This decision sends a strong signal to the state legislature that the project has the constitutional basis to proceed with a wind energy transmission line through Missouri,” according to Kincheloe.

“We would also hope that this helps convince legislators that we will prevail in the courts if they attempt to block the project. Clearly precedent is on our side on this one and this Supreme Court decision demonstrates it,” Petty said.

Separation of powers is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

“Quite honestly, I’ve been focusing on keeping the power on in the wake of the coronavirus crisis,” said Petty. “I’m not sure where things are in the Senate. Hopefully, this Supreme Court ruling will be something they use as guidance.

Earlier this year, the Missouri House of Representatives passed by a 118-42 a bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankfort. His bill will prohibit developers of the 4,000-megawatt high-level transmission project from forcing landowners to sell property.

“This bill protects the rights of landowners in Missouri,” Hansen has insisted in sponsoring the bill.

The Senate also is expected to support the bill along party lines. Petty has urged Kirkwood residents to contact legislators and express their concern over the statehouse blocking the new green energy source.

The commission shall make its decision with respect to the necessity for and the   reasonableness of the location of the proposed electric transmission line or urban electric transmission line, taking into consideration: (1) The benefit to both consumers in Kansas and consumers outside the state and; (2) the economic development benefits in Kansas; and (3) the local aesthetics, location, environment and population density. The  commission shall issue or withhold the permit applied for and may condition such permit as the commission may deem just and reasonable and as may, in its judgment, best protect the rights of all  interested parties and those of the general public.

Property owners were paid several hundred dollars to a couple of thousand dollars by the utility company for easements.

Rep. Gail Finney, D-Wichita, urged House colleagues to expand authority of the Kansas Corporation Commission to regulate placement of transmission lines in cities. It would require the KCC to take into account population density, location and aesthetics in siting decisions.

It wouldn’t alter reality faced by residents of about 75 homes in close proximity to the utility towers in Wichita, but it would create a form of due process for property owners by requiring a siting permit.

“It’s not going to do anything to help these people right now,” Finney said. “What I’m doing is trying to help people in the future. It could happen to any one of you.”

Whether there are benefits to the project is a moot point to me, considering the freedom my constituents and residents of the entire state would have to give up. I’m concerned about private property rights and protecting Missouri residents from being displaced from their land to line the pockets of a corporation.

If an out-of-state developer can work its way across north Missouri for this project, what’s to stop the next developer from building another line across yours?

For the past six years or so, developers have been trying to build a giant power line across northern Missouri. The proposed Grain Belt Express line would carry 4,000 megawatts of wind-generated DC electricity from southwest Kansas to a converter station near the Illinois-Indiana border. From there, the electricity would be sold to retail customers on the East Coast. The massive power line – the largest ever built in Missouri – would cross eight counties and span the entire width of the state. As originally planned, the 800-mile power line was not actually supposed to provide electricity to a single end-use consumer in Missouri. It was just passing through.

Senate Bill 597, which I sponsored, will stop the taking of private property for the purpose of private profit. Simply put, this legislation denies the power of eminent domain to utilities that do not serve end-use customers in Missouri. In my opinion, a big corporation wanting to make money by selling Kansas wind power to East Coast consumers should not justify taking private property from Missouri landowners.

Imagine if Warren Buffett wanted to build a private toll road across northern Missouri. The billionaire would charge cars $100 apiece to race from his home city of Omaha, Nebraska, to Nashville, Tennessee, pocketing a huge chunk of profit on each trip. He might call it the “Music City Express.” Unfortunately, the toll road would have no exits in Missouri. Cars could only get on in Nebraska and exit in Tennessee. No local residents could use it at all.

Even though the Music City Express would make a fortune for Buffett, he would probably have trouble convincing every single landowner in his path to sell. The road would do them no good — it would just be a nuisance and take away their land. Surely a few holdouts would foil his plans. If only his project qualified as a “public use,” he could invoke the governmental power of eminent domain to force unwilling landowners to sell. But the project isn’t designed to benefit the public — it’s meant to enrich its owner.

The promotional literature for the company touts the project as a “free market solution to meet the growing demand for sustainable energy.” Well, there is nothing in a “free market” that gives entities the right to condemn property owned by the residents of Missouri and taking it for a private business.
When normal utilities are granted the ability to use eminent domain, their electricity rates are regulated by the state of Missouri. In exchange for the convenience of siting their facilities and the money saved because sellers have no bargaining power, the PSC protects consumers and makes sure that the benefits of eminent domain are passed along to electricity consumers.

Tom Kiernan, writing in favor of the project in the Feb. 12 Post-Dispatch, has made it clear that the project, part of a multi-state effort known as the Grain Belt Express, would be “difficult” to complete without eminent domain. But his op-ed piece seemed designed to avoid actually mentioning the words “eminent domain.” Why did he fail to mention the central issue driving this controversy?

As the Missouri Legislature enters its third year of debate over the project, Clean Line’s backers have started talking about fiber optics as well. Not only will electricity consumers receive a bonanza, but everybody in north Missouri will be able to watch Netflix.

Perhaps not as good as a toaster for opening a new account, but haven’t we all been asking for better rural broadband? Well, yes we have, but extending the fiber to homes, which is the most expensive part of providing rural broadband, is a much more difficult and expensive proposition than what Clean Line is offering.

...a project that will benefit so many small rural communities and save Missourians millions of dollars...

Missourians do not like living paycheck to paycheck paying high utility bills and soon many won’t have to. The Grain Belt Express Transmission Line will lower the cost of utility bills to dozens of communities throughout the state.

In Missouri, the line will span eight counties delivering at least 500 megawatts of low-cost energy (and probably much more). 

In recent years, special interest groups have gathered in Jefferson City with the goal of preventing the project from moving forward. This legislative session, these special interest groups are at it once again, introducing legislation to block the project and hinder Missourians in rural communities, suburbs, and across our state.

I encourage everyone who wants to see their family and neighbors benefit from this project to contact your legislator. As a constituent, taxpayer, and Missourian, your voice matters.

Former Chair Jon Wellinghoff (2009-13) said Congress, which gave FERC authority to enforce mandatory reliability standards in 2005, should now give the commission the power to create a national transmission policy to move renewable power to load centers.
“I think it’s now time for the Congress to give FERC direction about our climate crisis and how the transmission system is going to address that,” Wellinghoff said...

Wood said he’d like to see Congress give FERC “backstop” transmission siting authority, which the commission could use as a “hammer to get people to the [negotiating] table” on interregional transmission needed to deliver renewable power.

Moderator Rob Gramlich:
But he acknowledged the “politics of this probably haven’t changed at the congressional level, so we’ve got to win their hearts.”

Lawson wondered whether singling out one project should be a concern to anyone planning to develop large scale projects in the state. Lawson said, “What signal are we sending about our state’s desire for job creation and economic progress if we change the rules at the last minute?”

Although judges and state regulators have given it the go-ahead, Missouri lawmakers are still trying to unplug a controversial electric transmission line.

A spokeswoman for Chicago-based Invenergy, which is spearheading the project, said the power line project will have a significant economic impact in the state.

“This project will create thousands of jobs here in Missouri,” said Nicole Luckey.
In addition, she said the company is prepared to pay more for land than its fair market value.
“We are committed to compensating landowners fairly,” Luckey said.

Invenergy says its structures will take up less than 10 acres of land throughout Missouri, not including land underneath transmission wires.

Landowners in the path of the transmission lines argue that a private company should not be able to condemn land in order to build the project.

The company in charge of the project, Invenergy, said condemnation of properties under eminent domain is more of a last resort.

“We are not seeking ownership,” Nicole Luckey, director of regulatory affairs at Invenergy, said. “We are seeking an easement over folks’ land. Landowners will retain full ownership of the land in an easement. They can continue to use it for agricultural purposes.”

Luckey said landowners would be paid 110% of the market value in an easement, plus a structured payment that can be taken in a lump sum or in an annual payment, which would increase every year.