congress should establish a National Transmission Policy to provide guidance to state and local officials and reviewing courts to clarify that it is in the public interest to expand transmission to facilitate a decarbonized electricity supply and enable greenhouse gas emissions. The policy statement should also encourage broad allocation of costs. Congress should amend Section 111(d) of PURPA to require consideration of the national benefits outlined in the National Policy on Transmission in any proceeding to review an application to site bulk electric transmission system facilities.

Congress should provide financial support for priority HVDC transmission lines, such as through an ITC. Congress should provide an option for direct pay for the tax credit.

The team lobbying for Grain Belt Express –  Led by Nexus Nexus with Rodney Boyd, Kate Casas, and Brian Grace, along with Aaron Baker and Hannah Beers with Clout, the group put together a team early on in session that looked like there was little chance to succeed. It was rocky at the end, but they fought off what is almost certain to be the largest challenge to the project.

This week marks the final week of the Missouri legislative session for 2020. With a six-week hiatus in the middle of their normal work period due to COVID-19, both chambers returned to Jefferson City expecting to pass the budget, maybe some high-priority pieces of legislation, and little else. However, that is not the case. The state budget was passed on time and now sits on Gov. Mike Parson’s desk. Leadership and committee chairs have attempted to pull together many omnibus pieces of legislation with “noncontroversial” provisions to get through the process before the final gavel drops on Friday, May 15 at 6 p.m.

Two items of interest to Missouri Corn include a measure to rein in eminent domain and a separate provision to require higher blends of biodiesel to be included in diesel fuel sold in the state. Rep. Mike Haffner (R-Pleasant Hill) worked diligently with Rep. Don Rone (R-Portageville) to attach the biodiesel legislation on the House floor to Senate Bill 618, which is now in conference committee. SB 618 also contains the provisions related to eminent domain, which Missouri Corn also supports.

Sen. Justin Brown (R-Rolla) and Rep. Jim Hansen (R-Frankford) are the champions for the eminent domain legislation.

There was a debate on this provision on the Senate floor last week when Sen. Brown attempted to amend it on a bill. Much to MCGA’s frustration, several Republican and Democrat senators stood up to block the provision. This important legislation is also still attached to Senate Bill 662; however, this bill has not yet been assigned a conference committee. In addition to supporting these pieces, MCGA staff is working hard to safeguard against detrimental provisions during a time when tracking legislation and interacting with elected officials is challenging to say the least.

The caucus includes Sens. Eigel, Hoskins, Cindy O’Laughlin, Andrew Koenig, Bob Onder, and Eric Burlison.

Hillary Clinton spoke Tuesday about meeting with "a big group of clean renewable energy businesses," without noting that these companies' leaders gave financial support to her campaign and received taxpayer subsidies through the stimulus program.
"I met yesterday in Chicago with a big group of clean renewable energy businesses and they're just ready to go," Clinton said on the campaign trail in Iowa. "But they need some help from the government.
The meeting was in fact a $2,700-a-head fundraiser at the home of Tonya and Michael Polsky, the CEO and president of Invenergy, and hosted by four others whose companies received "help from the government" in the form of $2.2 billion in taxpayer-funded cash grants to boost wind, solar and hydroelectric-based projects.

Polsky, who also threw a fundraiser attended by President Obama ahead of the GOP midterm victory in 2014, received over $662 million in funding to boost wind and solar projects by the firm — with various partnerships throughout the country receiving the funds.

Outside of Polsky, Clinton fundraiser hosts Gabriel Alonzo, Mike Garland and Jim Spencer received nearly $1.6 billion combined for projects to push forward renewable and wind-based energy production.

Overall, Clinton has been a backer of alternative energy, with an emphasis on solar, during the seven months of her campaign. In July, Clinton pledged to put the U.S. down a path to creating enough renewable energy to power every U.S. home by 2027. The former secretary of state also vowed to have installed over 500 million solar panels across the country by the end of her first term in office.

Clinton called Tuesday for extending the tax credits that make these projects "worthy of investment," arguing that many jobs will be created as a result.

Also Tuesday, a joint committee of representatives and senators decided that eminent domain restrictions that would prevent the Grain Belt Express energy transmission project from becoming a reality will remain in an omnibus utilities bill.

The Grain Belt Express, an energy transmission project that would extend from Kansas to Indiana, would run across Missouri through eight counties, according to the project’s website. As planned, it would deliver 500-megawatts of wind-generated power to Missouri’s electric grid — with some going to Columbia.

Senate Bill 618 would hinder the project because of a provision that restricts the use of eminent domain, which refers to the government’s ability to acquire private land when it is needed for public use as long as compensation is provided.

The bill says, “no entity shall have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purpose of constructing above-ground merchant lines.”

Lawmakers said that the House was not willing to compromise or consider removing the eminent domain restrictions.

During the conference committee, Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, asked if there was a reason the eminent domain issue was included as part of the overarching utilities bill.  She said that she and others “may like the underlying bill” but wanted to do something different on the eminent domain question.

Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankfort, referenced the Missouri Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in favor of the Grain Belt Express project but emphasized that the court had not ruled on the issue of eminent domain. The Supreme Court “did not rule on whether or not they had the right to eminent domain,” Hansen said of the individuals pushing the Grain Belt Express project. “I think it’s our job to make eminent domain laws dealing with a project that this state has never seen before by a private company.”
He added: “Pass it. Let’s go to the Supreme Court.”

Our Mission
We support access to broader vital services across the state through the promotion of innovative projects resulting in positive economic, environmental, and community impact.

Focus on What Matters, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a nonpartisan organization having as its primary purposes the following: (i) the education of our local communities on public policy, including economic policy, relating to local communities and governments; (ii) the education of the general public on economics and public policy; and (iii) generally advancing and preserving the rights and responsibilities of citizens to appreciate the benefits of and ensure the continued existence of competition, economic freedom, and free markets. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 50l(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or corresponding section of any future federal tax code).