Case Number: 12-0080

31 results
  • October 30, 2012

    On behalf of Premiere Partners II LP, I have been asked to express to Ameren that they are strongly opposed to any form (primary, alternate, segment options) of the proposed high voltage transmission line crossing or impacting their property in any way. They expect timely notification of any variance to your plans in the event of a change in route. They are concerned about the potential negative impacts to the value of their property.
    Eric Decker
  • October 30, 2012

    On behalf of the Stanford H. Sholem Trust, I have been asked to express to Ameren that the trust is strongly opposed to any form (primary, alternate, segment options) of the proposed high voltage transmission line crossing or impacting their property in any way. They expect timely notification of any variance to your plans in the event of a change in route. They are concerned about the potential negative impacts to the value of their property.
    Eric Decker
  • May 14, 2012

    what a they doin about section 8
    michelle lloyd
  • May 9, 2012

    When dealing with Ameren regarding service or billing issues, they are the most NON-customer friendly company one can find. When Ameren wants easements across our farm, they become this obliging, suck-up, friendly business willing to listen to our concerns. This new line should follow the current,shortest, and most economical path of easements available because otherwise we are just throwing ratepayers money away.
    Deborah Klein
  • May 7, 2012

    I am part owner of the farmground in which the proposed power lines are to be placed. I disagree with the propsed plan, and having to pay for new poles when existing poles are in place to support this need. The existing poles along Curtis Road should be used, with connection into the grid along Duncan.
    Kevin Wise
  • April 26, 2012

    Ameren already has poles installed for the purpose of this case along Curtis Road. To not use existing easements and poles in place is an abuse ratepayers money. Access these existing poles by running a line a half mile up Duncan Road on the west side of the road. This proposed route does not cross Curtis Orchard and is miles and miles, thus millions and millions dollars, shorter and cheaper than the so called alternate route.

    In this economy the needs of the rate payers and their pocket books should be the primary goal of the ICC and not some many, many miles long proposal known as the "alternate routes". The above should be the alternate route as it is the only one that makes economic sense and uses the poles already in place.

    Vicki Allen
  • April 26, 2012

    Transmission poles expressly for getting power from west Champaign to east Champaign are installed and ready to use between Duncan and Mattis along Curtis Road. The easements have already been purchased as well as the installed poles. This already installed line cost a great deal of money. To buy more easements and more poles 1/2 mile south of Curtis on my farm is a waste of money and an unnessary burden on the rate payers.

    From the EXISTING poles along Curtis, the poles could come up Duncan to avoid the new intersection. Although running lines over interstate 57 is done in other areas, the line could avoid it by running up Duncan. Ameren complained that there are numerous tress along Duncan but that is true for only the east side of Duncan. The west side of Duncan has I believe only one tree. Most of the area I suggest is open farm land.

    I object to the waste of ratepayer money. The poles are already on Curtis Road. This is just north of my farm. Ameren should use the poles they have already put up.

    Chris Wise
  • April 26, 2012

    I am a trustee of the Anna H Wise Trust property owner of 60 acres located on Mattis Avenue and along the property of which Ameren proposes installing its line. Said property has been owned by my family for over 125 yrs and is a certified Illinois Centennial farm. As such the proposed line will damage irreparably the historic character of said farm which has been recognized by the State. Such action if permitted will violate such designation and the enabling legislation under which designation was taken. Further the proposed route is not the least expensive route as mandated by the ICC legislation. Rather than taking a straight line down Curtiss the line deviates to the south- adding material expense to the route and violating the mandates from the ICC. Poles are presently in place on Curtiss which will not be used adding further expense. There is no basis for this deviation and ICC must protect the interest of consumers in this regard.
    Charles Michod
  • March 27, 2012

    I would like to comment on the Ameren Illinois petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, pursuant to Section 8-406.1 of the Illinois Public Utilities Act, and an order pursuant to Section 8-503, to construct, operate and maintain a new 138,000 volt electric line in Champaign County, Illinois.
    I am one of the owners of Curtis Orchard, and also live on the property located in the S ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 34, T19N, R8E of the 3PM in Champaign County, Illinois. The proposed preferred route runs along our south property line and would have a negative impact on our business, property, and possibly our health. I support the alternative route which runs south of Willard Airport for a number of reasons.
    For over 30 years my wife and I have worked closely with Paul and Joyce Curtis to develop Curtis Orchard into a major agricultural tourism destination in Central Illinois, attracting a substantial amount of tourism to Champaign County from throughout the state. In 2007 Curtis Orchard was named the top agritourism business in Illinois by the Agritourism Partners of Illinois (ATPI). Part of the attraction of our location is that it has a rural feel even though it is located quite close to Champaign-Urbana. If Ameren builds the transmission line on our south boundary the rural feel will be forever changed. One of our attractions is a corn maze with an 8 ft. tall observation platform. From it our patrons can see for miles in several directions, but the proposed transmission lines would be less than 100 feet from that platform. Also, many of the apples our customers pick would be growing very near to the power line. Many people fear that just being near high voltage power lines can be harmful to human health. Since our customers are primarily families with children I have no doubt that the power lines would harm our image.
    I also think the preferred route is unwise since it crosses land already under development or slated for future development. While this route may be shorter and less costly initially, I believe the cost to maintain it in the future will be much higher than the alternate route since there will be more fencing and landscaping to repair as opposed to working from farmland.
    It strikes me as curious too that according to Ameren many of the easements for the alternate route were already negotiated years ago. This means two things. The easements are less expensive for the alternate route, and the alternate route must have previously been the preferred route. If it was indeed the preferred route originally it must have been chosen at that time because it made the most sense from every standpoint. It appears that Ameren is proposing this new shorter route simply because the initial construction cost is less due to distance. I think it is critical that the commission look at all of the impacts caused by the two routes, and choose the route that makes the most sense in the long run.
    In summary, let me say that I support the alternate route that runs south of Willard Airport for the following reasons. The proposed route borders Curtis Orchard on the south and will have an immediate negative impact on this established business that is unable to relocate and is unique to Champaign County. Secondly, the proposed route will cross and interfere with other properties already under development or slated for future development including property near the Curtis Road/ I57 interchange. In fact, much of the proposed route crosses land intended for development. Thirdly, Ameren has already identified a suitable alternative route, has already negotiated many of the easements, and that route has few of the negative impacts of the preferred route. Fourthly, the past work Ameren placed in the alternative route indicates that it was at one time the preferred route, and will probably offer the best long-range benefit to shareholders because it will better serve communities such as Savoy and Tolono in the future. Fifthly, it appears that the preferred route is favored by Ameren mostly due to initial construction cost while ignoring or minimizing important negative impacts on landowners along the route. I hope the commission will take all aspects of the project into consideration and choose in favor of the alternate route.

    Randall Graham
  • March 7, 2012

    Please consider the route that does not put the power lines next to Curtis Orchard. The orchard is such a wonderful place for residents and visitors. Thank-you.
    Robin Beck
  • March 7, 2012

    Please reconsider putting power lines through Curtis Orchard! There are so few places like this to take families to anymore and adding the risk of power lines to this wonderful orchard would be almost criminal!
    Rose Hudson
  • March 7, 2012


    We enjoy visiting Curtis Orchard many times throughout the summer and fall, and would be disappointed if your agency decides to install power lines obstructing the gorgeous, clear view of the sky/landscape in the area.

    Please consider the alternate proposed area south of Willard Airport. And, thank you for your time and consideration.

    Yours truly,
    Rachael McMillan

    Rachael McMillan
  • March 7, 2012

    Please use the alternate route in order to reduce the impact to people living along the primary route. It would be detrimental to Curtis Orchard's business as well as the planned businesses at the Curtis Road/I-57 junction. I live adjacent to Curtis Orchard and it would certainly decrease the property values in my neighborhood.
    Glenn Pence
  • March 7, 2012

    Please choose the alternate route for this electric line!
    Luanne Schroeder
  • March 7, 2012

    Please do not run the power lines over/along the Curtis Orchard property, this would heavily impact their potential revenues by detracting from the atmosphere that they attempt to surround visitors with. Just use the alternate path - I'm sure Ameren can afford the very slight difference in expenditures for the change... I remember the bills I had to pay to them while attending UIUC.
    James Herda
  • March 7, 2012

    Please keep the power lines away from Curtis Orchard, we tax payers should have the final say of what land and entertainment are/are not affected by these types of decisions.
    Anthony J Wooldridge
  • March 7, 2012

    no! dont do it
    andrew whalen
  • March 7, 2012

    I would like to ask the ICC to please choose the alternate route south of Willard Airport. Please keep the power lines away from Curtis Orchard. Thank you.
    Tamara Migut
  • February 27, 2012

    Please keep your power lines AWAY from Curtis Orchard. It is not an appropriate place for them.
    Julie Murphy
  • February 27, 2012

    Choose the alternate route that would take it south of the airport so that it doesn't adversely effect Curtis Orchard.
    Cara Day
  • February 27, 2012

    Please keep power lines away from the Curtis Orchard property. This is such a gem for the area, and with urban sprawl heading its way, anything to keep the country charm intact is important!
    Bethany Schmitt
  • February 27, 2012

    Please consider the economic ramifications of constructing this power line near Curtis Orchards. I am concerned not only that it will hamper my own enjoyment of the farm, but that it will also detract from the experience for out of town visitor who could take their business elsewhere. Please consider following the alternate route.
    Katherine Klindworth
  • February 27, 2012

    As a 20 year customer of curtis orchard, nothing would make me sadder than to see their beautiful business ruined because of power line placement. Please, do not put them next you curtis orchard! Go south of the airport! Thank you!!
    Abigail Bucey
  • February 27, 2012

    Put the powerlines somewhere else, fools!
    Ashley P
  • February 27, 2012

    Though I do not live in Champaign it would not be right to put this line up over the Curtiss Orchard property due to the fact of eletric line radiation leakage. I am against it.
    Scott Inman
  • February 27, 2012

    Please choose the alternate route for this so that it does not affect or interfere the local apple orchard. I would not want to take my family here if there were power lines running over the grounds.
    Kylie Brown
  • February 27, 2012

    Do not put the line over Curtis Orchard property. Help local business by not marring the grounds with unsightly power lines. They can be just as effective if installed south of Curtis Orchard.
    Jim McMichael
  • February 27, 2012

    I am writing to express my concern about the proposed power line that would go right by Curtis Orchard. Please consider using the alternate route that would take it south of the airport. Thank you!
    Jennifer Davis
  • February 27, 2012

    I am voicing concerns over Ameren's proposed power line that goes right beside Curtis Orchard! Illinois Commerce Commission choose the alternate route that would take the power lines south of the airport!

    Thank you!

    Leslie Sconce
  • February 27, 2012

    Please keep the power lines away from Curtis Orchard!
    Chloe Machula
  • February 27, 2012

    Please go south of the airport!
    Shawna Organisciak