Solar company offers county $850K to drop moratorium on overhead power lines

A representative from Clearway Energy acknowledges that the company's subsidiary has filed a lawsuit against Linn County for putting a moratorium on its transmission line that will go to an Evergy substation similar to the one above. However, the company is offering the county $850,000 to drop the moratorium. (Wix file photo)

By Charlene Sims, Journal staff

LCJeditor@icloud.com

MOUND CITY – Barry Matchett from Clearway Energy, met with Linn County Commissioners Alison Hamilton and Jim Johnson on Monday, July 27, to provide them more information about the safety of the transmission lines proposed to be installed and to reiterate that Clearway Energy had offered a contribution agreement of approximately $850,000 – $50,000 for each tower.

Matchett also mentioned again that the county would receive $30,000 annually in property taxes that the county would receive annually for the area of land used by the footings of the towers. He first informed the commission of that amount at the July 20 meeting

While Matchett and another representative from Clearway, Josh Framel, had been meeting with the commissioners weekly since July 13, the $850,000 amount had not been disclosed at a commission meeting.

A brief dateline of the process follows:

• On May 26, when Hamilton became aware of the transmission lines running from the Missouri solar project into Linn County, she made a motion to add an amendment about transmission lines to a moratorium resolution she had previously made on May 11 for battery energy storage systems, data centers, and Bitcoin for cryptocurrency mining facilities.

• On May 27, Swan Solar (the company building the Missouri project) put in a permit to cover the building of the transmission line (even though it was not required in the regulations) and were told by Planning and Zoning Director Jennifer Cummings that Linn County does not require building permits for transmission lines under normal circumstances. The county denied the permit application.

• On June 12, Clearway on June 12 made a contribution agreement offer of $850,000 to the county to avoid a lawsuit and continue with the transmission lines, according to Matchett on a July 27 phone call, .

According to Linn County zoning regulations, Clearway then had 30 days to protest the denial.  Having received no answer from the county, Clearway doing business as Swan Solar filed a lawsuit on June 25 stating their case. Their case was that the Linn County regulations did not require a permit for the transmission line and also that the  moratorium motion was discriminatory against this specific project due to the renewable source of the electricity.

While Matchett and Framel, have been meeting with the commissioners weekly since July 13 trying to answer any questions that the county might have, Hamilton made it clear that since they were under litigation with Clearway, the commissioners would not be able to speak but could listen to the information. The $850,000 contribution has not been disclosed publicly by commissioners.

On Monday at the July 27 commission meeting, Matchett said he wanted to enumerate a couple of things that Clearway had sent over on Friday, July 24. He said they sent a lot of information but what they had tried to do was compile a lot of information about the prospective transmission line into one document.

“We are really grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak to you about it,” Matchett said. “We recognize that we are in a lawsuit, but we would prefer not to be in the lawsuit but to continue to move forward. So, I just want to be very clear that’s Clearway’s position here is that we would like to be able to move forward expeditiously on this process.

“I want to note for the record that the county has 150 miles of high voltage transmission lines in operation today, including on some of the parcels that we would seek to put this short two-mile line on. We’ve gone through and looked at the prospective route map that I presented to you the last time I was here. The nearest home is a little more than 4,000 feet (from the line). There’s only one home along that route, so I think that’s a really positive thing.

“And again, I’d reiterate there are about 3,000 square feet of land taken up by the footings for the towers. So a completely de minimus amount of land occupied.

“I wanted to emphasize just this. The transmission lines, those that are in the United States and those that are in the county are almost the most regulated kind of activity that can occur in a county. So just to quickly go over that. There are four national, regional and state regulatory bodies that oversee transmission line liability.

“They are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the North American Electrical Liability Council (NERC), the Midwest Reliability Organization, and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP). Those organizations then also rely on five national code and standard organizations that define how transmission lines have to be built and how they operate.

“Those codes and standards themselves run also almost 2,000 pages. They detail the safety standards and the construction standards and the operation standards of a transmission line. Of the many, many standards in those couple thousand pages, there are at least 13 full sections that specifically deal with the line that we would seek to build just as the other transmission lines in the county adhere to all of those.

“At the state level, the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) has oversight. Under Kansas law, regardless of whether an entity like Clearway opts into being treated as a public utility, it remains subject to the KCC’s air string jurisdiction.

“The regulations in the Kansas statute adopt the National Energy Safety Code by reference. So there’s stability there in that the state referenced the regional codes. There are 11 separate agency reviews and approvals required for a transmission line. The approving bodies include Evergy, SPP, again the NERC, National Energy Regional Council, U.S Army Cops of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Kansas State Historical Preservation office, again the Kansas Corporation Commission, FERC, and the Kansas Board of Technical Professional.

“A lot of approvals for a gen-tie (generation-tie) high voltage transmission line occur during the development of the line and they’re not a precondition to the line being developed. So, I wanted to just clarify that and then logically I think you guys would be wondering about the long-term operation of any or the transmission lines in the county including this one.

“There are four separate national rules that detail the safe operation of an existing power line. I’ve delineated those in this letter to you. And the importantly, the Kansas Corporation Commission, the public utility commission in Kansas retains the jurisdiction over the support, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the line, not it’s original construction. So it’s the whole cradle to grave.

“I guess I just wanted to mention that, you know, we remain committed to the safe construction and operation of this short two-mile generation tie and we think that the standards that are enumerated in the variety of codes and standards that I’ve just articulated are best captured in the contribution agreement concept that we’ve proposed to the county.

“So, I think I’ve testified before there would be the regular taxes on the land that we’ve got three parcels that are industrial that the line is perspectively to go across. And that would raise the property taxes on those parcels a fair amount, and that’s well and good. But we believe in investing above and beyond when we build new infrastructure in the county.

“And so as you all know, a month and a half ago, we proposed a voluntary contribution to the county. We structured it at $50,000 per tower. We think that there would be 17 towers, which would result in about $850,000 in a contribution the county. We envisioned that as a one-time contribution. I want to tell you that we are also open to structuring that differently to be one that would pay out over a number of years if that’s better for county budget stability.

“We seek your guidance and feedback on that. Just to wrap up, I cannot emphasize how much I appreciate being able to come in and visit with you all. It is important to us to be able to to proceed with this project. I’ve watched you all for many years. Been here many years, I’m here again. The recurring theme of economic pressure is challenging at the company level as well. We really want to proceed this as quickly as possible and we would appreciate being able to cooperate on that, and we are very open to all ideas in that space.

“So, I’ll wrap it there. Again, I know maybe we’re not going back and forth with questions but I appreciate the opportunity to come in and visit with you all and if there’s anything we can do, please, please, let me know. Melissa (Vancrum, attorney for Clearway) is here as well. We’re very eager to proceed this process and this project.”   

Hamilton thanked Matchett for his presentation, but the commission took no action on his proposal in open session.