e-Docket

Entries

June 19, 2013
The recent proposed alternate route for the HV line to be installed runs through Douglas County and is immediately south of my property. While I do not object to the HV line in and of itself, I do object to the fact that Douglas County, and its residents, were not notified of this routing and the expected impact. As I read the docket description I note that Douglas County is not even mentioned. It is unconscionable that the ICC would let this routing progress without the appropriate study of the route's impact and appropriate notification of landowners along the route.
12-0598 · Rich Holm
June 18, 2013
My family has owned a farm in Douglas county south of Atwood for more than 150 years. It's a recognized Illinois Centennial Farm that would be negatively impacted by MCPO's proposed alternate route through Douglas and Piatt Counties. Those impacts have not been solicited or heard through due public process.

My main concern is that Ameren touts its significant emphasis on public process in the development of proposed transmission line routing, however citizens and landowners of Douglas and Piatt Counties were not invited to participate in the same public process offered other citizens and landowners. Specifically,

-- Piatt and Douglas Counties were not part of the potential routes published and discussed by Ameren in the summer of 2012 during dozens of public forums;
-- Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed as impacted counties in Ameren’s November 2012 petition to the ICC;
-- Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed on the ICC notification sent to property owners on January 7, 2013;
-- Piatt and Douglas Counties do not appear on the section of the ICC website describing the nature of this case;
-- Piatt and Douglas Counties are not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren website.

Based on the lack of clear information regarding Piatt and Douglas Counties in this case, any reasonable person would have to ask, “How are Piatt and Douglas property owners supposed to know—even to this day—if they are impacted by this project?”

Ameren spent years of ratepayer money studying potential routes for this project, including a review of 30 different geographic sensitivities, and determined Piatt and Douglas were not feasible options. The MCPO route was developed in late 2012 by Moultrie property owners—not Ameren or the ICC—and it was created in a matter of weeks.

I strongly urge the Commission to reject the MCPO proposal in favor of Ameren's rebuttal recommended route for the Mt. Zion to Kansas segment. Alternatively, the Commission should simply exclude this segment from the CPCN.

Thank you,
Morgan Lommele
12-0598 · Morgan Lommele
June 18, 2013
I am opposed to the Moultrie County Property Owners (MCPO) alternative proposed route through Douglas and Piatt Counties. In their website on the Transmission Project, Ameren states that they will hold meetings and provide information in each county affected by the project. I do not believe that the residents of Douglas and Piatt Counties have had proper notice. We are not even listed yet on the website as potentially affected counties. Ameren in its careful long-term initial studies concluded that Douglas and Piatt Counties were NOT feasible options. MCPO did their study by there own admission in about two weeks. The MCPO proposed alternative route is a colossal waste of rate payer’s money. MCPO’s proposed route takes the line miles and miles out of the way in a snaking line somewhat north of Mt. Zion, then east, and then south to Kansas. This path is in direct opposition to the original proposed primary and alternative routes presented by Ameren that run from northwest to south east through Moultrie County. Looking at the routes on a map, the MCPO proposed route makes absolutely no sense and is extremely inefficient due to the plans need for multiple additional miles of lines. MPCO to the best of my knowledge has given no reasoning behind its proposal other than to avoid the line passing through the property of MCPO members. MCPO simply threw a hastily prepared alternative route together and submitted it kind of according to process (they missed the deadline and later modified the proposal). Their reasons for wanting the line to go around Moultrie county( except the most extreme north eastern corner) are most likely no different than the reasons other property owners don’t want the line running across there property. In reality the best route for the line is the most direct path that Ameren extensively and exhaustingly studied, that passes through Moultrie County.
12-0598 · Hope Walker
June 18, 2013
I am opposed to the Moultrie County Property Owners (MCPO) alternative proposed route through Douglas and Piatt Counties. In their website on the Transmission Project, Ameren states that they will hold meetings and provide information in each county affected by the project. I do not believe that the residents of Douglas and Piatt Counties have had proper notice. We are not even listed yet on the website as potentially affected counties. Ameren in its careful long-term initial studies concluded that Douglas and Piatt Counties were NOT feasible options. MCPO did their study by there own admission in about two weeks. The MCPO proposed alternative route is a colossal waste of rate payer’s money. MCPO’s proposed route takes the line miles and miles out of the way in a snaking line somewhat north of Mt. Zion, then east, and then south to Kansas. This path is in direct opposition to the original proposed primary and alternative routes presented by Ameren that run from northwest to south east through Moultrie County. Looking at the routes on a map, the MCPO proposed route makes absolutely no sense and is extremely inefficient due to the plans need for multiple additional miles of lines. MPCO to the best of my knowledge has given no reasoning behind its proposal other than to avoid the line passing through the property of MCPO members. MCPO simply threw a hastily prepared alternative route together and submitted it kind of according to process (they missed the deadline and later modified the proposal). Their reasons for wanting the line to go around Moultrie county( except the most extreme north eastern corner) are most likely no different than the reasons other property owners don’t want the line running across there property. In reality the best route for the line is the most direct path that Ameren extensively and exhaustingly studied, that passes through Moultrie County.
12-0598 · Leo Walker
June 18, 2013
I am opposed to the Moultrie County Property Owners (MCPO) alternative proposed route through Douglas and Piatt Counties. In their website on the Transmission Project, Ameren states that they will hold meetings and provide information in each county affected by the project. I do not believe that the residents of Douglas and Piatt Counties have had proper notice. We are not even listed yet on the website as potentially affected counties. Ameren in its careful long-term initial studies concluded that Douglas and Piatt Counties were NOT feasible options. MCPO did their study by there own admission in about two weeks. The MCPO proposed alternative route is a colossal waste of rate payer’s money. MCPO’s proposed route takes the line miles and miles out of the way in a snaking line somewhat north of Mt. Zion, then east, and then south to Kansas. This path is in direct opposition to the original proposed primary and alternative routes presented by Ameren that run from northwest to south east through Moultrie County. Looking at the routes on a map, the MCPO proposed route makes absolutely no sense and is extremely inefficient due to the plans need for multiple additional miles of lines. MPCO to the best of my knowledge has given no reasoning behind its proposal other than to avoid the line passing through the property of MCPO members. MCPO simply threw a hastily prepared alternative route together and submitted it kind of according to process (they missed the deadline and later modified the proposal). Their reasons for wanting the line to go around Moultrie county( except the most extreme north eastern corner) are most likely no different than the reasons other property owners don’t want the line running across there property. In reality the best route for the line is the most direct path that Ameren extensively and exhaustingly studied, that passes through Moultrie County.
12-0598 · Jana Walker
June 18, 2013
I am opposed to the Moultrie County Property Owners (MCPO) alternative proposed route through Douglas and Piatt Counties. In their website on the Transmission Project, Ameren states that they will hold meetings and provide information in each county affected by the project. I do not believe that the residents of Douglas and Piatt Counties have had proper notice. We are not even listed yet on the website as potentially affected counties. Ameren in its careful long-term initial studies concluded that Douglas and Piatt Counties were NOT feasible options. MCPO did their study by there own admission in about two weeks. The MCPO proposed alternative route is a colossal waste of rate payer’s money. MCPO’s proposed route takes the line miles and miles out of the way in a snaking line somewhat north of Mt. Zion, then east, and then south to Kansas. This path is in direct opposition to the original proposed primary and alternative routes presented by Ameren that run from northwest to south east through Moultrie County. Looking at the routes on a map, the MCPO proposed route makes absolutely no sense and is extremely inefficient due to the plans need for multiple additional miles of lines. MPCO to the best of my knowledge has given no reasoning behind its proposal other than to avoid the line passing through the property of MCPO members. MCPO simply threw a hastily prepared alternative route together and submitted it kind of according to process (they missed the deadline and later modified the proposal). Their reasons for wanting the line to go around Moultrie county( except the most extreme north eastern corner) are most likely no different than the reasons other property owners don’t want the line running across there property. In reality the best route for the line is the most direct path that Ameren extensively and exhaustingly studied, that passes through Moultrie County.
12-0598 · Tim Walker
June 18, 2013
As an Illinois resident with family roots in Piatt and Douglas Counties dating back generations, I strongly urge the Illinois Commerce Commission to reject the Moultrie County property owner proposed route through Piatt and Douglas Counties.

Piatt and and Douglas Counties have not been publicly listed as routing sites by Ameren or the ICC at any point in this process, and Piatt and Douglas residents have not been properly notified about this proposed Moultrie County “property owner created” route.

My family and I strongly urge the ICC to support Ameren’s alternate route, which stays within Ameren’s original study area, is based on years of research, and has been widely publicized and open for public comment and consideration for over a year.

Thank you for your time.
12-0598 · Chris W.
June 13, 2013
Dear ICC Commissioners and Executive Director,

My brother, sisters, and I are very upset that the ICC is even considering the Moultrie County property owners' proposed route through Douglas and Piatt Counties.

Douglas and Piatt are not even listed on the ICC web page or in the project descriptions on top of hundreds of documents found there.

So how are people and families in Douglas and Piatt Counties supposed to know that this massive power line could impact them?

Our property is surrounded by Amish farms, and the Moultrie County property owners' route would pass right next to many of our neighbors' homes. The MCPO route would also cut right through the middle of many of our neighbors' farm fields.

People come from hundreds of miles away to experience the quiet, simple Amish way of life, and having massive electrical towers right next to the homes of people who do not even use electricity is wrong and exactly the opposite of what tourists coming to our area expect to see.

Looking at the Moultrie County property owners' maps, this massive power line will take SIX ninety degree turns in just over two miles west and north of our property.

That means that we and our neighbors will see SIX DIFFERENT power line segments criss crossing back and forth, one behind another, through our summer sunsets.

Why would anyone design a route that would destroy the physical environment and devastate our sight lines so drastically? Big cities don't even run power lines like that!

Also, why would the ICC even consider approving a route that will forever destroy the views of the horizon in such a haphazard way?

Our home and our neighbors' properties are a part of a unique historical area that dates back to the 1860s and before. Several homes and buildings, including our home and our neighbor's home, are over 150 years old. The road our property is on is one of the oldest in the area and it follows an old, winding Indian trail. The road dates back to the 1830s, and our area includes several centennial family farms.

Again, why would anyone put massive high voltage towers in an area with such historic significance and quiet beauty?

In closing, I understand why people in Moultrie County don't want this project going through their area (I don't want this high voltage line running through anyone's area!), but that doesn't make it right for them to throw these massive towers onto unsuspecting families in two counties that have not even been listed as sites for this project.

For all of the reasons above, and on behalf of my family and generations of other unsuspecting families in Douglas and Piatt Counties, I ask the ICC Commissioners and the Executive Director to do what they know is right and deny the Moultrie County property owners' route through Douglas and Piatt Counties.

Thank you for taking time to listen to what I had to say.
12-0598 · Kari Hammerstrom
June 12, 2013
I am writing to urge the ICC to reject the Moultrie County property owners’ (MCPO) proposed alternate route through Douglas and Piatt Counties.

As the Commission is aware, Ameren Transmission Company spent years and untold amounts of ratepayer money researching possible routes, and based upon Ameren’s findings, Douglas and Piatt Counties were not selected as sites for the numerous “study” routes that Ameren presented to the public in 2012. In addition, Douglas and Piatt Counties were not selected by Ameren as sites for its primary and alternate routes, which instead run through Moultrie County far to the south. The only formal notification Douglas and Piatt property owners have received in relation to this project listed 18 potentially affected counties across the state (including Moultrie), and Douglas and Piatt Counties were not even mentioned anywhere in the letter. All of this information led people to believe that Douglas and Piatt Counties were not in danger of being considered for this project.

Additionally, people who have recently heard rumors about a potential route through Douglas and Piatt Counties can easily dismiss these rumors due to the fact that Douglas and Piatt are not currently listed as potentially affected counties on the Illinois Rivers Project (IRP) site or the ICC website describing the nature of this case. Other Douglas and Piatt property owners, due to a lack of information on their counties, may believe this case was settled last fall when Ameren selected their primary and alternate routes through Moultrie County and then submitted their petition to the ICC. That being said, the public's ability to find information on Douglas and Piatt Counties and their current status in this project is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Moultrie County, on the other hand, has been listed as a potential site for this project on nearly every piece of available information since day one (literally hundreds of documents) and that includes clearly being identified on the current ICC and Ameren IRP websites. Moultrie County was also prominently featured in the "study" routes Ameren shared with the public in 2012, and Moultrie County residents affected by those "study" routes were invited to attend public forums and provide feedback over multiple months. Those individuals also received clear notification if their property was located along Ameren's primary or alternate routes that were selected last fall.

In stark contrast, the treatment of and the notification provided to Douglas and Piatt property owners in this case pales by comparison. Douglas and Piatt County property owners have never received direct notification specifically stating that Douglas and Piatt Counties were being considered as a potential route. Douglas and Piatt property owners have never been formally invited to participate in any public meetings or public forums related to the MCPO route or the Ameren “study” routes, and they have not been provided appropriate public input into this process as a result. Unlike Moultrie, which is listed virtually everywhere as a potentially affected county in this project, the words Douglas and Piatt cannot be found on Ameren's Illinois Rivers Project site or on the ICC e-Docket page describing the nature of this project. In short, and in keeping with its charter and purpose as a public protector, the ICC needs to recognize that the absence of information on Douglas and Piatt Counties and their status in this project not only represents a lack of fundamental fairness but also calls into question the efficacy of this entire process.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the Commission to reject the Moultrie County property owners' proposed route for the following reasons:

- the lack of information and formal notification regarding Douglas and Piatt Counties in this case;

- the potential waste of millions of dollars of ratepayer money so the MCPO route can travel NORTH, miles off course, and around almost all of Moultrie County (a county that lies directly between proposed substations in Mt. Zion and Kansas to the southeast and a county that has been clearly listed as a potential project site throughout this entire process);

- and the presence of a wide variety of irregularities that are in need of further investigation and review (i.e., MCPO alternate route documents filed after the ICC deadline, MCPO routes that consisted of two-mile wide corridors and travel far outside of Ameren's publicly identified study area, last-minute deals that severely undermine public trust in the process and do not represent fair and equitable treatment of all parties involved).

Instead, I urge the Commission to select Ameren Transmission Company’s shorter and preferred alternate route, which is supported by years of research and the vast majority of Ameren's formal testimony prior to their last-minute deal/stipulation.

Erik Hammerstrom
Douglas County Property Owner
12-0598 · Erik Hammerstrom
June 12, 2013
Douglas and Piatt counties are not listed as impacted counties. Why are they trying to go through this beautiful country mostly Amish. There has been NO public input on this. We have family with property there and are opposed to this action.
12-0598 · karen stefanik
June 11, 2013
The alternate route was created with consideration for economic impact and the lowest possible length of the route, and therefore cost to the taxpayers. I have the following concerns regarding the MCPO's preferred route.

1) The preferred route is longer and affects more agricultural land than the alternate route. Therefore, it seems that the alternate route would have less of a negative economic impact and be installed at lower cost to the taxpayer.

2) The local airport here in Tuscola, IL is very near the preferred route. The economic and safety concerns associated with this are obvious.

3) The Amish community here is one of the only tourist attractions. The visual impact of high voltage lines is in direct conflict with what draws tourists to this area.

4) Wasn't the Piatt County route submitted after the deadline?

5) Why was the original route through Douglas County changed?

6) The alternate route was carefully planned. Why was it abandoned on the spur of the moment without consideration for increased cost?
12-0598 · Michael Murphy
June 11, 2013
I would like to express my opposition to the MCPO 70-mile high voltage electric service line route. My husband and I live in Douglas County. My husband, Charles Anderson, and my son, Wade Anderson attended a meeting to discuss the service line route, last winter at a hotel conference center near Mattoon, Illinois. He was told on that day, that there was no reason for he and my son to be in attendance, as the decided route would not enter Douglas County. There has been no public forum or information distributed in Douglas County to discuss these changes made to the route. We are in favor of the Ameren alternate route.
12-0598 · Mary Diane Anderson
June 11, 2013
I live in Douglas County. I grew up in Piatt County. My family came from Germany to America and bought farm land in Piatt County. Piatt County has long been known to have the best soil in the world! We are also very fortunate to have the Amish community in our area. People come from far and wide to enjoy the peaceful serenity of this area and to purchase many goods and services the fine Amish folks offer in their local businesses. Putting these power transmission lines in our counties would be a slap in the face to these hard working and unique peace loving people. It would also be the wrong use of the best farm land in the world. There is a long list of important points pertaining to this last minute proposed route. The time and money Ameren spent reviewing possible routes. Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed as impacted counties in Ameren's November 2012 petition to the ICC. Part of the MCPO route through Piatt County was submitted after the ICC deadline. The negative impact to Native American sites and the value of our farm land. And many other things listed on this public comment page. There has been an overall lack of communication on this project for Piatt and Douglas County residents and people are not aware how this route could impact their properties. I recommend the ICC to throw out the MCPO route and select Ameren's alternate.
Ted Lust
Douglas County Property Owner
12-0598 · Ted Lust
June 11, 2013
I am a lifelong resident of Douglas County. The people in Douglas and Piatt Counties have had no public notification about this MCPO route. As a property owner, I want to be informed on important issues ahead of time. I oppose the route proposed by Moultrie County property owners. I feel the lines should run far south of the Amish area. I urge the ICC to follow Ameren's alternate route, as Ameren spent much time and money studying and developing it.
Danita Lust
Douglas County Property Owner
12-0598 · Danita Lust
June 11, 2013
I am opposed to the Ameren Transmission Line proposed through Douglas County. This proposal makes no economic what so ever!!! It's a waste of Ameren's customers money and the taxpayer monies used in the grants.

I don't like Ameren's "big business" way of trying to shove this down our throats.
12-0598 · Gary Appleby
June 11, 2013
I am against the MCPO alternate route for many reasons. First, I do not understand why the Ameren alternate route that they spent so much time, money and decision making was suddenly dropped in favor of the MCPO route. Second, the landowners and the public have not been informed properly of this change nor did they have any input on the decision making process that Ameren carefully and publicly demonstrated. Third, I know that the power lines have to go to and from somewhere, but this new MCPO route would be traveling close in the same proximity as a pipeline that was laid a few years ago. Wooded areas with generations of trees were destroyed back then, and if this would go though, it would further deteriorate the region in that manner. Finally, it would be a disruption the farmlands of our area and to the Amish settlements in the area. The Amish communities live on their land without electrical power, so it seems unfair to have large power lines on their properties. I am in favor of the Ameren alternate route.
12-0598 · Jeff Lee
June 11, 2013
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Moultrie County property owners alternate route through Douglas county for the project's high tension power lines. Our family owns property in the route area proposed by the Moultrie County property owners that would be irreparably degraded in valuation and also esthetically by this rerouting. We object to any ratification of this alternate route, which has been offered for consideration without any opportunity for Douglas and Piatt county property owners to provide public input or discussion on it. An alternate route was never considered to be placed in Douglas or Piatt counties, and in fact they are not even listed in any publicly disclosed websites that I could find on the project. ( See your own description of the project above in this website- those counties are not listed there either.) The ICC is charged with protecting taxpayers and the people of Illinois, and ensuring that utility routing processes are fair and equitable to all. That is clearly not the case here. This alternate route will cost Amren, and thus ultimately taxpayers and rate payers more to implement, and it is being tendered without due public process. Please disqualify this alternate route!

My family and I support the utilization of Amren's alternate route for the project that has been thoroughly studied and properly vetted with the public. We strongly urge you to deny the alternate route proposed by the Moultrie county property owners.

Sincerely,

Kent Hammerstrom
12-0598 · Kent Hammerstrom
June 11, 2013
As I listed to the various engineers, technicians, agents, and others from Ameren tell me about the project at the third meeting, I couldn’t help but think about how this would potentially destroy so many people’s lives, livelihoods, and homes. The company is quick to point out all the potential benefits of this project, but they fail to explain the many risks.

1. If this electrical line is so safe, why not run in down Broadway in Quincy or on the right of way the state owns in between Interstate 72? The engineers assured me that this line would be perfectly safe close to my home. When asked why they wouldn’t use the state’s right of way, the answer was that the state didn’t want to liability of someone getting into an accident and suing them. In other words, it is perfectly safe in your backyard or field, but the state doesn’t think it is safe enough to have next to a major highway. If it isn’t safe enough for an interstate with no trees, business, or homes nearby, then it isn’t safe enough for my backyard.
2. What if there is a tornado or other major windstorm? The electrical lines are 80-140 foot tall, single pole construction, with a 6 x 10 foot in diameter, 3 to 5 foot tall and with another 20-50 foot deep concrete base. The poles come in three pieces and are put together with a 120 ton crane. If the pole is constructed in three pieces, that gives it three weak places. If a pole of that size hits anything, the structure it hits doesn’t stand a chance just based on size. Add to that the lines it carries hold 345,000 volts or more of electricity. If one hits your home or building, it will explode. I don’t know about you, but I have no desire to have my home or family used as guinea pigs to test Ameren’s “safe” lines. If the tornado in Joplin moved the hospital off the foundation, what is stopping one of the lines from falling on a home, business, machinery shed, grain bin, or even a dry field?
3. What if your combine or tractor breaks down under one of the lines or next to one of the poles? Ameren claims that they appreciate when landowners mow or plant row crops under one of their lines. Farm machinery is getting larger every year to accommodate the ever-increasing acreage it takes for one family farmer to make a living wage. The Ameren agents said they would not advise for a farmer to get out of his equipment under a power line, even if it breaks down. Does that seem like a safe place to farm to you? What if you have to choose between a fire in your cab or potentially lethal electrical shock once you leave it?
4. Electromagnetic fields are produced by everything that uses or carries electrical current. With a line of 345,000 or more volts, what about the health effects of the exposure? How will it affect the cell phone, internet, television, GPS, and other signals for residents in the area? What about medical devices like pace makers? Ameren used their favorite line on this question, “Well, there are people who are on both sides of this issue. Some people claim it impacts and some people think it doesn’t.” In my independent research, I found many sources that claim the electromagnetic fields have been linked to brain tumors, various cancers, and other health concerns. I don’t want my family to be in harms way as I am sure all the engineers, planners, and others involved in planning the project would not want for their families. These lines are not in the best interest of dairy farms because of the amount of concrete & stray voltage. Diary cattle can sense the voltage and will not produce milk. What then is the affect on humans? Therefore, find a safer alternative and be responsible for the electromagnetic field you are leaking into the environment.
5. Why not burry the lines? Burying the lines will cut the electromagnetic field down dramatically and increase property values. Ameren said this was cost prohibitive. Ameren, however, is also offering Adams County $20,000 per mile to put this line in. If a company has that amount of money to invest in getting their location of choice, I personally feel they need to invest in a line that is good for the people they are taking land away from in the form of a 150 foot easement, lines, and the ability to come through their property to access the lines at anytime while only paying a one time amount for each pole, not the easement around it or the land in between poles. For farm ground that can fetch $8000 or more per acre, this will greatly impact the potential for yields or other uses down the line for this property. The average decrease in home values is 4-7% in the Midwest.
6. Every other utility, i.e. cell towers, wind turbines, FFA’s Radar Beacon Station, etc. all have a yearly lease since they are for profit businesses. Why then would Ameren’s electrical poles be any different? Ameren is a for profit business.
12-0598 · Katherine Albsmeyer O'Neal
June 11, 2013
As I listed to the various engineers, technicians, agents, and others from Ameren tell me about the project at the third meeting, I couldn’t help but think about how this would potentially destroy so many people’s lives, livelihoods, and homes. The company is quick to point out all the potential benefits of this project, but they fail to explain the many risks.

1. If this electrical line is so safe, why not run in down Broadway in Quincy or on the right of way the state owns in between Interstate 72? The engineers assured me that this line would be perfectly safe close to my home. When asked why they wouldn’t use the state’s right of way, the answer was that the state didn’t want to liability of someone getting into an accident and suing them. In other words, it is perfectly safe in your backyard or field, but the state doesn’t think it is safe enough to have next to a major highway. If it isn’t safe enough for an interstate with no trees, business, or homes nearby, then it isn’t safe enough for my backyard.
2. What if there is a tornado or other major windstorm? The electrical lines are 80-140 foot tall, single pole construction, with a 6 x 10 foot in diameter, 3 to 5 foot tall and with another 20-50 foot deep concrete base. The poles come in three pieces and are put together with a 120 ton crane. If the pole is constructed in three pieces, that gives it three weak places. If a pole of that size hits anything, the structure it hits doesn’t stand a chance just based on size. Add to that the lines it carries hold 345,000 volts or more of electricity. If one hits your home or building, it will explode. I don’t know about you, but I have no desire to have my home or family used as guinea pigs to test Ameren’s “safe” lines. If the tornado in Joplin moved the hospital off the foundation, what is stopping one of the lines from falling on a home, business, machinery shed, grain bin, or even a dry field?
3. What if your combine or tractor breaks down under one of the lines or next to one of the poles? Ameren claims that they appreciate when landowners mow or plant row crops under one of their lines. Farm machinery is getting larger every year to accommodate the ever-increasing acreage it takes for one family farmer to make a living wage. The Ameren agents said they would not advise for a farmer to get out of his equipment under a power line, even if it breaks down. Does that seem like a safe place to farm to you? What if you have to choose between a fire in your cab or potentially lethal electrical shock once you leave it?
4. Electromagnetic fields are produced by everything that uses or carries electrical current. With a line of 345,000 or more volts, what about the health effects of the exposure? How will it affect the cell phone, internet, television, GPS, and other signals for residents in the area? What about medical devices like pace makers? Ameren used their favorite line on this question, “Well, there are people who are on both sides of this issue. Some people claim it impacts and some people think it doesn’t.” In my independent research, I found many sources that claim the electromagnetic fields have been linked to brain tumors, various cancers, and other health concerns. I don’t want my family to be in harms way as I am sure all the engineers, planners, and others involved in planning the project would not want for their families. These lines are not in the best interest of dairy farms because of the amount of concrete & stray voltage. Diary cattle can sense the voltage and will not produce milk. What then is the affect on humans? Therefore, find a safer alternative and be responsible for the electromagnetic field you are leaking into the environment.
5. Why not burry the lines? Burying the lines will cut the electromagnetic field down dramatically and increase property values. Ameren said this was cost prohibitive. Ameren, however, is also offering Adams County $20,000 per mile to put this line in. If a company has that amount of money to invest in getting their location of choice, I personally feel they need to invest in a line that is good for the people they are taking land away from in the form of a 150 foot easement, lines, and the ability to come through their property to access the lines at anytime while only paying a one time amount for each pole, not the easement around it or the land in between poles. For farm ground that can fetch $8000 or more per acre, this will greatly impact the potential for yields or other uses down the line for this property. The average decrease in home values is 4-7% in the Midwest.
12-0598 · George Thomas Albsmeyer, Albsmeyer Farms
June 11, 2013
My family has owned a farm in Douglas county south of Atwood for more than 150 years. It's a recognized Illinois Centennial Farm that would be negatively impacted by MCPO's proposed alternate route through Douglas and Piatt Counties. Those impacts have not been solicited or heard through due public process.

My main concern is that Ameren touts its significant emphasis on public process in the development of proposed transmission line routing, however citizens and landowners of Douglas and Piatt Counties were not invited to participate in the same public process offered other citizens and landowners. Specifically,

-- Piatt and Douglas Counties were not part of the potential routes published and discussed by Ameren in the summer of 2012 during dozens of public forums;
-- Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed as impacted counties in Ameren’s November 2012 petition to the ICC;
-- Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed on the ICC notification sent to property owners on January 7, 2013;
-- Piatt and Douglas Counties do not appear on the section of the ICC website describing the nature of this case;
-- Piatt and Douglas Counties are not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren website.

Based on the lack of clear information regarding Piatt and Douglas Counties in this case, any reasonable person would have to ask, “How are Piatt and Douglas property owners supposed to know—even to this day—if they are impacted by this project?”

Ameren spent years of ratepayer money studying potential routes for this project, including a review of 30 different geographic sensitivities, and determined Piatt and Douglas were not feasible options. The MCPO route was developed in late 2012 by Moultrie property owners—not Ameren or the ICC—and it was created in a matter of weeks.

I strongly urge the Commission to reject the MCPO proposal in favor of Ameren's rebuttal recommended route for the Mt. Zion to Kansas segment. Alternatively, the Commission should simply exclude this segment from the CPCN.
12-0598 · Stephen Lommele
June 11, 2013
I completely oppose the MCPO alternate route and strongly am in favor of Ameren's alternative route. We own some small acreage along these proposed MCPO property routes. There are already pipellines that have recently been through our area. Adding this will just hurt the properties even more and destroy the any woodland properties that are left, as the pipeline destroyed many acres of valuable wooded areas that wildlife depend on for survival, as well as that it is a Native American registered site that was supposed to be protected. What is protection worth if it can't be protected? We, Americans, taxpayers, land owners, are being treated very unfairly and if the MCPO alternative route carries on, I would just like to ask a few questions. Where was the public announcements that this MCPO route was going to take place? Have all the legal documents and legal filings and steps been adhered to? Why did Ameren spend ungodly amounts of money (and taxpayers money) doing the legal and right things and decided on an alternate route which came from a decision based upon years of research, studying and public input and then it was just thrown out and the MCPO alternative route was decided on? Why? To whose benefit? Why were our own county boards (who we all vote for) not even notified who then notify the public? There are definitely some issues here that are not only unfair, but unethical and illegal. I strongly urge and support for the ICC to throw out the MCPO route and select Ameren’s alternate which has been done the correct, moral and legal way which had been backed by years of study, research and public input, and a decision based upon what is right. Please do what is right, moral and just in this situation. In today's world of all corruption that has been bestowed upon us American, taxpayers, and land owners, please look at all the avenues here, and do the right thing, because that is how it should be done, by doing what is right, fair and just. Thank you.
12-0598 · Amy Lee
June 10, 2013
I live in Douglas County. We have not no notice of any route through Douglas County by Ameren for their high voltage route through Illinois. The Piatt/Douglas Counties route proposed by the MCPO is longer and affects more crop land than Ameren route through Moultrie County. It is longer and affects Amish homes, Native American sites, Tuscola Airport, and will ultimately cost the tax payers of Illinois more money. Enough is enough. Ameren just received a rate increase and this would add even more to taxpayers.

I ask the ICC to throw out the MCPO suggested route and stay with the Moultrie County route which Ameren spent years of study and resear
12-0598 · J, K. Wilson
June 10, 2013
It has been called to the attention of property owners like myself in Piatt and Douglas counties that this project is being considered to run through our counties now. Why have we not been entitled to public meetings? This seems to be unconstitutional and not to the best interest of the public opinion of the ICC and Ameren as this has been getting out. We have not been informed by any official mailer from Ameren, ICC, or any other state agency about the changes in the plan.
12-0598 · Karen Perkins
June 10, 2013
My family owns property on the Piatt/Douglas County route for the Ameren High Voltage. We have not been notified by Ameren and feel that the Moultrie County Route would be most advantageous to Ameren. The route the MCPO suggested in Piatt/Douglas Counties is longer and therefore more expensive for Ameren which would ultimately cost the taxpayers money. The state just approved a rate increase and this is unacceptable!!

The route also travels throug the Amish community and just north of the Village of Arthur which is a major tourist area.

Thanks for taking my comments and I hope the ICC will protect the taxpayers of the State of Illinois and throw out the MCPO route.
12-0598 · James N. Wilson
June 10, 2013
June 10, 2013
I would like to express my concern and opposition to Ameren's proposed alternate (MCPO) high voltage power line route. I agree with other groups and individuals that the proposed line going through Douglas and Piatt counties and especially through farms I own and operate, raises the concern to a high alert level. The proposed route would come within several hundred feet of our house and farm shop which is where we spend the bulk of our time and runs between our house and our son's which is a little over a quarter mile away. I would not consider buying a property located this close to a high voltage power line and this is becoming general public opinion due to the negative health risks. The value of our farmland and home would decrease substantially because of the known physical and economical disruption such a huge, unsightly line permanantly creates.
I question whether there is even a need for this line at all. It is unbelievable that a project that is this intrusive and has such a negative impact could be promoted as being environmentally friendly. If ICC approves this project Illinois will be a huge loser and this would be a permanant plague.
If Ameren or ICC believes for a minute there is less opposition to this route than to the original proposed routes, they are misinformed. Although we joined the Opposition Coalition early many people did not see this route as a real threat since it was considered an alternate route until Ameren's late endorsement. I strongly believe if ICC will excersise due diligence to the state of Illinois and Douglas and Piatt counties in particular, this proposed route will be rejected.
Thank you for your consideration,
Gary Kuhns
870 N CR 400 E
Tuscola, IL
12-0598 · Gary Kuhns
June 10, 2013
I am opposed to the proposal for the power lines in the above case to go through Piatt and Douglas Counties. The proposal was developed by the Moultrie County Property owners, who are opposed to having the line in Moultrie County. Ameren spent considerable time studying potential routes and Piatt and Douglas counties were not included. Ameren is not being considerate of the Amish communities, they do not want lower milk cow production. We do not want these high power lines to hover near our town of Atwood.I don't feel Piatt and Douglas counties have been given proper notice, when the public hearings were being held, this route was not listed! Is Ameren going to disregard all their preliminary work? Are they going to waste their money on a longer route? Is Ameren being paid off by someone to abandon all their prelimary studies? Please stop considering this route!
Alora Murphy
12-0598 · Alora Murphy
June 10, 2013
Our family has owned farmland in Douglas County for generations.

It has been very difficult for us to get information on this entire matter. Nevertheless, bottom line, why approve a route longer than necessary?

I support Ameren's alternate route and I am against the MCPO route.
12-0598 · Karen K. Kamm
June 10, 2013
I own a farm in Douglas County.

I oppose the MCPO route.

Among the numerous valid points raised in opposition to the MCPO route, I would like to highlight two:
(1) The MCPO route is longer than necessary. It cuts through hundreds more acres of crop land than Ameren's alternate route. Thus, the MCPO route, if approved, would result in a very negative impact on both the economy and our food supply.
(2) The referenced Native American site has been in my family for decades. It should be protected.

I support Ameren's alternate route.
12-0598 · Douglas C. Kamm
June 10, 2013
I OPPOSE the route proposed by Moultrie County property owners which runs through Piatt and Douglas counties. There has been no public notification about this MCPO route and people in our area have no idea this is even a possibility. We all thought this process was over last summer in 2012 when Ameren held their meetings and Piatt and Douglas counties were not even listed as possible route areas. I feel the lines should run far south out of the Amish area. The best solution is to follow Ameren’s alternate route for which they have spent much time and money researching.

Ruth Williams
Atwood, IL
12-0598 · Ruth Williams
June 10, 2013
I oppose the route through Piatt/Douglas County. This route is longer t

han the MCPO route and more costlier to the customers of Ameren. Ameren just received a rate increase and this would be another in the near future.

The Piatt/Douglas County route takes it too close to many people's homes and very near the Tuscola airport and the city of Tuscola.

Please consider that there are Amish people living on this route.
12-0598 · Thomas J. Wilson
June 10, 2013
ICC
I am very disappointed in the way Douglas county is being blind sided by these transmission lines. The MCPO proposed route is completely outside of the Ameron study area. Ameron did years of research and came up with four proposed routes. They had meetings along those routes and used feedback from the people along those four routes to narrow it down to two routes. Now Moultrie county residents are upset that the final routes are going through there county which is understandable but instead of coming up with reasons on why they shouldn't have this power line they try to push it off on people in Douglas county many of which who live completely out of the study area. They didn't even try to come up with one sensitivity as reason for them to not have the power line instead they used the approach "not in my back yard". Douglas county has come up with many sensitivities along the route that MCPO proposed but in spite of that Ameron abandoned the Moultrie county route in favor of a Douglas county route that they had never studied in there many years of research. Why did Ameron do this? The reason for this really strange twist in Amerons stand on this issue is that Moultrie county found out through much research that the Mt Zion substation is in fact not nesassary at all. If Ameron sides with Moultrie county in favor of this ridicules "see above comments on why it is ridiculous" and unfair route through Douglas county they will get Moultrie county to shut up about the fact that the Mt Zion substation is a bunch of bull and hopefully the ICC will route this thing through a bunch of uninformed people's feilds and backyards and they still get there unnecessary substation. Btw the reason they want this substation is because they get more federal dollars if they build it. What a pathetic waste of money and uneccasary ruination of our butiful land and trees just to get a few more dollars from Washington. I hope the ICC does the job they are put in place to do and put a stop to all this pathetic misspending of money that we don't have to begin with and the uneccasary ruination of our environment.
12-0598 · Larry Schlabach
June 10, 2013
I strongly oppose the MCPO alternate route. Property owners in Piatt and Douglas counties have not been notified that this route could potentially impact their properties. Even today, people cannot find information on the Ameren or ICC websites related to Douglas or Piatt counties. The ICC’s job is to protect citizens and ratepayers to make sure processes are fair and equitable for all. There has been no public input on the MCPO route and it is not only longer, but affects more farm ground. I strongly urge the ICC to throw out the MCPO route and select Ameren’s alternate which is back by years of study, research and public input.

Bretta Hammerstrom
Douglas County Property Owner
12-0598 · Bretta Hammerstrom
June 10, 2013
ICC Office of the Executive Director
527 East Capitol Avenue
Springfield, Illinois 62701

Re: Case # 12-0598

ICC Director
As a Douglas county property owner I am strongly opposed to the Moultrie county property owners (MCPO) proposed route through Piatt and Douglas county's for the reasons listed below.
Ameren spent years studying and reviewing possible routes for this project, and Douglas and Piatt Counties were not selected as sites for the potential routes published by Ameren in the summer of 2012 and discussed during dozens of public forums held across the state.
? Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed as project sites in Ameren’s 2012 petition to the ICC.
? The originally submitted MCPO route was developed in a matter of weeks (per MCPO).
? Part of the MCPO route running through Piatt County was submitted after the ICC (Dec. 31) deadline.
? Part of the MCPO route through Douglas County is not even in Ameren’s original study area.
? All MCPO routes consisted of two-mile wide swaths, not exact 150-foot corridors like Ameren’s routes.
? The MCPO route travels miles off course and turns north avoiding all but a corner of Moultrie County,
despite the fact that Moultrie County lies directly between the Mt. Zion and Kansas substations.
? The MCPO route is longer, impacts more cropland, and includes more 90o turns than Ameren’s alternate.
? Douglas and Piatt Counties were not even listed in the ICC notification sent to property owners on
January 7, 2013 after the filing of the MCPO route—causing even more confusion.
? No public forums or opportunities for public feedback have been held in connection with the MCPO route.
? Piatt and Douglas Counties are not listed (like other impacted counties) on the ICC website describing
the nature of this case, nor do Douglas and Piatt appear in any of the project descriptions placed at the top of hundreds of documents filed on the ICC’s website/edocket for this case, despite the fact that the ICC edocket is exactly where the ICC directed property owners to go for more information.
? Douglas and Piatt Counties are not listed as impacted counties on the Map page of Ameren’s IRP site.
Many Douglas and Piatt property owners cannot find clear information in this case related to their counties; as a result, many have no idea whether this project might impact their property or not. Based on the presence of unclear and even contradictory information in this case, not to mention testimony from Ameren stating that the Ameren routes represented the only “viable” options for this project, the MCPO route should be thrown out!
Sincerely
Terry Schlabach
875 N CR 40 E
Atwood IL 61913
12-0598 · Terry Schlabach
June 10, 2013
NO TO THE POWER LINES THROUGH DOUGLAS AND PIATT COUNTIES!!!!! No one in our counties was notified of Ameren's intention and we weren't even on the list until Ameren allowed the Moultrie County Group to send it our way (What a way to do business). By coming through this area you will be spending millions more, mutilating an important archeological site and disturbing the dust cropping business at our local airport. Not to mention the millions of dollars lost on the value of our prime farmland.

Bibby Appleby
12-0598 · Bibby Appleby
June 10, 2013
I am opposed to the Ameren electrical line going through Douglas County. Ameren did a 6 year study and pickd the best possible route. Why the change? And who is paying for this extra cost? I pray that the ICC will make the best decision for the taxpayers. Beth Jones
12-0598 · Beth Jones
June 10, 2013
Ameren spent years of ratepayer money studying potential routes for this project, including a review of 30 different geographic sensitivities, and determined Piatt and Douglas were not feasible options.
Piatt and Douglas Counties were not part of the potential routes published and discussed by Ameren in the summer of 2012 during dozens of public forums.
Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed as impacted counties in Ameren’s November 2012 petition to the ICC.
The MCPO route was developed in late 2012 by Moultrie property owners—not Ameren or the ICC—and it was created in a matter of two weeks (per MCPO).
A portion of the MCPO route running through Piatt County was submitted after the ICC deadline of December 31.
All of the submitted MCPO routes originally consisted of two-mile wide swaths, not exact 150-foot corridors as identified in other alternate routes (including Ameren’s).
Piatt and Douglas Counties were not even listed on the ICC notification sent to property owners on January 7, 2013.
Piatt and Douglas Counties (to this day) do not appear on the section of the ICC website describing the nature of this case.
Piatt and Douglas Counties (to this day) are not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren website.
12-0598 · Brandon Lust
June 7, 2013
I am opposed to the alternate route submitted by the Moultrie County landowners that would bring the power line through Douglas County. Ameren has already spent large sums on developing two proposed routes through Moultrie County which should be used. No environmental, ecological or archeological surveys have been completed for the proposed alternate route through Douglas County. Also, by routing the line many miles to the north of the Ameren's proposed routes, this would increase the overall length and cost of the line and the additional costs would be passed on to Illinois consumers to pay.
12-0598 · Jake Kamm
June 6, 2013
We are writing this in concern about the Ameren proposed power line route (Illinois Rivers Project) has been changed based on just one county's (Moultrie) last minute proposal which was submitted after the ICC's December 31, 2012 deadline. The property owners in Douglas and Piatt Counties in which the new MCPO route were not notified of these changes. The MCPO route winds around and through Piatt and Douglas counties avoiding all but a small part of Moultrie county taking more valuable farm ground (two-mile swathes instead of 150 ft corridors) and decreasing more property values than the original Ameren proposal.

Based on only vague information, the lack of proper notification to property owners, the MCPO proposal being presented after the 12/31/12 ICC deadline basically keeping this information hidden, the increased costs of a longer route to get to proposed Kansas and Mt. Zion substation sites, we are strongly encouraging you to keep the original route as planned and agreed upon with the ICC, Ameren and property owners.

We count on the ICC to keep our utility bills reasonable and the utility companies from overcharging. Please do not turn this into another example of corrupt Illinois politics.

Sincerely, Jan and Greg Hastings
12-0598 · Jan and Greg Hastings
June 6, 2013
I would respectfully request the name(s) and contact information of any individual handling this project so I could speak with them about a few questions I have. I found this case number on the project website but was unable to find any contact information for any individuals I might talk to directly involved with this project.
12-0598 · Bob
June 6, 2013
No Ameren transmission lines in DOUGLAS COUNTY!! You submitted a potential route to the Illinois Commerce Commission and Douglas County was NOT INCLUDED.
We do not want your power lines!!!
12-0598 · Monica Cruzan
June 6, 2013
NO AMEREN TRANSMISSION LINES IN DOUGLAS COUNTY!!!! There was no contact made to me as a land owner in Douglas County and stick with your submitted proposal for the route of the AMEREN 330 MILE POWER LINE ROUTE!
12-0598 · Dale Albin
June 6, 2013
We DO NOT WANT YOUR POWER LINES ERRECTED IN DOUGLAS COUNTY!! We have NEVER received notification that this project would be considered in DOUGLAS COUNTY and we DO NOT WANT YOUR TRASMISSION LINES IN DOUGLAS COUNTY.
12-0598 · Kathryn Albin
June 6, 2013
I am opposed to MCPO proposed power line that would go through Piatt and Douglas counties.Over 25 years ago our family planted over 100 Hybrid Walnut trees for future generations to harvest and enjoy. This MCPO proposed power line would turn these trees into sawdust. How could a family ever be compensated for all the years of work needed to grow these trees from a bare root to a mature tree! This is suppose to be a green nation and you shouldn't be destoying trees. I pray that the ICC will approve the primary or alternate route for the ATXI line. Thank you.
12-0598 · margaret a kamm
June 6, 2013
A. Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois (herein “Ameren”) has proposed to construct a new high voltage power line from Missouri to Indiana across central Illinois (the “Project”).
B. Originally the Project was not proposed to include land located in Douglas County, Illinois.
C. Based upon opposition to the proposed route of the Project, Ameren revised the route to take a less direct path and thereby included land in Douglas County, Illinois.
D. A portion of the land along the revised route lies in Garrett Township in Douglas County Illinois.
E. Land owners, particularly farmers, in Garrett Township would be faced with the proposed high voltage transmission line crossing their properties, interfering with farming operations and causing other detriments to the land.
F. Garrett Township contructs, maintains and repairs roads in the township and such roads would be adversely affected by construction and additional traffic associated with the Project.
G. Homes of three Amish families living in Garrett Township would be affected by the Project.
H. One cemetery located in Garrett Township would be adversely impacted by the Project.
I. The Project would result in a general decrease in value for affected properties and other properties located in Garrett Township.
J. In as much as land in Douglas County was not originally to be included in the Project. The Board of Trustees believes that the revisions to the Project which now include land in Douglas County are ill advised and not in the public interest.
Now Therefore Be It Resolved By the Board of Trustees of the Town of Garrett, Douglas County, Illinois As Follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated verbatim in this Section.
Section 2. Publication. This resolution be made a part of the permanent records of the Town of Garrett. That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the County Clerk of Douglas County, Illinois. That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the Clerk of the Illinois Commerce Commission in Docket No. 12-0598.
Section 3. Opposition. Any other actions which may be necessary or proper to establish the opposition of the Town of Garrett, Douglas County, Illinois to the Project be taken by the Supervisor and the Clerk of the Town.
Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and approval.
PRESENTED this __1___ day of June, 2013.
PASSED this day of June, 2013
APPROVED this day of June, 2013
_______________________________________
GARY APPLEBY
12-0598 · Garrett Township
May 31, 2013
I am opposed to the Moultrie County Property Owners (MCPO) alternative proposed route through Douglas and Piatt Coounties. In their website on the Transmission Project, Ameren states that they will hold meetings and provide information in each county affected by the project. I do not believe that the residents of Douglas and Piatt Counties have had proper notice. We are not even listed yet on the website as potentially affected counties. Ameren in its careful initial studies concluded that Piatt and Douglas Counties were not feasible options. MCPO did their study by their admission in about two weeks. The MCPO alternative proposed route is a waste of ratepayers' money, taking the line miles out of the way by going somewhat north of Mount Zion, then east, and then south to Kansas, as opposed to the Ameren original primary and alternative routes which run from northwest to southeast through Moultrie County. Looking at the routes on a map, the MCPO proposal makes no sense and is clearly inefficient. MCPO to my knowledge has not given reasons for their proposal; it was just submitted somewhat according to process (it missed a deadline and was later modified). I doubt that their reasons for wanting the route to essentially go around Moultrie County (except for the extreme northeast corner) are any better than other affected parties' reasons for not wanting the power line through their property.
12-0598 · Jan A Lommele
May 31, 2013
As I read the above transmission line nobody in Douglas County has been advised they are even considering Douglas County. The route through Douglas County is longer with numerous right angles and would cost the energy users in the State of Illinois much additional money. Why wouldn't you take the shortest and cheapest route to do this? By using the MCPO route all this does is substitute Douglas County farmland for Moultrie County farmland.
12-0598 · Janice Wilson
May 29, 2013
I would like to oppose the alternate route that has been submitted by MCPO that would bring the ATXI line through Piatt and Douglas Counties. I suggest that the two original routes be considered. Ameren has already spent millions of dollars researching these routes and the ratepayers would pick up the tab if the original routes were not used.Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments.
12-0598 · howard w kamm
May 29, 2013
RESOLUTION 13-R-10
RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NEW HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC SERVICE LINES AND RELATED FACILITIES IN DOUGLAS COUNTY
WHEREAS, The Douglas county Board ("Board") is endowed by the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the Illinois Compiled Statutes to govern and represent the people of Douglas County; and
WHEREAS, Douglas County consists of prime farmland with some of the richest soils in the world; and
WHEREAS, Douglas County farms consistently rank in the top crop producing counties in the State of Illinois, and
WHEREAS, Farmland in Douglas County is largely undisturbed by industrial development; and
WHEREAS, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois ("Ameren") has filed a Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), under docket number 12-0598, seeking permission "to Construct, Operate and Maintain a New High Voltage Electric Service Line and Related Facilities in the Counties of Adams, Brown, Cass, Champaign, Christian, Clark, Coles, Edgar, Fulton, Macon, Montgomery, Morgan, Moultrie, Pike, Sangamon, Schuyler, Scott and Shelby, Illinois;" and
WHEREAS, alternate paths of the proposed high voltage service line have included routes through Douglas County; and
WHEREAS, The location of the proposed high voltage service line through Douglas County would result in a drastic reduction in the value of rural properties and farmland in Douglas County; and
WHEREAS, The location of said service line through Douglas County would have insufficient economic benefit to Douglas County and its citizens, when weighed against the permanent blight on the landscape of Douglas County said service line would cause; and
WHEREAS, it is the sense of This Board that the citizens of Douglas County oppose the permanent blight that would result from the construction of said high voltage service line in and through Douglas County.
•

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that this Board, elected by the people of Douglas County, Illinois, does hereby voice its opposition to the approval by the ICC of any proposed route for Ameren's New High Voltage Electric Service Line and Related Facilities that would include Douglas County, Illinois.
Charles Knox
Chairman

•

12-0598 · Gary and Bibby Appleby
May 29, 2013
RESOLUTION 13-R-10
RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NEW HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC SERVICE LINES AND RELATED FACILITIES IN DOUGLAS COUNTY
WHEREAS, The Douglas county Board ("Board") is endowed by the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the Illinois Compiled Statutes to govern and represent the people of Douglas County; and
WHEREAS, Douglas County consists of prime farmland with some of the richest soils in the world; and
WHEREAS, Douglas County farms consistently rank in the top crop producing counties in the State of Illinois, and
WHEREAS, Farmland in Douglas County is largely undisturbed by industrial development; and
WHEREAS, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois ("Ameren") has filed a Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), under docket number 12-0598, seeking permission "to Construct, Operate and Maintain a New High Voltage Electric Service Line and Related Facilities in the Counties of Adams, Brown, Cass, Champaign, Christian, Clark, Coles, Edgar, Fulton, Macon, Montgomery, Morgan, Moultrie, Pike, Sangamon, Schuyler, Scott and Shelby, Illinois;" and
WHEREAS, alternate paths of the proposed high voltage service line have included routes through Douglas County; and
WHEREAS, The location of the proposed high voltage service line through Douglas County would result in a drastic reduction in the value of rural properties and farmland in Douglas County; and
WHEREAS, The location of said service line through Douglas County would have insufficient economic benefit to Douglas County and its citizens, when weighed against the permanent blight on the landscape of Douglas County said service line would cause; and
WHEREAS, it is the sense of This Board that the citizens of Douglas County oppose the permanent blight that would result from the construction of said high voltage service line in and through Douglas County.
•

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that this Board, elected by the people of Douglas County, Illinois, does hereby voice its opposition to the approval by the ICC of any proposed route for Ameren's New High Voltage Electric Service Line and Related Facilities that would include Douglas County, Illinois.
Charles Knox~~~
Chairman Douglas County Board

Attest

Judi Pollock
County Clerk

12-0598 · Bibby Appleby
May 14, 2013
As a party affected by the Ameren Transmission project I would like to add the following comments for review:

I recommend that the Ameren Transmission project be denied by the ICC. All routes, not just primary or alternate, but the entire project.

There has not been a justified reason for this transmission line. Ameren held multiple meetings without findings proving a need for the project to be completed. Multiple questions remain unaswered including stipulations/regulations for the powerlines if they are built.

Ameren Transmission attempt to expedite this project is unfair to landowners. The ICC needs further time to evaluate the necessity and practicality of the project.

This project will be running very near to my home. Land that has one of these poles located on it will be faced with lower land values. If it is placed on farm land there is some reimburesement for the easement. If it is placed across the street from your home, you are not reimbursed financially and can endure long term negative side effects for your health.

Thank you for your time.
12-0598 · Ann Raynolds
12-0598 · Ann Raynolds
May 7, 2013
The Coles County Farm Bureau®, located in Coles County, IL representing over 2,000 members, would like to add the following comments for review:

We recommend that the Ameren Transmission project be denied by the ICC.

We believe that there is not a justified reason for this transmission line. Meetings held by Ameren Transmission failed to prove the need for this project. Many questions landowners had were left unanswered. It is not fair to the landowners in Coles County to be led into the dark on such a project.

We strongly feel that allowing Ameren Transmission to expedite this project is unfair to our landowners. This is a major project and the proper time is needed for landowners to address the situation.

This project will be running through prime farmland in Coles County. Having poles in the fields will make farming around them more difficult and that particular area will become non-productive farmland. Also, land that has one of these poles located on it will be faced with lower land values.

Thank you for your consideration.
12-0598 · Coles County Farm Bureau
May 7, 2013
The transmission lines associated with this project in the Mt Zion/Hervey City/Dalton City will be located near a NAS Navigational Aid (VOR). Has an Air Case Study with the FAA been performed to determine the impact on this VOR in connection with operation of aircraft in this area?
12-0598 · Adriano Bacuita
April 12, 2013
We ask that Ameren not be allowed to run high voltage lines through our property.

The leg of the project that has been proposed to go through the Moweaqua area not only decreases the farmable area of our field and those around it, it is also an eye-sore and property value killer, a potential health risk and a danger to the growth of our community.

This part of the project is slated (as best we can tell) to go through our populated and constantly growing neighborhood as well as current farm fields. This proposed route is not “out in the middle of nowhere”. This is not a sparsely populated area. It is a quickly growing and expanding community that does not want high powered electrical lines going through the middle of it and impeding or stifling its growth.

This proposed route is a hardship to the farmers who will lose a portion of their farm fields, and a hardship to the existing home owners whose property values will be decreased and will face potential health risks and be forced to endure an eyesore day in and day out.

With the completion of this project, I see no benefit to anyone other than Ameren and hardships to all except Ameren.

We don’t want this project.

Bob and Lonni Curry
808 Properties
Busey Land Trust

Moweaqua Illinois
12-0598 · Bob and Lonni Curry 808 Properties Busey Land Trust
April 2, 2013
This comment is written in support of the Illinois Rivers Project. The State of Illinois has made a commitment to meet 25% of its energy demand from renewable energy (RE) resources by 2025. In order to realize this goal, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) needs to approve Ameren Transmission's petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which would allow the Illinois Rivers high-voltage transmission project to proceed. In addition, individuals may understandably object to the siting of the proposed facilities on privately held lands and near valuable public resources, surely the ICC can address these impacts through reasonable conditions imposed on the utility's project.

Illinois' renewable portfolio standards (RPS) depend on in-state generation of wind energy and purchasing the remainder from out of state. Loomis, David & Pagan, Antonio, The Illinois RPS: Context, Structure, and History of the Policy (Illinois State University Center for Renewable Energy April 2011) (hereinafter Illinois RPS), at 20 available at http://renewableenergy.illinoisstate.edu/wind/publications/2011%20TheIllinoisRPS%200411.pdf. Most of Illinois' RE generation will come from wind. Illinois RPS at 13. However, like other RE sources, wind blows infrequently and wind energy facilities almost never operate at maximum capacity. Although in theory, Illinois has sufficient capacity to meet its RPS solely with in-state wind energy projects, Great Lakes Commission, State of Illinois Update, available at http://glc.org/energy/wind/pdf/conf2011presentations/Illinois.pdf, it may be more cost-effective and practical for utilities to purchase alternative energy credits aggregated from out-of-state producers, at least as the RPS legislation is currently structured. Lydersen, Kari, "Experts: Chicago Aggregation Could Hurt Renewable Energy – Unless the RPS is Fixed," Midwest Energy News (August 10, 2012), available at http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/08/10/experts-chicago-aggregation-could-hurt-renewable-energy-unless-the-rps-is-fixed/. In order to ensure reliable and affordable clean energy, Illinois utilities must be able to import at least some wind resources, as needed. These high-voltage transmission lines are vital to an integrated electricity system capable of addressing the intermittency challenges inherent in harnessing wind power.

Finally, as with any major public project, the location and impacts of the proposed facility raise concerns about equity. As noted by a litany of comments, these facilities will likely have at least some negative consequences for the communities through which they pass. Harm to archeological resources, public lands and areas with significant ecological value, agricultural operations, and property values may be associated with both the proposed and alternative routes. E.g., Ameren Transmission, Draft Environmental Siting Criteria: Illinois Rivers Project, (accessed March 31, 2013) available at http://www.ilriverstransmission.com/process/siting-criteria; USDA, Comment on ICC Case No. 12-0598 (March 6, 2013), available at http://www.icc.illinois.gov/docket/CaseDetails.aspx?no=12-0598.

Under its authority to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, the ICC has the ability to require that the utility comply with reasonable conditions to mitigate these impacts. Wilcox Transp. Co. v. ICC, 328 Ill. 455, 461 (Ill. 1927). Under Illinois law, all utilities must provide service that is "in all respects adequate, efficient, reliable and environmentally safe." 220 ILCS 5/8-401. The ICC also has the authority to order that the facilities be constructed in such a manner as to ensure the "convenience...of the public." 220 ILCS 5/8-503. Further, under the provisions specifically related to the approval of facilities like the Illinois Rivers Project, the ICC must find that the project "is equitable to all customers." 220 ILCS 5/8-406.1; see also 220 ILCS 5/8/406(b) (same customer-protection language). Illinois courts have held that the ICC's decision to grant and subsequently modify a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity involves broad discretion even when considering non-economic issues, like public safety impacts. King v. ICC, 39 Ill.App.3d 648 (Ill. Ct. App. 1968). The ICC should exercise its authority to grant the Certificate only while accommodating economic, electricity reliability, environmental, and community-health concerns.
12-0598 · Gus Winkes
March 22, 2013
We, the Moultrie County Farm Bureau Board, duly elected by the Illinois Farm Bureau members of Moultrie County, resolve to:

Recommend that Ameren Transmission Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ameren Power, an Illinois Public Utility be denied it's application to the Illinois Commerce Commission to run a high voltage power line from a proposed substation in the Mt. Zion area through Moultrie County to a proposed substation in Kansas, in Coles County.

We believe that Ameren has failed to prove a public need for the Mt. Zion substation and has failed to investigate more economical methods of power controls that would accomplish the same or better results than what Ameren has proposed by installing the Mt. Zion substation.

We further believe that by allowing them to cross the prime farm land of Moultrie County, they will be adding more capacity in a downward trending electrical market and will cause more prime agricultural land to be sacrificed and removed fromt he food chain.

We further reject the expedited law that the Illinois Legislature passed in 2007 that has allowed Ameren to bring a project of this scope and size to the ICC in an expedited manner, while putting the due process of thousands of land owners at grave risk.

We have duly passed this resolution by a majority vote of the Moultrie County Farm Bureau Board on March 18, 2013.
12-0598 · Moultrie County Farm Bureau
March 22, 2013
To whom it may concern:
The Clark County Farm Bureau®, an organization located in Clark County, Illinois, representing over 1600 members, would like to place the following comments on record in regards to the Ameren Power Line Transmission Project, Case# 12-0598.
The Clark County Farm Bureau® Board of Directors, after careful consideration, voted to oppose the project based on several facts.
1. The project being promoted by Ameren Transmission as being needed to bring renewable energy from Western States wind turbines to Illinois to meet the Renewable Energy Portfolio created by the State of Illinois passing legislation to require a certain percentage of electricity to come from renewable resources. This so called need was artificially created by passing of the legislation. Also, there are many wind turbine farms already built in Illinois with more projects being planned. Purchasing wind energy from other states takes away from the economic development within the State of Illinois.
2. It is also stated they need to improve their current infrastructure. Ameren currently has several lines within the county, of which they have rebuilt one of those lines.
3. Once the project reaches the Kansas, IL substation, any benefit to Illinois consumers of electricity ceases. The further construction from the Kansas substation to Sugar Creek, Indiana no longer benefits any residents of Illinois. To take the line on through Clark County, IL, going through prime farmland and close to residences, is not needed.
4. Ameren Transmission has stated in some of their public meetings that another need was to improve their transmission grid. Ameren had allowed their current grid to fall into disrepair and it has not been until this year they made efforts to rebuild them. Currently we have landowners who are waiting to have their land brought back to condition due to damage brought on from the rebuild of one transmission line in the county.
5. One proposed route is to parallel an existing structure. This will create undo hardships on those who currently farm that land. The uneven spacing of poles with modern farming practices will create hazards as farmer attempt to maneuver around poles, requiring them to take more time, and exposing them to the uncertain effects created by high voltage lines.
It is of our opinion Ameren should not be allowed to construct a new line across Clark County, and if it is determined they do have a need, existing lines and right of ways should be used by reconstructing the existing structures.
Thank you for your consideration.
12-0598 · Clark County Farm Bureau
March 6, 2013

The United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) has identified two conservation easements that would be directly impacted by the PRIMARY route of Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois’ proposed Illinois Rivers Transmission project.

Specifically, the USDA-NRCS has identified a Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) easement in Brown County, Illinois that would be bisected on the western edge of the WRP easement by the primary route. This WRP easement property is currently owned by a Non-Governmental Organization.

An Emergency Watershed Protection Program – Floodplain Easement (EWPP-FPE) located in eastern Clark County has also been identified as being directly impacted by the proposed primary route. This EWPP-FPE easement property is privately owned. It is also important to note that immediately north and south of this EWPP-FPE easement are two other EWPP-FPE conservation easements that would be considered in the study area of this project. The two recorded easement deeds show that the WRP easement located in Brown County and the EWPP-FPE easement located in Clark County were acquired by USDA-NRCS pursuant to laws enacted by Congress.

In consultation with its Office of General Counsel, USDA-NRCS has determined it critical to note the policy regarding infrastructure projects clearly states it is the project proponent’s responsibility to prove to USDA-NRCS that impacts to the WRP conservation easement cannot be avoided. The authority to modify a WRP easement is very limited. EWPP-FPE easements must be avoided as USDA-NRCS has no authority under this program to modify the terms of the conservation easement. NRCS asserts that the rights the USDA acquired under these two easements programs are superior to rights that Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois might acquire to construct the proposed transmission line.

12-0598 · Paula Hingson, Assistant State Conservationist, USDA-NRCS
March 1, 2013
PIATT COUNTY BOARD AMEREN RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, On November 7, 2012, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois (ATXI) filed a proposed Primary Route and an Alternate Route for the Illinois Rivers Project with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC); and

WHEREAS, Both the Primary Route and the Alternate Route go through Moultrie County, and neither the Primary Route nor the Alternate Route go through Piatt County; and

WHEREAS, Moultrie County Property Owners (MCPO), comprised of six (6) property owners, filed as Intervenors with the ICC opposing both the Primary and Alternate ATXI routes through Moultrie County and proposing a new route through Piatt County; and

WHEREAS, On December 13, 2012, the Moultrie County Board adopted a resolution opposing routing the ATXI transmission through Moultrie County; and

WHEREAS, On January 2, 2013, a member of MCPO posted the Moultrie County Board Resolution on the ICC website as public comment; and

WHEREAS, ATXI has stated that it has conducted a comprehensive route siting study and analysis to support its Primary Route and Alternate Route; and

WHEREAS, It appears that ATXI has considered Piatt County, Illinois, in its possible route and has eliminated Piatt County from the Primary Route and the Alternate Route; and

WHEREAS, Piatt County consists of prime farmland with some of the richest soils in the world; and

WHEREAS, Piatt County farms consistently rank in the top crop producing counties in the State of Illinois, and

WHEREAS, Farmland in Piatt County is largely undisturbed by industrial development; and

WHEREAS, The location of a transmission line through Piatt County would result in a drastic reduction in the value of rural properties and farmland; and

WHEREAS, The location of a transmission line through Piatt County would have little economic benefit to Piatt County and its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the location of transmission line through Piatt County would forever be a blight on the landscape of Piatt County, Illinois.

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the County Board of Piatt County, Illinois is opposed to the Moultrie County Property Owners proposed route or any other proposed route for the ATXI transmission line through Piatt County, Illinois.
12-0598 · John Lyons, Chm Piatt County Board
February 28, 2013
My comments to the ICC re: Ameren's Illinois Rivers Project can only echo the well-stated comments of my sister, Janis Dappert. This proposed high voltage transmission line is a bad idea for a number of reasons. As a nation, I believe we need to be developing local sources of renewable energy, as well as finding envionmentally friendly ways to utilize the coal and oil that is so prevalent in our state, in particular, as well as in other regions of our country. Transmitting energy long distances across large areas of our country endangers the people, wildlife habitats, local eco-systems and productivity of farm land. It also makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attack and natural disaster. One well-placed missile could wipe-out the power supply for a whole region of the country. In closing, the only entity that it appears would benefit from this high voltage transmission line would be the Ameren Corporation and it's coffers!
If you should decide to approve this project, please require that Ameren utilize existing lines and right-of-ways to minimize the extent of the damage to this beautiful State. Thank you for your consideration.
12-0598 · Marsha (Coultas) Long, Trustee, R. J. Coultas Family (Farm) Trust
February 28, 2013
Upon driving across Central Illinois it would appear to the average person that there is just a lot of empty space and the addition of some power line poles would hardly make a difference. But the construction of the new transmission line would, by Ameren's own admission, have an impact on 7000 acre across the state. Historically the prevailing attitude has been a thousand acres here and a thousand there and what does it matter because there is just so much to use. I believe Ameren already has a right of way and an existing transmission line. They should be required to re-use what has already been disturbed, disrupted, or destroyed. Perhaps it will cost Ameren more initially and will take them longer to recover their investment but we will never recover the additional land taken for this project, The environmental impact will not be reversed and the people's lives who are forever changed will not be the same. All could be avoided by using the existing transmission corridor because the cost not to do so is too great.
12-0598 · Mike Dappert
February 28, 2013
No one can dispute that it is a good thing to be moving away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. It can be a step toward healing the earth. However, I do question the idea of building huge wind farms and high voltage lines to transport that energy across the country. The beauty of renewable resources such as wind and solar is that they are available everywhere and can easily be set up on a local or decentralized level. Such decentralization would be much less vulnerable to terrorist attack or natural disaster.
I am part of a family who owns land in the path of the alternative route. Our family came to Scott County in the 1830s. The farm is a Centennial farm and one of the seventh generation lives in the old farmhouse. Our connection and love of this place is strong. The idea of this extremely high voltage line crossing anywhere near where we live is seen as a violation and a danger to the health of every living thing near it. It would cross our most productive field, compacting soil and reducing the value of the land. In that we are no different than anyone in its potential path. No one wants it.
Please pull back and take a wider view. The new line, both proposed and alternate, will cross "undeveloped" land. It will damage every field and destroy a path through every woodlot in its path. In Scott County we have lots of rolling hills and waterways. Where the hills are a little too steep there are what you call woodlots - we call it timber or woods. This is where the wildlife is living, and everyday their habitat gets a little smaller. One woods in Scott County that will be crossed by the alternate line is home to endangered pileated woodpeckers. The clearcut path through woods for the line will be sprayed with herbicides on a regular basis, which will run off, along with the thin timber soil, into the waterways, creeks and on to the river. As the earth becomes sick, we become sick.
Pull back and take a wider view yet and see how in the last century our state, our nation, our world has become criss-crossed with electric lines and roads and all the other "improvements" of the modern world. Few of us most likely remember what it was like before all these improvements, none of us would want to live without them. But perhaps it is time to at least save what we can of the earth that sustains us. To move forward and take care of the earth so it can take care of us.
I do question whether this line is even needed, and believe there could be better ways to move forward into the future. However if the ICC does approve the line, it would make the most sense to do the least amount of harm by following the existing high voltage line (which is a straight shot) from Meredosia to Pana.

Janis Dappert
Richard J. Coultas Family Trust
Scott County Illinois
12-0598 · Janis Dappert
February 28, 2013
I just became aware that the ameren Illinois river project is proposing to run power lines in between me and my neighbors property where we would only be less than a quarter mile from it. I was never told this by Ameren or from anybody in the county. I would like to protest against this power line coming next to my property. I know these lines have very high levels of EMF and I fear for my families safety. My address is 1432 cr 1025e. I looked at amerens map and it shows the line right next to my house. I would like to have some more information and have the right to protest this.
12-0598 · zeth key
February 28, 2013
I would like to express opposition to the transmission project proposed in Docket #12-0598.
I am asking the ICC members to stop this proposed transmission line project as well as the many others being proposed to cross Illinois carrying “clean energy” from western wind farms. Please study ALL proposed lines collectively and then determine what is in the BEST interest of Illinois Citizen’s. I do not oppose clean energy but I do oppose the “pigs at a feeding trough” mentality of investors counting on eastern state renewable energy portfolios to make them money.
I’m a volunteer with BlockRICL, www.BlockRICL.com and I strongly believe this is not just an issue of NIMBY’s “Not In MY Back Yard” citizens but ALL taxpaying citizens and land owners. Illinois is now facing many potential transmission line routes.
California is meeting their renewable energy portfolio with in state solar and wind incentives raising questions as to why as a country we need to transmit “wind energy” long distances at all. Certainly the east coast market has proven disinterest by 10 governors writing Congress twice saying they do not want to buy expensive electricity produced further west but would prefer developing renewable energy instate to meet their clean energy portfolios This would provide jobs within their own state and bring development and industry to their state while supplying a product near the load zone.
Doesn’t it seem sensible to create clean electricity near the load areas where it will be used? Off shore wind and turbines turned by water currents off shore or in rivers makes so much more sense for the east coast. Even off shore Great Lakes wind farms make more sense and we have California’s model for developing consumer incentives to meet the renewable goals. Do we really need to take valuable farm land out of production and place the economic burden for east coast energy on the Illinois citizen’s back? Farm land is a nonrenewable resource!
My fellow Block Rock Island Clean Line volunteer, Scott Thorsen summed up my opinion on the issue of economics of wind energy in his following blog;
“How much more must we sacrifice for "clean" energy?

The Wind Industry said they need PURPA so real electric companies would be forced to buy their energy. We gave them PURPA.

The Wind Industry said they need a subsidy, so we gave them the Production Tax Credit and the Investment Tax Credit.

The Wind Industry said they need PUCHA abolished to get more investors in powerlines for “clean” energy. We scrapped President Roosevelt’s PUHCA.

The Wind Industry said they need Renewable Portfolio Standards as a policy to mandate 25% renewable energy by 2025. We gave them the RPS.

The Wind Industry said they need 20 Year Power Purchasing Contracts. We gave them 20 year Power Purchasing Contracts at 184% the current market value for energy.

Now the Wind Industry says they need superhighway powerlines from Iowa to get the energy to the east coast.

Now the Wind Industry says they need federal eminent domain for powerlines.

When is it enough? How much more do I need to give the owners of these windmills?

Show me a wind company that is going out of business. Show me a wind company that isn’t making money. How do you think Michael Zilhka, the financer of Clean Line Energy made his billions from his millions? Wind Energy.

If Renewable Portfolio Standards are not frozen, in 2025 we are going to have 25% of our energy as unregulated “renewable” and “clean” energy. These “clean” energy companies are exempt from all the regulations coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and all other energy manufacturers must work and abide by.

By 2025 the largest player in the energy business (wind energy) will be left unchecked and all other energy manufactures will be scrapping for income around this out of control monster.

Now is not the time to put 2 giant 3,500MW powerline’s through Illinois for this unregulated child of the energy industry. We are creating a huge potential for abuse with market trading and greater instability with these monsters. Enron will be considered a smalltime country bank armed robbery compared to the road we are headed down with wind energy, Grain Belt Express, and the Rock Island Clean Line Project. Now is the time to freeze the Renewable Portfolio Standard, freeze any expansion of transmission for specifically for “clean” energy, and start regulating these companies like the rest of the energy industry.

We have paid enough of our money to these “clean” energy companies. It’s time to regulate their greed before it’s too late.

How many more sweetheart deals have already been made to the wind industry beyond those listed above.” Scott A. Thorsen
This is a National issue but Illinois Commerce Commission, you have the option to STOP and come up with a plan to deal with it NOW before Illinois farmland is sacrificed forever.
12-0598 · Susan Sack
February 28, 2013
I'm a proud owner of a fabulous piece of property located north of Rushville in Schuyler Co. I've recently learned that my property is in the primary route of the new transmission line proposed by Ameren.
I would like to state that I'm strongly apposed to this. A new transmission line running through my property would require the eternal distruction of 100% mature forest and severely impacting all its wildlife. The length would be approx. 1325' x the 150' wide minimum requirement, just though what I own.
If the mistake is made to have this transmission line go through my land, it will crush the value both monetarily and personally to me and my family. There's not even enough room on this page for me to indicate the negative effects this will have on both me and the enviroment.
I ask that you consider utilizing routes already established w/ current utility paths, or along a route along roadways easements.
If this transmission line absolutely has to be installed, I would strongly request that the alternate route leaving Rushville in Schuyler Co. be utilized. This path going to the substation in Ipava is a direct route. After reviewing land maps, it also appears to be running through at least 50% less timberland and more level terrain.
Significantly less material and labor required to construct = being cost efficiant = LESS MONEY US TAX PAYERS NEED SPEND!
I would think farmers at the Alternate Route would still be able to grow crops under and around the transmission line, especially if these towers are at intervalls of 700' to 1000'.
Why would the path of least resistance or impact to the enviroment not be chosen?
Charles Vins (Docket 12-0598)
12-0598 · Charles Vins
February 14, 2013
This is in regard to the proposed Ameren Transmission River Project #12-0598.

My husband, Lyle, and I live in Coles County. We have fann backgrounds here and we own
farm land here. I inherited one parcel of 240 acres and last spring we were able to purchase a
160 acre parcel directly across the road from the 240 acres.

We are very opposed to the Primary Route of the Ameren Transmission Illinois River Project.

The Primary route would divide the 240 acre parcel almost in half. By not using any road or
neighboring field, it would take and excessive and nreasonable amount of farmIand of this
particular parcel out of production forever.
Then the project would cross the road and proceed on almost the width of the 160 acre parceL
It could hardly be less damaging to our farmland!

This land is all very productive farm land ... mostly corn and soybeans. Many of the farms are
family owned and farmed by family. Our children will be the fourth generation.
Conservation and respect for the land has always included removing obsolete buildings, fences
and brush and building and in maintaining waterways.
We have installed and maintain extensive tiling systems on both properties - which is another
important reason why we object to the Ameren project.

Both parcels of land that we own would be greatly and irreparably damaged by this project.
Many of our neighbors are also opposed to this route, as their land also will be damaged.

We cannot afford to ignore the increasingly important role agriculture has in the future.
We need to protect our productive farmland.

The Coles County Farm Bureau and the Coles County Board are publicly opposed to the project.

We would suggest that Ameren upgrade the 138000 volt power line planned for less than 50
miles north of this area - avoiding damage to this area. Existing power lines and! or roads should
always be used when possible, not irreplaceable farmland!
12-0598 · Pamela Overton
February 14, 2013
We would like to oppose the alternate route that was submitted by Moultrie County landowners that brings the Ameren line through Piatt County. We suggest that you use one of the two routes that were originally presented by Ameren. No one wants these power lines on their property, but it makes no sense to bring the lines that far north away from the original routes. We have prime farmland that is some of the most productive ground in the world and it would be a shame to waste that ground by putting transmission lines on the property.
One other concern we have is the health issues these can possibly cause. We do not want to cause harm to our life or to the lives of those that surround us and we feel that these power lines can affect our health. We urge you to keep these lines out of Piatt County and to use the original routes that were proposed by Ameren. Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments.
12-0598 · Daniel and Norma Chambers
February 14, 2013
February 12, 2013

We are writing this comment in opposition to the Ameren Illinois River project as described and recorded on docket number 12-0598. You have included our property in your alternate route through Christian County.

We are very concerned about the detrimental effects of living beneath a high voltage electromagnetic field. We acquired this land on November 30, 2012. We were NOT notified that this land would be on the alternate route. We feel this is being expedited so landowners do not have an opportunity to contest this project.

The proposed alternate route running through Christian county will run on the north AND east side of our property. We are concerned what this alternate route would do to our property value. This will most assuredly lower our property value and produce a financial hardship. We have no way to regain the value of our property.

There is no possible compensation for the loss of quality of life and permanent damage to property this project will produce.

12-0598 · Ann Raynolds and Justin Ramey
12-0598 · Ann Raynolds
February 14, 2013
I have recently been informed via a letter from Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois that the Moultrie County Property Owners (MCPO) filed “The Moultrie County Property Owners Potential Alternate Routes” (PAR); one of the MCPO routes would go through my property in Atwood, Illinois.
The MCPO apparently has failed to consider the following:
1. The PAR goes over and through an area across the road from my property that is a designated archeological site. In 1986, two archaeologists from the University Of Illinois did a site inspection due to the numerous ancient Native American artifacts that had been found there over many years. The archaeologists found points and other artifacts and concluded that they ranged in age from as recent as 1,000 years ago to as long ago as 10,000 years ago. They also concluded that the site was used as a stopover village during the Native Americans travels and was a significant site complete with burial mounds and village sites. They informed the owner who to contact to register this site, which he did. After filling out the site form, Charles J. Bareis, from the University of Illinois and the Illinois Archaeological Survey, sent a letter that designated this site as IL-Do-78: IAS- Sec.5, (overlay in SW corner, aligned with East and South section lines), SW 1/4, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, N 4404150, E 375800.
2. The PAR easement would clear land in a bottom area and flood plain of the Lake Fork River, which would drain into the Lake Fork River, with potential adverse environmental consequences to the ecosystem, due to sediment and herbicide runoff from the easement clearance.
3. The PAR crosses a major tourism route to Arthur, Illinois, the Arthur road, which runs from Route 36 south to Arthur. The appearance of the transmission line over this route is at best inconsistent with, and in my opinion strongly conflicts with, the purpose of tourists’ travel to Arthur, which is to see and experience a quaint rural community with a strong Amish influence.
4. The PAR goes very close to at least two Amish Churches of my neighbors, who have received a letter similar to the one I received, as noted above.
5. The PAR would go through an area of forest near my property and obliterate a forested fencerow on my property. Both areas are rich in wildlife and the clearance of such forest for the easement would adversely impact conservation of such wildlife.
6. East of my property a few miles, the PAR appears to go very close to the Tuscola Airport. I hope that the proposers of the PAR would have ensured that the line does not conflict with FAA clearance regulations, but I do not know that. (Incidentally, the quality of the maps and the number of corrections filed by the MCPO makes it very difficult to know with certainty the PAR.)
7. The route of the PAR departs significantly from a reasonably straight line from Mt. Zion, Illinois to Kansas, Illinois, which indicates that the PAR is inefficient, wastes valuable resources, and needlessly impacts many additional property owners versus the current ICC-approved primary and alternative routes.

My additional observation is that the MCPO has totally failed to state any valid reasons for their objection to the ICC proposed or alternative route. The objections seem to be based on what the MCPO judges to be the inherent unfairness of the expedited process of the Project. For example, they object to having seven days to respond to Ameren data requests when Ameren has ten days to respond to Staff and Intervenor data requests. Yet, I cannot find on the documents list even one objection based on the “sensitivities” listed on the Project’s website.

My proposal is to continue with the ICC-approved primary and alternate routes. I attended an information meeting last summer in Hammond, IL. I was impressed with the team and the analysis that had gone into developing the route and addressing community concerns.
12-0598 · Jan A Lommele
February 14, 2013
My wife and I own property along the now primary route chosen by Ameren for the proposed transmission line to the power plant at Ipava, Illinois. We expressed our concerns with a letter to Ameren before this route was chosen by them.

We have since learned that the Nature Conservancy, which owns and manages a tract of land near ours, has proposed to the Commerce Commission an additional alternate route on the east side of the Illinois River that would place the transmission line through primarily agricultural land. There are dramatic differences in the proposed routes on both the long term environmental impacts and economic impacts.

If the proposed primary route through Brown County is chosen, there will be a loss of hundreds if not thousands of acres of prime woodland supporting the production of valuable species such as the red oak, white oak, walnut, cherry, and hickory to name a few. Once the transmission line is built there will be no economic production from this land for future generations. Most of this land is quite hilly, highly erodable, and not suitable for agricultural crop production or even good pasture. The primary economic use for this land is the production of useable timber for quality wood used in the production of furniture. It will be lost forever if the primary route is chosen.

In contrast, the route proposed by the Nature Conservancy on the east side of the Illinois River impacts primarily agricultural land. Once the transmission line is built, the agricultural production can resume with no ill effects other than the loss of the area only where the poles are placed. In our state there are numerous prime agricultural sites with transmission lines over them. There is no economic production loss for future generations.

From an environmental perspective, the woodlands provide a unique habitat in this primarily central Illinois prairie that allows the survival of species that cannot exist in open prairie agriculture. Looking forward, the production of energy and delivery of this energy in an environmentally sensitive manner is good for future generations. Preserving the agricultural production and preserving the woodland environment and timber production is possible with the route suggested by the Nature Conservancy.

Before granting a final route to Ameren, it would seem to be wise to request detailed environmental impact studies for both the primary route and the suggested Nature Conservancy route to make the best use of our land for future generations.
12-0598 · Eric and Beth Giebelhausen
February 14, 2013
I would like to make a request. I do not want Ameren to cross my property. I will list my land location according to the plat book for Coles and Douglas Counties. I am in CRP government programs and I know they do not want anything built on this land or driven across this land. This is because it will destroy the flow of water, could cause future errosion and destroy natural habitat.

Morgan Township S.19, T14N, R10E.
Seven Hickory S.24, T14N, R 9E.

Bourbon Twnshp S. 2, T14N, R 7E.
S.32, T15N, R 7E.
S.33, T15N, R 7E.
S.18, T15N, R 7E.

Thank you for your consideration.
Evelyn Winslow
12-0598 · Evelyn Winslow
February 14, 2013
I am opposed to the Ameren Transmission line coming through Scott County. My family farm will be adversely affected. Not only will it devalue the farm ground it crosses and affect the yields because of soil compaction, it will also be detrimental to the health of family members living close by on the farm. There is an existing line that Ameren could use for this project. Rather than ruin thousands of acres of prime farm ground, they should use the existing right of way.It will also cross timbered acreage that is home to many species of wildlife, some of them endangered. This project would shrink the habitat for these animals and cause great harm. The best choice is the one that affects people's lives the least..USE THE EXISTING LINE!
12-0598 · Anita Newman
February 8, 2013
I am not in favor of the Ameren proposed electric lines for the following reasons. One, I have five parcels of farm land. Second, the electric lines that Ameren is proposing from Missouri to Indiana would go very close to an oil well that is producing oil in which I am concerned. Third, 1/8th of mineral rights are unknown owners. And fourth, one of the parcels happened to be very close to the house I live in.
12-0598 · Erbon Doak
February 7, 2013
Ameren,ICC,

I understand your need to upgrade. Why not follow the existing 138,000 volt right of way and upgrade that Transmission line to your needs.
How many times do you cross the existing 138,000 volt transmission line on your primary path? That in itself is dangerous for the workers who will be building the line and supporting the infrastructure for future upgrades and repairs and after natual disasters. Please think about the additional dangers that are posed by crossing the transmission lines.

Thank You,
12-0598 · Bryon Muench
February 7, 2013
This letter was submitted to Ameren on behalf of the Marshall Community Unit School District C-2 Board of Education.

November 9, 2012

Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois
Attn: Leigh Morris and Peggy Ladd
200 W. Washington Street
Springfield, IL 62701

Mr. Doug Scott, Chairman
Illinois Commerce Commission
527 E. Capitol Ave.
Springfield, IL 62701

To Whom It May Concern,

The Marshall Community School District C-2 has recently been made aware of the potential of a high voltage 345KV transmission line running through Clark County and portions of the Marshall School District. As an entity that depends heavily on property tax as a source of revenue, anything that has a potential adverse effect on E.A.V. in our school district is a concern. To our knowledge, neither the Staet of Illinois nor Ameren will be offering any compensation if a drop in E.A.V. due to the power lines occures. Based on the information we have, Marshall Community Unit School District C-2 formally objects to any path for the high voltage lines that passes through Clark County.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kevin Ross
Superintendent, Marshall C.U.S.D. C-2

CC: Clark County Board
CC: Marshall City Council
12-0598 · Kevin Ross
February 7, 2013
I wish to add my voice to those objecting to Ameren's proposal that will run power lines across Clark County, as well as opposing the alternate routes and segment options proposed. These power lines will have an affect not only on those who are here now but any and all future use of the ground. It will affect our livelihood (farming) if these towers are brought into the alternate route proposed. I feel you are making us pay and supply power for people on the east coast. If they are having a power issue, build the power lines / energy plant out there. Not here where we supply their food.

The regulations are killing the power generating stations, therefore making it more difficult to go online and it's not as feasible so they build power lines across valuable farm land. This is causing the farmer to also pay a price but as a nation, we are losing valuable land that provides your daily food. It seems to be more feasible to put a power plant out east to supply the power needed then to take up farm ground with these power lines that are only going to cause more problems. If you stay with the power lines, it makes it easier for the east coast to get their power without having to live with the consequences as we have to deal with. Once again, we strongly oppose the alternate route and segment options for Clark County.
12-0598 · Allen Walters
February 7, 2013
PLEASE RECONSIDER THE PRIMARY ROUTE THROUGH ADAMS AND PIKE COUNTIES IN WESTERN ILLINOIS. THESE ARE A FEW OF THE LAST AREAS OF UNTOUCHED BEAUTY IN OUR STATE. IM NOT AGAINST PROGRESS OR CHANGE. YOU CAN COME DOWN RT 104 AND STAY CLOSE TO THE HIGHWAY AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED. TOUR MAP SHOWS THE DESTRUCTION OF MUCH VALUABLE TIMBER AND THE DIVISION OF FARMS.I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE BEAUTY OF THE COUNTRY RATHER THAN THE DOLLARS
12-0598 · RONALD BROCCARDO
January 30, 2013
This purposed route through Clark county will come close to many homes, including my house. It is currently on the market for sale, and has already been passed over because of the lines possibly coming by our property, on two sides, as it changes directions at our corner.
Even more troubling is the adverse health effects, which Ameron denies...but studies prove otherwise. Our daughter has an implanted medical device (NS) to control seizures. The device manual warns to avoid high magnetic fields, as it may alter the effectiveness of the device. Again, I have voiced these concerns to Ameron, with no response.
This route will negatively effect my family and many in Clark county. Alternative routes are less expensive to run, plus they stay farther away from most homes.
12-0598 · William Sanders
January 30, 2013
I am writing this comment in opposition to the Ameren Illinois River project as described and recorded on docket number 12-0598. You have included my property in your alternate route. I have a small 88.5 acre farm in Coles County that is shoe box shaped and you indicate taking your line from one end of my property to the other for the length of my property including crossing my property diagonally in approximately the middle. The impact on my property would be severe. My wife and I bought this property which is partially wooded and partially farm land many years ago for recreation and income potential. I have spent decades enhancing the habitat and improving my property. It is urilized for hunting, fishing, habitat restoration, and farming. Your project will ruin my property. I have no intention of this line or any structures crossing or accessing my property in any manner. It will ruin the value, but more importantly ruin my utilization of the property. You will find it necessary to detour around my property as I will not negotiate on compensation or access.
12-0598 · Daniel Brown
January 30, 2013
Intead of a fee free opt out program for smart meters, The ICC should STOP all future installations and require utilities to replace any smart meters with the analog. There was NO purpose for this change as the analog meters worked fine and to the intended purpose-to monitor and record the amount of electricity used. The new smart meters are being pushed through for some future grid system which will monitor individual appliance usage. This will happen with new appliances which will have an RFID chip installed. Who need to know how many time my micro or refrigerator is used? For what purpose? I also understand that this "SMART" system will eventually be tied in to other systems in the house such as camera, security, and computer systems. The homeowners electrical data will be scanned thousands of time a day and sent to a neighborhood reciever for data collection. We do not need any more microwaves or even Wi-Fi causing health problems, invasions of privacy and appliance break downs. Smart meters have caused fires, service interruptions and can be controlled by "someone" to reduce power or shut the system off. Who is behind this? This is part of a new GLOBAL grid system. Who is making money on this ?
12-0598 · Paul Kristofek
January 30, 2013
We own farm land in Seven Hickory Township, Coles County, Illinois.
We live in Charleston, Illinois.

We are very opposed to the Ameren Transmission Illinis River Project.

There is very little industry in this county. Agriculture - corn and soybeans are the main crops. Our biggest employers are Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center and Eastern Illinois University.

The "Primary Route" would permanently mutilate and damage many acres of very productive farm land. Farmers, using large equipment, would have difficulty working around the structures. Crop yields would be lowered and the GPS on machinery would not be so accurate and useful.

Most of this land in Coles County is family owned and is farmed by good stewards of the land who practice conservation and improving the land. Many of these farms have been in the same family for 3-4 generations.

The Ameren Transmission Illinois River Project is proposed in a time when future needs for food for the world are obvious. Agriculture is the only true producer of all foods. Much concern is generated aabout global warming, water and air polution and endangered wildlife...we must be concerned for our land and take care of it first!

This proposed project if a huge expensive project. Final costs are unknown. This project is proposed at a time when our National and our State economies are in desperate situations.

Actually, there is no proven need for this project. We were told, "...in the future...wind and solar will provide the power, which people will have to buy..." Wind and solar have not proven to be feasible and reliable and economical at all...to the contrary. Coal , natural gas and nuclear energy have proved to be feasible, reliable and economical for the future.

Another item to remember: this project is not to improve Illinois. Illinois would not ever profit from it, but would lose much...permanently.

This is no amount of compensation possible for the irreparable and permanent damage this project would cost.

Lyle Overton
Pamela Overton
12-0598 · Lyle and Pamela Overton
January 30, 2013
I wish to add my voice to those objecting to Ameren's proposal that will run power lines across Clark County, as well as opposing the alternate routes and segment options proposed. These powerlines will have an affect not only on those who are here now but any and all future use of the ground. It will affect our livelyhood (farming) if these towers are brought into the alternate route proposed. I feel you are making us pay and supply power for people on the east cost. If they are having a power issue, build the power lines / energy plant out there. Not here where we supply their food.

The regulations are killing the power generating stations, therefore making it more difficult to go online and it's not as fesiable so they build powerlines across valuable farm land. This is causing the farmer to also pay a price but as a nation, we are loosing valuable land that provides your daily food. It seems to be more feasable to put a power plant out east to supply the power needed then to take up farm ground with these powerlines that are only going to cause more problems. If you stay with the powerlines, it makes it easier for the east coast to get their power without having to live with the consiquences as we are having to deal with. Once again, we strongly oppose the alternate route and segment options for Clark County.
12-0598 · Allen Walters
January 22, 2013
We strongly oppose the construction of the 345 kilovolt electric power transmission line through our Shelby County, Illinois property. Please complete and publish environmental studies, historic preservation studies, and feasibility studies on the impact on human and public health. Please take into consideration-- people live along routes proposed in Shelby County and health hazards are documented in such proposals.

Please inform us on how we might share our opposition to this plan by the ICC to build this transmission power line. Thank you.
12-0598 · Mark D Myers
January 22, 2013
We are against the primary route (Merdosia to Ipava) proposed by Ameren running thru our property! We are concerned about the clear cutting of the timber. It will destroy wildlife nesting in our bottom ground, also putting additional sediment in the creek which runs thru the bottom.We are also concerned about the additional chemical run-off. Ameren uses herbicides to control unwanted growth in the right of way. We have CRP trees planted as part of a filter strip .The secondary route makes much more sense as it uses ground already cleared and will not need an additional lifetime of maintainence by Ameren.
Thomas & Lynda McLaughlin
12-0598 · Thomas & Lynda McLaughlin
January 22, 2013
Please reroute the proposed 345 kilovolt power transmission line far away from Shelby County homes, rivers, and all land areas occupied by rural families. Please complete and publish environmental impact studies, historical preservation studies, and public health hazard studies linked to the effects residing close to a location with a 345 kilovolt transmission line.

Please contact us regarding the timeline for decision-making and final the proposed route for the transmission line. We strongly oppose the alternate route through Shelby County on our rural property.

Mark D Myers
Julia D Myers
Our children and our grandchildren
12-0598 · Mark D Myers
January 17, 2013
I am writting in regard to the ATXI transmission line. After reading and reviewing Ameran's proposal it seems to me the proposed route is to provide power to the citizens of Illinois and Indiana in the most feasable and economic way possible. The proposed route isn't one of getting power from Quincey to Terre Haute in the straightest line possible. It is a utilitarian matter of providing it to the areas with the most need now and to meet future needs. Anywhere one goes afoot Native American artifacts abound. Pasture fences are broken down by deer traveling from one area to another and so on and so on. One can counter their arguments and also apply them to all rural areas of the state. It is apparent the Errata filing of the Moultrie County Property owners , regardless of rational provided, is stating they just don't want a transmission line through their county. I pray the court take this to mind while deliberating. To quote Jeremy Bentham " The greatest good of the greatest number should be the purpose of human conduct"

Respectfully
Fred Doehring
12-0598 · Fred Doehring
January 15, 2013
I have many concerns regarding the proposed Ameren Illinois Rivers Project. I live along one of the proposed routes. My neighbors and I already have one power line going through or near our property. I ask that you carefully look over the routes that Ameren has chosen. I feel it would be beneficial to the company and the landowners, if Ameren would route the project along major highways or at least next to roads where there is easier access to the poles and lines. They had considered turning the line south along the black diamond road, and keeping the line along the roadway, I feel this would be a better choice for them, and the landowners. Currenty, the route would cut through an area with several homes. A few of my neighbors have just built new homes. Now they are facing a mega power line cutting through their property. There are many families with young children who will have to play near these lines. I also ask you to consider the loss of non-renewable farm land, and the devaluation of property. Is this transmission line needed? I ask the commission to look into this. Across the state of Illinois, there are thousands of residents who oppose, not just this power line, but all transmission lines, as they aren't needed. Thank you for your time.
Christy Bloome
12-0598 · Christy Bloome
January 15, 2013
No I don't want this going threw my land.
12-0598 · Darryl Dague
January 15, 2013
I strongly oppose the construction of this transmission line. The construction of the transmission line will bankrupt some local businesses and cause property values to plummet in an already sluggish market. Ameren's town meetings equated to nothing less than corporate thugery with the company showing residents nothing more than smoke and mirrors during the meeting. I and all the residents of Clark county that I have spoken with are opposed to the seizure of private land for a corporation to advance its own profit margin. I will not take a not in my backyard stance on this, I do not want to see it in anyone’s backyard that does not wish to have it there.
12-0598 · Matthew Meuser
January 15, 2013
To whom it may concern,

Vickie and I just recently purchased land near Pana, IL. We installed a new home here to be located near her job. I have poor health and not able to travel well. This location has worked out well so far. However, without much notice, we learn that Ameren wants to install a high voltage line across our property. I have said for years, that I thought the magnetic field from the energized wires caused health problems. When we found this location the closest high energized lines are approx. 3/8 of a mile north of us. Why not run the new lines there?
At least, they won't be over the top of our home. A man representing Ameren Transmission Company was suppose to send us a plat letting us know where these lines were going to be located, but has yet to do so. He says we are the alternative route and may not be a affected. But, we can't take the chance. Since We have received this notice, I have been online looking up evidence that energized lines do have health risks, according to some reports. Some reports include risks to animals and humans. We know progress is part of what makes thinks work and we accept that. However, our property will be damaged forever and I feel my health will also be affected. When we received our notice you gave whole list of lawyers, but none was listed for Shelby County, Il. Here are a few of the websites that will confirm the reports of high enegized electrical wires and problems they may cause. www.electricalpollution.com, phys.org, and thefreelibrary.com,. Search any of these sites and they have information that could be helpful. Thanks for letting us leave a comment and best wishes to everyone....
12-0598 · Vickie and Charles Parks
January 14, 2013
Ameren Transmission Company's Illinois Rivers Project and SubstationTo Whom it may concern: I rec'd notification thru the mail 1/10/2013 that my Farm maybe impact by a primary / alternate / Segment route of the Ameren Transmission Company's Illinois Rivers Project. I object to any power / transmission line coming through my property.Reasons:This is a small farm, which is currently already impacted by a drainage ditch which is subject to flooding which a few years caused major crop loss.To have an additional impediment running through my property and needing access to this pole creates additional loss of revenue and difficulties in farming my land. The loss and burden will disproportiately affect my ability to keep this piece of land profitable while both property taxation and income taxation in the state of IL spiraling out of control. Based upon the limited detail available through these maps it would appear the substation route is the issue for my farm. However, it is difficult to ascertain exact locations of the routes with the maps provided. Understanding the notice I was given, I assume the research has identified my Farm land is to be impacted. Again, do not put any of these towers on my property as I am concerned about the impact of the transmission lines over my crops, flooding concerns and profitability of this land knowing I have the potential to be further impacted. Please provide me further notification when a decision will be made on this (i.e., April, etc.), so I make take the necessary legal steps to protect my rights under IL law. David Learmonth - Salyers-Learmonth Landowner & Manager
12-0598 · David Leammonth
January 15, 2013
We are completely opposed to the ICC granting Public Utility status to Ameren for the Illinois Rivers Transmission Project project. The project does not provide any benefit whatsoever to the citizens of the State of Illinois. Why should Ameren be allowed to seize land in Illinois by eminent domain so that Indiana and Missouri can benefit?

Our land is on the alternate route through Christian County, and we are very concerned about the detrimental effects of living beneath a high voltage electromagnetic field, both for humans and animals, as well as damage to our land and loss of crops, both during construction and later.
12-0598 · Stephen and Charla Neal
January 15, 2013
We have been informed that the proposed 2nd route for the High Voltage Electric Service Line will be running through our property in Ridge Township, Shelby County. This is the land I grew up on and I still have 112 acres. Both my husband and I are retired and we depend upon this land for our income. To decrease the amount will definitely be a hardship to us. Will you please take this into consideration when choosing the route. I have read comments of others and they are landowners with much more property than ours.

The second problem is that this is a hardship to our farmer. He already has land to till around poles and this is inconvenient, to say the least. To add another line of poles and whatever structure it takes to hold them up will add another inconvenience and less income. Please consider this plea to not put the line through our property in Ridge Township. Thank you very much!
12-0598 · Earl and Donna Sleasman
January 10, 2013
We just received Notice today, 1/9/13 @ 6:30 p.m., that our property would be effected by a proposed alternate route. Upon checking this web site, we discovered that Notice was to be given to us by 1/9/13 @ 5:00 P.M. and we were to respond by 1/10/13 @ 12:00 P.M. We feel this is being expedited so the landowner's do not have an opportunity to contest this matter. This most certainly deprives us of a timely manner in which to respond. We may not even be able to obtain our attorney's advice in this short period of time while Ameren has several attorneys at their beckon call.

When we attended the meetings the main route would not be coming across our property. The alternate route would be close, maybe touching the northeast corner of our property. Upon checking the new maps on line tonight, we discover it will be coming directly across our property and close to our home.

We are strongly opposed to any more electric lines coming across our 50 acre tract on which our home is located. We already have three sets of electric lines coming across our property: 1) 345,000 volt line; 2) 138,000 volt line; and 3) Enerstar's regular transmission lines. The high electric lines run on the west side of our property. We purposely located our house (25 years ago) on the east side of the property to get away from the effects of these lines. Now this new route runs it on the east side of our property and would be close to our home.

We are concerned about the effect of these lines on our health, our radio, television, cell phone and internet reception. My job requires me to be on call 24-hours and I must have cell phone reception. We still use an antenna for TV reception and do not feel we should have to give this up.

We are concerned what this would do to our property value both to our home and farmland. By cutting our property up even more with these lines it would produce an undue financial hardship on us. We rely on cash rent and hay crop income from this 50 acre tract to meet our financial obligations. Due to the small size of the tract and the existence of 3 sets of power lines I feel a fourth set would make it very difficult to rent. In addition, this will most assuredly lower our property values. This acreage is all we have. It is not like we have several hundreds of acres in which we could recoup our loss.

We strongly urge you to avoid dissecting our land any further.
12-0598 · Cecil R. and Judith L. Justice
January 10, 2013
1-9-13
I am writing my opposition to the placemetn of the Alternative Line Placement for the Three Rivers High Voltage Line Project,
I am dead set against it being built along the 1400 marker in Coles County, Humboldt Township..
i already have one(1) High Voltage Line running from Mattoon to Tuscola, Illinois, along the east side of my property..approxomately 90 feet from my house.. that in itself is quite enough sacrificing for Ameren CIPS and progress..
This project needs to,at the very least STAY on the projected Main Line Route Placement.. which is disruptive enough to land and home owners..
but a NEW Alternative Route Line Placement NEEDS to be looked at...an not down this 1400 coles county road.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeff Abell
Humboldt, Ill.61931
12-0598 · Jeff Abell
January 7, 2013
We are opposed to the alternative route which will cross the land we own in Coles County's East Oakland Township. Our property totaling 59 acres is located on Morehead Road. The proposed alternative route places a transmission line across our property running in front of our house that we are remodeling. The line would not only be very close to our house (seems to be the minimal distance allowed) but would also impede our main view from the house.
Beth and I spent our life savings to purchase this beautiful natural timberland and pastureland property along the Embarras River. Since our purchase we have started renovation of two homes on the property, implemented an IDNR approved forest management plan and spent thousands on ridding the land of abandoned cars, equipment, tires, farm and household debris as per State of Illinois guidelines. We have begun to implement erosion controls and plan to manage our land as per state guidelines for protection of the Embarras watershed. We are utilizing our savings in improving this land and making it our homestead. Our dream and life savings would be shattered by locating a transmission along the alternative route which crosses our property. I request very careful consideration to keep the transmission line from our undisturbed property that we have worked so hard to bring back to its natural beauty.
I would also like to point out if it is not already known that our tract of land is within the Embarras River Basin area which is considered a significant resource by the Illinois Natural History Survey. This Embarras River Basin area is one of only thirty Illinois areas to be inventoried as “Biologically Significant and Resource Rich Ecological Resources.” In fact the Embarras ranks second in terms of Biologically Significant Streams in mileage with 112.5 miles of the Embarras River so designated. The Illinois Natural History Survey website has this to say about the Embarras River;
“A 100-mile stretch of the midsection of the Embarras River is designated as a Biologically Significant Stream. The extensive sand-and-gravel substrate of the midsection of the river provides habitat for a number of rare species, such as the harlequin darter, eastern sand darter, bigeye shiner, and blue sucker. Mussel diversity is high and historically the river has supported eleven state-threatened or state-endangered species”.
I would like to emphasize to the Illinois Commerce Commission that it would be prudent to protect such rare state resources by ensuring that a transmission line would utilize areas of the river that have already been substantially cleared and disturbed / developed such as state road rights of way and or railroad rights of way. This would protect the Embarras from further fragmentation. Resource degradation and fragmentation are primary concerns for numerous endangered species.
I ask the Commerce Commission to prioritize the protection of our resource rich land from transmission lines and the ensuing tree removal and chemical treatments that will forever impact our natural land and homestead.

12-0598 · Michael and Elizabeth Brunk
January 7, 2013
I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the powerline project in it's current route. There are many homes and farms affected by this powerline project and there seems to be better route suggestions I know that have been submitted that affect fewer homes and farmers. I don't agree there is a need to send the powerline to Mt Zion or to create a new substation there. By elimitating this route and substation, Ameren could save a lot of money and affect fewer homes and farmland with this project. Please consider this and try to find a better way to accomplish your goals instead of taking the powerline through Moultrie County. Thank you.
12-0598 · Lucas Roney
January 7, 2013
The following resolution was adopted by the Moultrie County Board on Dec.13,2012.

State of Illinois)
County of Moultrie)

RESOLUTION OPPOSING ROUTING OF THE AMEREN TRANSMISSION POWER LINE IN MOULTRIE COUNTY

WHEREAS:

1. Moultrie County consists of prime farmland with some of the richest soils in the world;

2. Moultrie County farms consistantly rank in the top crop producing counties in the State of Illinois;

3. The land in rural Moultrie County is largely undisturbed by industrial development;

4. The location of the Ameren Transmission power line in Moultrie County would interfere with the husbandry of crops and livestock;

5. The location of the Ameren Transmission power line in Moultrie County would result in a drastic reduction in the value of rural properties and farmland;

6. Rural Moultrie County is home to the largest Amish Community in Illinois which contributes greatly to our economic well being by providing jobs and tourism;

7. The location of the Ameren Transmission power line would have little economic benefit to Moultrie County and its citizens; and

8. The location of the Ameren Transmission power line would forever be a blight on the landscape of Moultrie County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Board of Moultrie County is opposed to the routing of the Ameren Transmission power line through Moultrie County.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, in the year 2012.

AYES: Dave McCabe, Arlene Aschermann, Todd Maxedon, Ken Johnson, Kevin McReynolds, Gary Smith, Roger Glazebrook

NAYES:Ron White

David McCabe Chair

ATTEST: Georgia England County Clerk

Resolution: 12-04
Book 5 Pages:106-107
12-0598 · Timothy Singer
January 7, 2013
My letter to Ameren--

August 8, 2012

Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois
200 W. Washington Street
Springfield IL 62701
AmerenIllinois.com
Leigh Morris:

I live just north of the intersection of CR 400 and 2025th North, in Elbridge Township, Edgar County. I have recently learned from my neighbors that CR 400 is one of the identified possible routes for the proposed Ameren Illinois River Transmission Lines. To this date, I have not received any notification of this potential project. Given the timeframe that I have recently learned for a decision to be made, I do not believe I have been given enough time to properly understand and register my concerns.

Together with my business partner, Paul Thrift, we own approximately 950 acres that have some point of connection to CR 400. We have assembled this property over a number of years and have made substantial improvements investing more than $ 8,000,000 in land and improvements. We have made these improvements in anticipation of developing this property into a large lot, high end residential development. I am concerned that these transmission lines would have a severe adverse effect on the value of this property.

I am deeply disturbed by the prospect and believe that I could be substantially damaged by the proposed route. I have recently met with over 3 dozen property owners in Elbridge township and we intend to join together and do what is within our power to resist this possible route for the transmission lines.

I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and learn more about your intentions and plans. You can reach me at 812-242-1150.

Respectfully

John Thompson
12-0598 · John Thompson
January 7, 2013
My letter to Ameren--

August 8, 2012

Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois
200 W. Washington Street
Springfield IL 62701
AmerenIllinois.com
Leigh Morris:

I live just north of the intersection of CR 400 and 2025th North, in Elbridge Township, Edgar County. I have recently learned from my neighbors that CR 400 is one of the identified possible routes for the proposed Ameren Illinois River Transmission Lines. To this date, I have not received any notification of this potential project. Given the timeframe that I have recently learned for a decision to be made, I do not believe I have been given enough time to properly understand and register my concerns.

Together with my business partner, John Thompson, we own approximately 950 acres that have some point of connection to CR 400. We have assembled this property over a number of years and have made substantial improvements investing more than $ 8,000,000 in land and improvements. We have made these improvements in anticipation of developing this property into a large lot, high end residential development. I am concerned that these transmission lines would have a severe adverse effect on the value of this property.

I am deeply disturbed by the prospect and believe that I could be substantially damaged by the proposed route. I have recently met with over 3 dozen property owners in Elbridge township and we intend to join together and do what is within our power to resist this possible route for the transmission lines.

I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and learn more about your intentions and plans. You can reach me at 812-208-5959.

Respectfully

Paul Thrift
12-0598 · Paul Thrift
December 31, 2012
We are landowners in Moultrie County with farm property along the primary route of the Ameren Illinois Rivers project. We certainly support Ameren in moving forward with the installation of this line. From our point of view this is a win-win situation for both the landowners and for Moultrie County.

We encourage you to approve this project.

-John & Sue Durbin
Eagle Grove Farms
12-0598 · John & Sue Durbin
December 28, 2012
Steve and I, Judi Ackman, live in an area that will be affected by this proposed Transmission line. The route that we were told is a route that will greatly affect our beautiful scenic view out of our front room window. We, as rural home owners, are totally against this obstruction going up within our majestic country scenery. We enjoy seeing the countryside in all it's warmth and beauty along with the beautiful deer and other wildlife that inhabit our surroundings. We want to comment that we strongly object to this transmission line being built on Ameren's first proposed route. We are under the impression that an alternate route (along the Illinois river)would be a better alternative than the first proposed route that Ameren is seeking to do. Please consider this our firm objection to this and let us know any further information as it is received by you. Thank you! Judi Ackman and Steve Conrad
12-0598 · Steve Conrad & Judi Ackman
December 28, 2012
December 24, 2012
The proposed location of the primary power line south between Marshall City limits and the northern boundary of Lincoln Trail State Park will stunt city growth. The City of Marshall is a commuter community and what makes it grow is good residential choice. The City of Marshall has long used city utilities ownership to promote growth. Houses built outside the city limits are provided with city utilities and to get those utilities the homeowner signs an agreement that says when the house is sold, the property shall be annexed. Marshall stretches north, west, and east and the last residential area close to Marshall being developed is the south side. The City has already put in water mains to provide service to those new and future customers and Ameren’s primary line proposal goes over them.
A City prepared map, a plat overlay showing city limits with extraterritorial radius, shows it is barely over half a mile between the proposed line location and city limits. A few annexations and the line will be in the city. Except it won’t. Nobody given a choice will build near that line. Because the line is continuous, it cannot be annexed around. The full impact of the transmission line won’t be felt for years.
Stampeding to an overloaded data decision can easily become an embarrassment. An example of an Ameren omission: on the ATXI petition exhibit E page 1, Auburn Township in Clark County is missing. There’s another Auburn Township listed, but not the one in Clark County. Leaving out an entire township is a pretty big omission and that’s the problem. To quote the ICC staff: “The details regarding the stated need and routing for this project are complex and ATXI’s filing is voluminous.” Nobody is fooled by expedited process. This is a deliberate blitz to run over landowners.
ATXI personnel had plenty of months to prepare. When they were ready, they filed their petition. The directly affected landowners didn’t find out they were on the hit list until either the detailed computer map became available or they received their notice that ATXI had filed. That makes landowners have to start from scratch. They have to find a lawyer who can properly represent them and prepare their case in a limited time. The expedited review process tilts the scales in favor of ATXI. It is in the public interest to make the route as good as possible and alternate routes are the means of improvement. In the case of the Kansas-Indiana section of the transmission route, a better route than either proposal Ameren has extends almost the entire route save a couple or so miles. The problem with lengthy alternative routes is the time needed to put them together. Landowners are expected to have skills that ATXI hasn’t shown.
At the pre-hearing conference, the ICC speaker gave me the impression that they were concerned that proposing alternative routes would not give those people living on newly proposed time to prepare to defend themselves. That’s the problem with the entire “expedited” process. The only party with time to properly prepare for this hearing is ATXI.
I was surprised the first time I saw the route choices ATXI made in Clark and Edgar County. ATXI either chose the wrong route or intentionally ignored it. My first thought was (and still is) that someone(s) with inside connections affected how the lines were drawn.
The best Primary line route starts at Kansas connection point and proceeds east across Edgar County initially paralleling alongside the 138KV line (like as done in Clark County) going across Kansas and Grandview Townships and then turns southeast in Symmes Township before the 138 KV line turns north. It then gradually stair steps south when it has to down to the present alternate route on the 100 road line. It’s nice and open and empty. There’s a lot of room to avoid problems. Where the present alternate line drops south in Elbridge Township into Clark County and goes to the Indiana connection is acceptable. If you have to have two routes, put the Primary Route north above the current Alternate Route into Clark County and then alongside where the route drops down into Clark County.
This suggested Primary Route intrudes on far fewer people than the present primary line in Clark County. Instead of affecting 8 townships in Clark County and four townships in Edgar County (as the present primary and alternate proposals do), it only affects one (1) township (Wabash) in Clark County and four in Edgar County. Other advantages are financial. As noted in the filing document ATXI Exhibit 3.4, using the High Expected Cost by Portion, the currently proposed Kansas to Sugar Creek Alternate route will cost $5,807,209 LESS than the Primary Route. All those zigzags cost money. A line that stair steps rather than zigzags will cost even less. It will best serve all parties interests. The current proposal ATXI has before the Commission will not.
Warren J. Le Fever
12-0598 · Warren J. Le Fever
December 21, 2012
We are opposed to the Ameren Transmission lines 12-0598.
We are landowners ,farming in Morgan County T 16N R9 sec 31 directly in the path of primary line proposal. Even the secondary line path looks better if one reads a straight line map. Neither are good or productive. Both destroy farmland property and create unsightly landscape forever .
The need for additional power transmission seems to be driven only by Ameren wanting corporate utility control.Energy reserves in this country are clearly adequate even in eastern US. Coal and Nat.gas appears to be pushed back as energy in eastern US so called needs. ICC should deny Ameren and recommend other closer proximity of these energy sources.
Morgan county and the path promoted already has powerlines that if absolutely necessary could be followed rather than destroying current farmland . No one and no reason can justify the need to raise towers to farm around . Land is NEVER the same. Noxious weeds grow and proliferate. What does Ameren do about it? Row crops are forever changed including productivity and livelihood. Ariel application of crop inputs could be halted and presenting danger to ariel applicators . Again, has there been a clear "Need " brought to ICC? STOP Ameren now .
12-0598 · David M. Strawn (Strawn Farms)
December 21, 2012
I am writing in regard to the Illinois River Transmission Project. I will begin by saying that I am not opposed to the project, I understand the need for distributing electricity. However, I am concerned about the location of the primary route. My area of concern is east of Concord, IL in Morgan County. The route generally follows the existing 138,000 volt powerline then deviates from this line for a short distance before returning to it again. If the primary route is used, I will have a transmission line on three sides of my home, all within one-quarter mile. That does not appeal to me and my family. Not only are the lines unsightly, but I also am concerned about possible health risks associated with EMF(having small children at home). I realize that you will not change your plans based on these concerns, but please consider the following points: 1. The primary route would have four corners, whereas the existing route is straight, which seems far more efficient. 2. The terrain of the primary route is no less rugged than the existing route, I know the area well. 3. There would be less environmental impact if the existing right-of-way could be utilized. 4. Less farmland would be disrupted using the current right-of-way. I am sure you have considered all of these things in your planning process. I am only asking you to reconsider trying to stay on the existing right-of-way in this area. I have wondered, is it possible to hang the lines of the 138,000 volt line on the new poles? This seems like it would make sense, especially in rough terrain such as this. Thank you for your time. (Just to be clear on the area I am talking about, my address is 1933 Clark Rd. Jacksonville, IL 62650)
12-0598 · Paul Mueller
December 21, 2012
IDOT owns a 1600 acre wetland bank in the northeast corner of Brown County at the confluence of the LaMoine River and Illinois River; just north of the LaGrange Lock and Dam. There is a Declaration of Covenants and Easements filed to protect this property. IDOT is concerned that the alternate route as identified will impact this wetland bank and would be opposed to such impacts. When determining a final location of the transmission line, please consider avoiding this property. -
Dennis O'Connell
Environmental Studies Unit Chief
IDOT - District 6
12-0598 · Dennis O'Connell - Environmental Studies Unit Chief - IDOT - District 6
December 21, 2012
Iam very concerned and oppose the construction of Ameren's 345,000 volt power lines crossing our land. Not only in Clark County but going accross any of our farmland or wooded areas. We were told that it should cross the most under-developed areas. A developed area is described as having people and buildings. In the rural area it is described differently. Just because we do not have as many people or buildings, that does not mean we are not developed. We have worked hard to develope our farmland to be productive and be able to produce food to feed all the people in the other developed areas. We also develope our woodlands for the livestock and wild life. Also to produce lumber to be harvested ever so many years to make homes for and feed all the people in the developed areas. That may not seem developed to a lot of people, but to the rural people it is VERY developed. We have worked hard for many years to accomplish it. Another thing that needs to be considered is the fact that all the land in the middle of the United States and a few other smaller places has the RICHEST farmland in the WORLD. Not just the United States, but in the entire WORLD. Why would you even take a chance of all this high voltage damaging the land and being in the food we are growing to feed the world. Once this land is damaged...it can not be reversed. To my knowledge, this is part of a go-green effort by using renewable sources for energy. It might have started out as a go-green effort, but when it damages and destroys, that IS NOT a go-green for us. It is destruction. Iam not against progress but I think there are other ways of accomplishing what needs to be done. This is 2012--we can do so many things without destroying the history and way of life for the rural people. No, I do not know the answer, but I do know there is one. Putting them on existing lines...use state highway rightaway...underground...Sending less voltage that is not so dangerous...using the wind and water in the East...etc. I just know I was born and raised in the farmland and we owe it to our future generations to leave it in great shape to be able to feed our country and the world in the future. Thanks for listing to my concerns.
12-0598 · Pat Rhoads
December 13, 2012
I live in Frederick township (T1N-R1E) Schuyler County. My family came to this country and settled in this area in 1837. We are located on an Illinois Centennial Farm in Section 8. I own land there and I farm in Schuyler and McDonough counties. Either the primary or secondary routes will affect me in so much as owning ground (secondary) or farming (primary) in your route areas. I farm next to Ameren and other utility companies in above mentioned counties. I counted the poles we farm around and next to and reached over 100. So, I know what I am talking about when it comes farming around and close to utility poles. I am not against the proposed routes in so much as I am their specific placement within the broad route path as indicated on the map itself.

The secondary route may travel along my pasture fence line. My main concerns on this secondary route would be one of fence repair, future line maintenance and spring water disturbance in the initial construction phase. To say I would be pleased to look out my window and stare at a 345K line, I would not, but I understand you have to place the line somewhere.

On the primary route, in section 6, I farm underneath the 138K line that already exists as well as right adjacent to your substation there also. There are also smaller lines that do not show up on your map that we have to farm around on this property. The main difference between this line and the 138K line is one of size. You already have the 138K line in the fields and I really don't see how you could place an additional 345K line and maintain the value of any actively farmed field property there. These fields are smaller, irregular in size and the footprint of the 138K line coupled with the other footprint of the 345 K line, if placed within the field or in close proximity of the other line, reduces the value of the land forever. Additionally, modern farming practices sometimes necessitates aerial spraying of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. With a line of this size, aerial spraying will be impossible, depending upon your specific placement of the line itself. The 138 K lines that traverse across the field are easily flown over and cause no problems in this regard. However your tower/pole size of the 345K line is too high to effectively use an aerial application method. The aerial method is used because of crop size, target pest or condition and/or weather constraints. This would hinder our farming methods and potential crops yields due to the inability to treat our crops effectively. Our ground based equipment and the equipment of service companies that we use to apply chemicals for weed and pest control are getting larger (80-120'). What I am saying is that when placing poles and lines, what may seem doable to your project planners makes the actual farming in those fields almost impossible and more costly due to footprint of poles/towers and width of those structures to fence lines and other natural objects within the field. Over application and costs due to this are also areas of concern that will change forever should the placement be within current fields.

Additionally, in my experience of farming around obstacles within fields, the size of the object as well as the proximity to the object is always larger than the design diagrams. For example, if you have a 10' base of a tower, we will stay at least 2' preferably 3' away from the obstacle to prevent contact as well as damage to our equipment. Any farmer will tell you this. When you compensate the landowner, this is not taken into consideration. Also, maintenance around poles/towers for a utility company is different than maintenance for a landowner. Unwanted brush and noxious weeds make a quick home around utility poles. We not only try to keep our fields clean but have difficulty when contacting the utility companies due to size of project and liability when cleaning up around your property. This is understandable and yet a problem we still deal with all the time.

To summarize: I don't have any specific objection to either primary or secondary routes until I can see the exact placement of the towers and or lines. Lines placed in a common sense fashion or through areas not actively farmed or having homes could be acceptable. I reiterate the loss of property values due to larger lines going over fields as opposed to the edge of actively farmed fields in conjunction with already placed lines within fields. My concern with the Illinois Rivers Project is its reasonable placement of lines and towers and its implementation, as well as fair compensation should land and easements need to be purchased. Many of these affected areas have been in families for generations and we have taken great pride in maintaining their value not only for the present but for generations to come.
12-0598 · Greg Rebman
December 11, 2012
In my opinion, wedon't needanother 345 Kv line in this area. There are already two existing 345 Kv lines in Eastern Illinois.
12-0598 · Lucia Roney
December 11, 2012
I don't believe we need another 345 Kv sector in this area. We already have two of them.
12-0598 · Paul Roney
December 11, 2012
In looking at the map of the proposed map closer, the primary route coming into the Kansas substation would practically destroy the one farm the substation is on. These owners have given up enough for this project by having to sell a part of their farm already. The lines across the middle of the farm will seriously devalue the property and does not take into account property lines at all. If we are going to have to sacrifice for the good of all lets share the pain a little.

Robert Webb
12-0598 · Robert Webb
December 11, 2012
I own 1 acre and the house just west of the kansas substation. I also farm the farm around the substation. It is a small farm and I feel the owners of this farm have already sacrificed enough of their farm and future earnings for ameren over the years. If the primary route is used the line would probably cut across this farm from west to east splitting it in the middle that direction. This farm has already been divided the other direction by two sets of lines running north and south. The owners have also had to sell another 14 acres to ameren for the substation addition. This route into the substation directly from the west would seriously impact the value of this farm and the value of my home as well as the home of the family to the south. The line would have to run very close to two homes. Thank you for your consideration.

Robert Webb
12-0598 · Robert Webb
December 11, 2012
We are in favor of the primary route that Ameren has chosen. The other routes studied proved them to be more populated, higher land values and the majority of soils classifeid as HEL. An engineer did a report on the areas not proposed by Ameren as the Primary route and said with the soil type and topography of the land erosion would be an expensive and ongoing maintenance issue. The gas company has invested a lot in both finanacial and equipment expense to keep erosion under control (unsuccessful). The routes not chosen were determined to be hard to navigate due to the fact the area is at the edge of a terminal morraine. Ravines and bluffs would be difficult to maintain an easement on. The route not chosen was proven to have several endangered species, Indian campsites,ruins and ephemeral ponds.
We feel Ameren has done a thorough investigation into the route this project should take and we support their decision.
12-0598 · Ed and Karen White
December 7, 2012
We are totally opposed to the proposed project and believe that nuclear
plants serve as clean energy. There are six nuclear plants in Illinois
with multiple units at these locations,Braidwood,Byron,Clinton,Dresden,
LaSalle abd Quad Cities this is the most of any US state, I think Illinois is doing its part. Please use common sense and do not approve
this project. thank-you for listening to my concern. Sam Anderson
12-0598 · Sam Anderson
December 7, 2012
My family owns and farm land East and North of Charleston, my brother and I also have built new homes and own a 20 acre lake that is located on the edge of the proposed 1100 North County Road primary route. We have 9 other farmers who farm property that we own that we work directly with. If the proposed line would go down the primary route, it could cross approximately 2 miles of our property. This would reduce the income that we receive through renting drastically because of the inconvenience that would be produced from one having to farm around the poles. Equipment that covers our ground can be up to 120 ft. wide, so farming around these poles would be very time consuming. The value of the property would decrease because the lines could cross a 640 ac. and a 550 ac. field. The clear cut through the wooded land would ruin the value of that property and the location of the lines would also lower the value of our two homes, my brothers being 6 years old, and mine being 6 months old. So as you can see, we have a huge interest in the outcome of this project. At one of the open houses, in Charleston, I talked at length with Peggy Ladd; she is with the transmission business development division of Ameren. After I introduced myself to her and explained my concerns she informed me very bluntly: “That if their line was next to a house, or property, and the value was reduced by problems associated with this line, and if the line was actually on the adjoining neighbors property (which could be as close as 250 feet) that the owner of the house or property would receive absolutely NOTHING.” After a long talk with Ms. Ladd, I felt like it was very evident that Ameren was only having these meetings because of ICC rules. Their personnel who were supposed to give us answers, for the most part, ran us around in circles. When I talked to Ms. Ladd about inconveniences and problems associated with this project. Her direct reply to me was that Ameren did not want to hear about farm ground and home owner inconveniences, or lower values because if they moved the line to make one person happy it would upset another. She told me that all Ameren wanted to know about was physical reasons for why this line should not be constructed. I then pointed out to her about possible dangers to destroying the integrity of our dam that holds back 20 ac. of water over 60 ft. in depth that The Department of Reclamation overseen construction on for Charleston Stone Quarry. If Ameren was to do any constructions near this lake it could jeopardize safety downstream on the Embrass River for houses and bridges. Also I pointed out that the primary route goes directly through the middle of Charleston Stone Co.’s future mining area. This area will have up to 80 ft. of dirt removed and lime stone blasted out in an area of over 50 ac. with a possible expansion of another 100+ ac. She wanted to know physical reasons and this is what I gave her. I also spoke with their engineer who had never heard of these geographical problems. I spoke with a lady who rode in an Ameren helicopter over the proposed primary route and she also said that she knew nothing of the approximately 700 ac stone quarry, even though Ameren has mailed information to an address that says: Charleston Stone Co. Charleston Stone Co. has informed Ameren of their future plans and how their property has already been permitted through the gov. for mining. They also have plans for the property on the North side of the soon to be mined area. This is where the future supply of limestone for the stone quarry’s existence is located. All of the land around the quarry has been moved at one time, the limestone is 70-80 ft. down so the ground where Ameren would want to put these huge poles would not be stable enough to support them. If Ameren follows through with the primary route, it will shorten the life span of the stone quarry. This will greatly affect employment in the Coles County area. There is a concrete pipe plant and an asphalt plant next to the quarry that will be affected There are several concrete plants in the area and most of the agricultural lime applied in our area comes from this quarry. All townships and government road projects, and construction projects depend on materials that are mined from this area. The next closest quarry is over 25 miles away, and if the materials that Charleston Stone Co. furnishes have to be trucked in it will put a huge strain on the roads and traffic in this area. There will be many good local jobs lost and a large expense on the local business’s to pay for the extra transportation and road repairs. When I pointed out some of the information to Ameren’s representatives they made no comment, however, they still are considering this route for some reason. It seems very evident that Ameren doesn’t care about the inconveniences or costs of this project to the local citizens. STOP THIS PROJECT.
12-0598 · Ron Popham
December 7, 2012
During a conversation with the Ameren personnel my brother mentioned how there is an active Bald Eagle’s nest that had two small Eagles raised out of this past spring. These Eagles are constantly flying around the area of this proposed primary route and the nest is in the area of the primary route. They let us know that they had a set distance that they could get up to the nest and this would not be a problem. They do not even have a clue where the nest is located! When the 1100 primary route goes North on the West edge of Ashmore it will shut down an air strip that Reeds Flying Services uses for spraying farm crops. This air strip has been there for many years and it makes no sense why they would choose the primary route to go this way. Of course why would it? This is the way this whole project is. Ameren is passing the costs onto all of their customers at a time in which the customer cannot afford anymore expenses added to their bills. If this line is to transport electricity from wind turbines out West to the East coast, where is electricity going to from all of the turbines that are being built in Northern Illinois and Indiana? Ameren is constantly raising their charges and it seems like they are not making wise decisions with the best interest of the public in mind. If they were on good terms with their customers there would not be all of these competitive power providers soliciting Ameren’s customers for an alternative source of electricity. It is time for the public to say no to this giant company that does not have the public’s best interest in mind. They are only looking out for a way to sell their services through moving power through their lines with the public and government grants paying for their expansion. Ameren has always had a history of over building its electric grid, claiming that it is looking out for the future. The truth is they are trying to take advantage of government programs to build their giant lines that will profit their company forever at the tax payer’s expense. There are huge natural gas reserves and clean coal technology available that can place electric generating plants closer to where the electricity is needed and then these giant eye-sore power lines that scar the country side could be greatly reduced. The current administration that is running this country is trying to create jobs by using tax payer’s money on programs like this. All of these programs make no sense. These programs are similar to the bridge to nowhere Debacle that became well known when Sara Palin was running for Vice President. How healthy is it to be near this line once it is up and running? Does it cause cancer? How will it affect the wildlife? Will it affect crops that are grown near it? There are so many unknown health concerns directly related to this line that it does not need to be placed in the locations in which Ameren has it planned for. Ameren installed a 138,000 volt power line across our property in the late 1970’s. We still today and forever have to deal with the problems of this line. We were paid for damages to our property when this line was installed; however, these damages only cover the problems that show up for the short time after installation. When this line was installed it was so wet that all of the equipment was drug around through our fields with dozers. The equipment left ruts 2-3 foot deep and compaction and damage to the soil that has lasted for several years and that can easily be seen by the yield reduction in the crops. All of our fields have drainage tiles under them, some of these tiles were installed in the early 1900’s and we do not know exactly where they are located. The Illinois Rivers Project proposed primary route will cross approximately 2 miles of our farm ground. Our past experience with Ameren tells me that there is no way that they can compensate us for future damages that they will cause with the installation of this line. When Ameren contractors install their lines there heavy equipment and trucks will completely ruin any local township road out in the country. I live in Morgan Township and our roads just got oiled and chipped in the last few years. With the price of road oil now costing $15,000-$20,000 a mile, the country roads are rarely being oiled anymore. Our roads and are built for light loads during most of the year. When farm equipment is using the roads the ground is solid, not soft like it is in winter or early spring, my experience with Ameren contractors are they will go when they want to and a soft road will not stop them. The destruction that the contractors will do to the roads will be left for the local tax payers to pay for and more than likely any oiled roads that get destroyed will not be put back as they were before. Please do not let Ameren go through with this project.
12-0598 · Ron Popham
December 6, 2012
My name is Dave Hiatt and I represent the United States Department of Agriculture's - Natural Resources Conservation Service. I am the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Floodplain Easement (FPE) coordinator. The USDA-NRCS has identified two conservation easements that will be directly impacted by the PRIMARY route of the proposed power line. Our federal policy is that all conservation easements MUST be avoided. Ameren has provded a SECONDARY route. This SECONDARY route does not appear to impact any USDA-NRCS conservation easements. Therefore Ameren MUST utilize the SECONDARY route to construct the powerline.
12-0598 · USDA-NRCS
December 6, 2012
Please do not let this project go through Clark County. I beg you! The preferred proposed route will take massive chunks out of land that my family earns their living from and we will never get that good productivity back that we currently have. It will be more than an inconvenience. The construction will so seriously damage the soil structure that it will be impossible for Ameren to repair.

Our home is very near the proposed route and we still have children at home. I have read up on the medical studies done and I do not want this near my children. I, also, will suffer ill effects if this is built as my immune system is not good at all and additional pressures like E.M.F. will further compromise my ability to simply live life. The health of my neighbors and myself should be in the forefront of concerns regarding the building of this unnecessary power line.

Please? Do not approve this project. The economy is tanking right now and we do not see it becoming better anytime soon. The loss of the land required for this power line will further cripple our family financial situation and that is just unacceptable.
12-0598 · Dalanne Miller
December 3, 2012
I'm a landowner who's small farm is located in the primary path being chosen. We purchased our farm as an investment to be used primarily for deer/turkey hunting, selective timber harvest to generate income and other recreational enjoyment.

Putting in these power lines will destroy several acres of prime timber and remove those acres from timber production for the life of the farm as me, my children, etc continue to own the farm. I'm also very concerned with how this will impact the deer and turkey hunting since the area the lines are going through is prime deer and turkey roosting habitat. The impact for this really won't be known until after things are in place so, being able to prove the damage for compensation ahead of time will be subjective. The visual impact of having these power lines going through the property will also cause damage to the value of the the remainder of the property and again, be subjective for establishing compensation.

I understand that no one really wants these lines to go through their property so finding the least impacting route(s) is almost an impossible task. Compensating people for a loss that they'll be forced to incur needs to be of highest priority. Ameren will be making money for 50-100+ years using these power lines at the expense of everyone along the power line route(s) giving up something they don't really want to so, that needs to be taken into consideration when determining compensation for damages that will be done to everyone's property.
12-0598 · Roger Lymenstull
December 3, 2012
In response to Ameren Illinois River Project: I am a endangered species, A One of only about 7 or 8 in Morgan township in Coles county. A small farmer farming only 1140 acres that that belong to my family and distant relatives. The farm was bought from the U.S. Government and settled back in 1834. They drained and tiled swampy marshland and made it productive farmland. 19 of my family live in 7 different homes in less than a mile of the route that goes through or next to the towns of Rardin and Bushton. The route plows right through the familys first homesite and what is now my farming operation. Through over mile of my farm ground. It would make it impossible to have spraying done by airplane for insects and diseases. It would hinder my farming operations by interfering with radio communications, cell phone, and TV and possibly computer devices and GPS on farming equipment. Then there is the possible health concerns living and working around everyday a high voltage wire. It will destroy farm and home values, who would want to buy a home near a high voltage wire? We just suffered through the worst drought since the 1920s and ecountered heavy losses and now this. Please do not allow this powerline to be built across prime farmground and small towns and family homes. Brad Morgan, Morgan Family Farms.
12-0598 · brad morgan
December 3, 2012
In regard to the part of project 12-0598 which crosses Sangamon County, I believe the primary route is preferable to the alternate route for a couple of reasons. First, the primary route does not come as close to populated areas as does the alternate route, which comes within a quarter mile of both Virden and Thayer in Southern Sangamon County, including a church and a day-care center.

Secondly, the primary route does not divide any closely related communities as the alternate route splits Thayer and Virden. These two towns have been in the same school district for years and share similar goals, including growth between the two towns, residential and commercial. If the alternate route is chosen for the transmission line, this will halt all residential growth between Virden and Thayer and severely discourage commercial growth.

Thank you for consideration of this comment.
George M. Murphy, Mayor of Virden
12-0598 · George M. Murphy
December 3, 2012
Upon returning from an extended stay in Texas, because of a family medical emergency, I first became aware on November 18, 2012, that an approximate 155 acre agricultural parcel which borders my 5+ acre residential parcel, had been surveyed. On November 26, 2012 I confirmed that Ameren Transmission had filed a survey on the property on November 5, 2012 in the Fulton County Court House at Lewistown, IL. Further, I have learned that Ameren has issued a letter of intent to the current owners of the parcel to purchase the same upon approval of this Illinois Rivers Transmission Project by the ICC.

As a retiree from the engineering field, I am generally, not against Progress, or one of those NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) types, but . . .

Given that there are currently no fewer than 6 transmission lines ranging from 69KV to 345KV radiating out of the current Ipava substation of less than 10 acres, and assuming the Illinois Rivers Transmission Project approval were to add one more 345KV line, possibly causing the substation upgrade to double or even triple in size to say 20 or 30 acres, why on earth is 155 acres of prime Illinois farmland needed by Ameren in conjunction with the CURRENT PROJECT?

My gut, tells me that AMEREN has plans beyond the current ILLINOIS RIVERS TRANSMISSION PROJECT, and that they foresee the Ipava Substation as a massive hub for additional transmission lines in the future, as a multitude of government agencies are continually pressing for construction and implementation of the SMART ELECTICAL GRID.

Unless the ICC can get a factual and logical answer to this one (900 lb. Gorilla-in-the-room) QUESTION and take into consideration my concerns with regards as to how the Ipava substation upgrade will effect my adjacent home and property; specifically regarding set-backs, and distances when siting any access roadways, security fencing and lighting, buildings, appurtenances, transformers, etc. from our common property line, then I too, will be one more little guy at the mercy of AMEREN.

All of the above concerns can and will specifically affect my wife and I with regards to:

(1) Quality of Life Issues - Beautiful Sunsets, Views, Sound, Dust, Etc.
(2) Possible reductions in property value. (Further Loss of retirement equity.)
(3) Any long term health effects from Electro Magnetic Frequency.

With the ICC's ruling on this case by the Fall of 2013, we shall all see the modern variant of Illinois' own A. Lincoln's words . . . GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE! The next question is . . . will we like it?

Respectfully submitted,

Phillip D. Collins
10228 N. Co. 2 Hwy.
Ipava, IL 61441
12-0598 · Phillip D. Collins
December 3, 2012
Case #12-0598

To the Illinois Commerce Commission:

As resident landowners of property owned by family for multiple generations, we wish to go on record as opponents to the proposed route of the 345 kilovolt transmission line known as the Illinois Rivers Project. We will be greatly affected by the proposed primary route which cuts through our three-hundred acre property located in Bainbridge Township of Schuyler County. This primary route stretches from Ipava to Meredosia, which once hosted a productive power plant but is now shuddered. Ultimately the project will go near homes, through highly productive farm ground, sensitive controlled watershed areas, and wilderness that can never be restored.

We first learned of this transmission line project through correspondence we received from Ameren. The letter stated that as landowners, “we would be impacted”. We received this three days prior to the last round of Open Houses that were hosted by Ameren. After attending the meeting held in Mt. Sterling on October 8, 2012, it is clear to us that it would not have mattered if we would have attended all meetings, since Ameren kept the exact routes hid from the public until then.

The needs for this project that Ameren has stated are not entirely clear. Furthermore their claim for the concerns of the residents and landowners is not sincere, otherwise this project would have been more open. We have communicated with numerous city, county, township officials and other landowners who have all expressed similar concerns such as, “I just heard about it, we will just have to wait and see what happens”. We have asked numerous times, “why not build next to the exiting right-of-way?”, which has been in place since the late fifties, but have received no answer.

There are numerous factors that must be addressed such as: the need for such a transmission line; the environment; residential safety relative to exposure to EMFs; the devaluation of property; erosion both during and after construction; and, restoration of roads both during and after construction. In addition to these numerous items, we are confident others have additional concerns. We do not believe that a corporation such as Ameren has provided you, the Illinois Commerce Commission, the entirety of concerns regarding the “little guy”.

Please consider the burdens my family and surrounding residents near this project must endure. Burdens that provide no benefit to the local community, but instead provide savings that Ameren will only claim. It is doubtful that our utility bills will decrease due to these realized savings. The impact of this project both in terms of physical and emotional damages will never go away. Our current and future generations of family and residents will forever be paying the cost, while Ameren reaps the benefit.

In all, if the primary route is chosen, being realistic and somewhat selfish, Linda and I will forget our future retirement plans that involve our beloved acreage. After construction, this massive transmission line will significantly damage the free use of our property. Ameren has not, and will never ask us about our future plans.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this important matter. We look forward to addressing our concerns at a later and more formal time.

Sincerely,

Kevin and Linda Stambaugh
Lifelong Schuyler County Residents
12-0598 · Kevin and Linda Stambaugh
December 3, 2012
I am a endanged species, one of only 6 or 7 in the township. A small family farmer farming ground belonging to my family and distant relatives in Morgan township in Coles county. My ancestors bought this land from the U.S. Government in 1834. They drained and tiled the marshland and swamps, cleared rocks and trees to make this a productive farm. I have 19 family members living in 7 homes all in less than a mile of the route proposed through or next to the towns of Rardin and Bushton. It will go across over a mile of my farm ground and over or next to my farmstead. The high voltage line will hinder my farming operations by interferring with spraying needed fungicides and insecticides by airplanes, interferring with radio communications, cell phone, satellite and GPS signals, possibility computer controls and information systems in the farm equipment and TV signals which are bad anyway since they went digital. Then there is the health concerns working and living under or next to a high voltage line. Then there is the loss of value of the farm and the homes, who would ever want to buy a home or farmstead near a high voltage line? We just suffered through a terrible ongoing drought and heavy crop losses and now this plague infecting our lives. PLEASE DO NOT allow the high voltage line to plow through highly productive farms and small towns, wreaking havoc across ILLINOIS. Brad Morgan, Morgan Family Farms.
12-0598 · brad morgan
December 3, 2012
Dear Illinois Commerce Commission,

We, are land owners, business owners, and residents who are potentially effected by the proposed construction of power lines by Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois for the Pike County portion of their Illinois Rivers Transmission Project, including the townships of Fairmount, Perry, and Chambersburg.

While any route across Northern Pike County will impact farm land, prime hunting real estate and the occasional homestead, we believe that the alternate route proposed by Ameren is inappropriate, due to;

· The alternate route bisects the University of Illinois’ Orr Research Facility creating potentially serious consequences for the research conducted there.
· The alternate route also bisects John Wood Community College’s Agricultural Education Center. This puts students directly under the high voltage power lines exposing them to the potential health effects of the electromagnetic field generated by the lines.
· The alternative route is only two-thirds of a mile north of the town of Perry. While the primary route is two miles north of town. Giving increased peace of mind for approximately 500 residents of Perry.
· The alternate route is less direct than the primary route. Adding to the cost of the project. Any time the power line travels North/South it consuming unnecessary space, and increasing the visual impact of the project due to the added support needed for power lines to sharply change direction.

Given these reasons listed above, we hope that you too see that the alternate route selected by Ameren through Northern Pike County is unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Mallory Krieger and Paul McGinty
Lower Meadow Farm, LLC
12-0598 · Paul McGinty & Mallory Krieger
December 3, 2012
I am writing to urge the Commission to select the primary route and suggest Ameren use the savings (estimated $76 million - $1.092billion for the primary route vs. $1.168 billion for the alternate route) to better compensate the landowners who will have to work around this transmission line for the rest of eternity. When you divide the savings by the easement area of 6800 acres that will give an additional $11176/ acre they will be able to pay for the easements.
I also urge the Commission to use the true cost of the easements - that is the price at which the average landowner would willingly sell - when deciding the feasibility of these type projects. When using the true costs instead of the low ball offer we are going to get jammed down our throats (eminent domain) you may find that it would be cheaper to build generating facilities closer to the user rather than running transmission lines across three states.
Thank you for hearing me out,
12-0598 · Joe Murphy
December 3, 2012
We have land that runs on the Edgar & Clark County line which is in the Alternate Route & Segment Option.

Both of these plans will be going across land that has been in my family for over 150 years. I am the 4th generation to farm this land.

The Alternate Route would be the most devastating to the surrounding land. The path of this route would require the removal of trees that have stood for over 150 years.

The Segment Option would run from west to east in my feild then turn and run south in the same feild. It is my understanding there will need to be 150th right of way around these towers. To have these run along 2 sides of my land would bascially ruin this farm.

In closing we are asking that you please take into consideration the lively hood of our farm & the 150 plus year old trees.
12-0598 · Allen Bruce Trefz
December 3, 2012
As an absentee landowner in Moultrie & Coles County, I was STUNNED when I received a letter on Nov. 24,2012 from the Illinois Commerce Commission informing me of the Prehearing Conference in Springfield on Dec. 3, 2012 concerning the Ameren Illinois Rivers Transmission Project.

This was the first time I had ever heard of this project and that I was a potentially affected landowner. Had I known of the town meetings to be held in the said counties involved, I would have been in attendance without a doubt. I join my other numerous affected landowners in voiceing my discontent of the proposed routes. If I'm interpreting the maps of the proposed routes correctly, then I'm affected on 3 parcels of land in Coles County. I do not want any portion of my land involved. I would hope that a better solution could be reached such as putting these unsitely transmission towers in an area of land that is not as rich and productive as that in Central Illinois. Do we really know what the environmental impact of this project is. My ancestors came to central Illinois in the early 1800's looking for a way of life and found an abundant and fertile region to farm. It is a treasure. Please do not destroy it.
12-0598 · Rita G. Getz
December 3, 2012
We strongly oppose the power line proposed for Pawnee, IL. The high voltage power lines will run too close to our town, displace residents and cause a negative impact on our village. They did not properly inform us and many other residents including the Village of Pawnee of their proposal. The open houses were not widely known with only 8 people that attended due to Ameren not properly notifying the citizens of Pawnee. I am in the medical field and feel that the effects of EMF's have not been researched enough to prove that they do not pose a health risk. The limited recent research studies do show that there is an increased risk for health problems. The value of our properties will decrease, the sight of huge power lines close to our town will scare away potential new residents. Out town is not a big town and it does what it can to get by. We do not need anything of this nature to adversely affect our town.

The primary and alternate lines are almost the same so there really are no "alternate" lines for us to choose from. Either way we will end up with high voltage transmission lines very close to our town.

I am in support of renewable energy, but I do not feel that it has to come at this kind of cost when there is a lot of open empty land further south. Problem is, it will cost Ameren more. This is not about money to me, this is about our humanity.

Wesley and Janet Howard
Pawnee, IL
12-0598 · Wesley and Janet Howard
December 3, 2012
We live in Frederick Township - Section 6 - Schuyler County. We are opposed and highly concerned to the placement of the new transmission line which would run parallel to an existing 138,000 volt line which is within 150 feet of our house and runs the length of sections of our property. At one of the open houses, we were asked if that line was in existence when we built our house - indicating to us that we were at fault for building in such close proximity to the lines - the land has been in my family since 1830's - I take great pride in knowing that I walk that same ground. When we built our home in the 1980's, we were not as aware as we are today of the effects of EMFs. Knowing today of the risks of such high exposure greatly concerns us for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. We feel there is room for compromise to the placement of the line or the alternate route should be taken. The two combined ROWs across certain sections of our farm would almost totally cover pasture, ponds and completely eliminate the possiblity of a potential homesite for our children.
We are already playing host to the existing transmission line and should not have to provide even more access to such a localized area of our fields and pasture.
Please take all our concerns and weigh your decisions with all for all affected by this proposal.
12-0598 · Judith and Dennis Smith
December 3, 2012
We are the owners of WMMC-FM in Marshall, Illinois. Our station is licensed to Marshall, but our 500' tower is located in Martinsville on Ameren's primary route. The power line is 223' from our tower and at least one of our guy wire anchors is in Ameren's proposed easement. Our main concern is safety. If it’s not absolutely necessary, why would the high voltage power line be placed so close to a 500’ radio tower? Our tower is extremely well maintained, but there is the potential for strong storms to pass through the area and cause our tower to fall onto Ameren's power line or for Ameren's power line to fall onto our tower. This could result in extreme power outages and danger to people. A radio station tower's placement has to be approved by the Federal Communications Commission so it does not interfere with the broadcast signal of other radio stations. It must also be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration so that it is not a flight hazard. This means that our tower cannot be placed just anywhere. There are acres and acres of open land nearby where Ameren can place their power line. It would seem that placing the power line away from an existing radio tower would make more sense.

The placement of the Ameren power line so close to our tower could also interfere with the broadcast of our signal. We had an independent engineering firm do a study on this possibility. They stated that the possibility certainly will increase tremendously for signal interference. It could limit our signal strength and our coverage area and it could cause the signal to have “static” (corona discharge) and make it very difficult to listen to. Not only would this adversely affect our business, but all the businesses that advertise with us as well. Many businesses use our station to promote their products.

WMMC is the only radio station serving Clark County with news, weather, sports broadcasts and emergency notifications. We are truly a “hometown” radio station. We broadcast over 80 high school sporting events (football, basketball, softball, baseball) every year. We have civic leaders like mayors, police chiefs, county sheriffs, high school coaches and city council members on the air on a regular basis. We do birthday and new baby announcements along with obituaries. We are the only local radio station and we take that responsibility seriously.

We respectfully ask you to move the new power line a safe distance away from our radio tower. We think anywhere from a half mile to one mile would be appropriate.

I hope you agree that this is just common sense.

JD and Lori Spangler
Owners, WMMC-FM
Marshall, IL
12-0598 · JD and Lori Spangler
November 30, 2012
I wish to add my voice to those objecting to Ameren's proposal to run power lines across Clark County. I own a small farm within a couple of miles of the proposed location.
From the information, I understand this would be damaging to the land, the people, and wildlife. Please consider another route or build a power plant in the state when it is needed. Thank you.
12-0598 · Linda Ewbank
December 7, 2012
To Whom It May Concern

As owners of farm land in Marrowbone Township, Moultrie County, we are highly concerned about the Ameren Illinois Rivers Project. It seems to us that the more direct route (less angular) would be from Pana to the town of Kansas. This route appears to be less intrusive and more cost effective. Other factors need to be taken into account such as the farm land itself. The farm land we have in Moultrie County has Grade A soil and produces good, plentiful crops. If the route goes through our farm it would disrupt our production, yields, and income greatly. Please consider the Pana route as originally proposed. (See Exhibit 1)

Of the two proposed routes under consideration now, please consider the secondary route going from Lovington to Dora as the route appears to be straighter (less angular) and it doesn’t appear to go through the middle of the farms as the other (primary) proposed route does. (See Exhibit 2)

Since this secondary route is straighter and appears to be more direct vs. the primary route that is less straight and more angular, wouldn’t it appear that the secondary route would be more cost effective? Less angles means less poles.

Again, we ask that you consider the Pana route and consider the agriculture when making your final decision.

Marcia Rousonelos
708 S. Washington Street
Bethany, IL 61914
(for MARS LLC)

Marian Leong
13966 Ridge Road
Minooka, IL 60447
(for MARS LLC)

P.S. this letter and the exhibits were sent to you via Federal Express; you signed for them on 11/21/12
12-0598 · Marcia Rousonelos and Marian Leong
November 28, 2012
I am an absentee land owner who was born and raised in Clark County, and still own part of my Dad's farm along with my sisters.
I am very much opposed to the Ameren Transmission Line through Clark Co. My Dad taught us how important it is to protect the land because that is what sustains us. Without it we could not grow food. The line will not only impact farm land but also, people and their homes, wildlife, and the natural beauty of our county. Why must IL. suffer to bring electricity to IN. Let Ameren build a gas or necular power plant there and leave IL. alone.

Thank your for your consideration in this matter.

Jeanette Morgan
12-0598 · Anna Jeanette Morgan
December 7, 2012
I am one of the effected landowners and the proposed transmission line follows
the south line of my farm along the section boundary between Sec.s 20 and 16 in Adams
Co. This is straight through a heavily wooded area but the ground topography would seem to render that route impossible or, at least, highly undesirable, whereas going a little further South would avoid the situation and is to be highly recommended. The line along my 196 acre strip goes down a bluff face into a small gorge which then parallel borders the stream channel for several hundred feet. This stream is capable of huge floods but the small gorge it passes through is barely 150 ft. across before opening into a larger floodplain. If Ameren's intention is to remove all the trees in a 150 foot swath it means removing all the trees in the riparian zone and along the bluff face. It would not be possible to maintain access roads through this area. Other obstacles include a deep gully (12-15 ft.) formed by the large spring located on my property and an old oxbow depression, as the side creek merges with Pigeon Creek. I was told at the Bluffs hearing I attended that it had only been viewed from the air. Someone needs to look at it from the ground to realize how unworkable it would be to try and establish an easement through this section.
Also, this area is all prime wildlife habitat with the spring on my property providing a constant source of fresh water even through the worst droughts. This farm has been in my family for three generations, since 1936, and my life has been dedicated to its protection and preservation. The transmission line would pass within 400 ft., or less, of my house and farm complex and totally destroy not only the property value but the livability, if not the safety in terms of the health effects, of the home and farmstead. I am totally opposed to the route proposed by Ameren for the transmission line through such sensitive habitat.

Thank you. My phone numbers are 217-656-3014 and
217-440-6743

Edward G.Behrensmeyer
12-0598 · Edward G. Behrensmeyer
November 28, 2012
We respectfully ask for you to consider a different route or transmission method for the proposed Ameren ATXI in Fulton County, Illinois. The proposed ATXI route presents significant adverse biological, environmental & geographic impacts. The proposed route and transmission method would create unnecessary health risks, destroy valuable farm and timber land, create erosion & other associated problems and severely impact our state's & our property's limited essential wildlife habitat. Please either move the proposed ATXI route to unoccupied public lands or run the transmission lines underground. Thank you, Charles M. (Chuck) Tolly --- Washington, IL & Astoria, IL
12-0598 · Charles M. Tolly
December 7, 2012
I am one of the effected landowners and the proposed transmission line follows
the south line of my farm along the section boundary between Sec.s 20 and 16 in Adams
Co. This is straight through a heavily wooded area but the ground topography would seem to render that route impossible or, at least, highly undesirable, whereas going a little further South would avoid the situation and is to be highly recommended. The line along my 196 acre strip goes down a bluff face into a small gorge which then parallel borders the stream channel for several hundred feet. This stream is capable of huge floods but the small gorge it passes through is barely 150 ft. across before opening into a larger floodplain. If Ameren's intention is to remove all the trees in a 150 foot swath it means removing all the trees in the riparian zone and along the bluff face. It would not be possible to maintain access roads through this area. Other obstacles include a deep gully (12-15 ft.) formed by the large spring located on my property and an old oxbow depression, as the side creek merges with Pigeon Creek. I was told at the Bluffs hearing I attended that it had only been viewed from the air. Someone needs to look at it from the ground to realize how unworkable it would be to try and establish an easement through this section. Thank you. My phone numbers are 217-656-3014 and
217-440-6743

Edward G.Behrensmeyer
12-0598 · Edward G. Behrensmeyer
November 28, 2012
ICC,

My wife and I purchased our farm in 1984. We were blessed with three children, one of them a special needs child. So it was almost impossible for my wife to work outside the home. So we began planting christmas trees on the land to establish a stay at home/self employed job for my wife. as the years have gone by the bussiness has grown into a large tree and wholesale wreath business, that we employ roughly 20-25 people through the holiday season. mostly stay at home moms and college and high school students. In growing the business, we have alos added landscaping to the services we offer. Also to boost income we went into a lease agreement with the only Clark County radio staion (WMMC-105.9) to put a 500' tower on our property. Also we have a rental property that we have that also provides us income. We were looing long term as these helping us to pay for retirement. With the construction of the proposed power line Ameren will clear cut almost 10,000 trees that are marked for wreath construction in the next few years, force the radio station to move or go out of business and cost us future lease payments, as well as the loss of the rental house income. All in all the construction of this line will cost my wife and I thousands od dollars!!!!!! This is how it will affect my family!

Needless to say the route has not been planned well or according to the stated criteria. If you look at the route, they will place a corner post in the middle of a 50' wide 30' deep creek that drains 10's of thousands of acres. Plus if they had walked the route they would have seen the 500' radio tower that will be with in 60' of line. Now I'm not a engineer, but if the tower was to come down, would you want it even close to the power lines??? If the tower would fall over the lines it would break poles for miles!!!!

Thank you for you time in reading my comment.
Sincerely,
Doug Dahnke
12-0598 · Doug and Yvonne Dahnke
November 27, 2012
I am opposed to the Illinois Rivers Project for transmission lines going across the Richard Liehr property.
12-0598 · Tim Liehr
November 28, 2012
I am a landowner affected by the above referenced project of the Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois. Please be advised that my attorney and I will attend the Prehearing Conference on Dec. 3, 2012 and that we will participate in all phases of the proceedings to establish that the primary and alternate routes chosen by Ameren should be changed. Even though I am a female absentee landowner, I remain an active participant in the farm acreage I own. Three different tracts in three different locations in two counties are impacted by this project and that is simply wrong.
My brother farms the land as did my father and grandfather. We are stewards of the land and it will remain in the family long after I am gone so we will fight to protect the productivity of some of the finest farmland in the world and they are not making more of it. The cost of the loss of farm productivity is an expense Ameren will have to bear and one that will undoubtedly be passed on to its customers. Those increased costs are unnecessary when there are reasonable alternative routes available that do not impact farm productivity.
I have three parcels that have been chosen section 16, T14NR5E, section 10 T13NR6E in Moultrie Co and section 11 T13NR7E in Coles Co. In the case of section 10, Ameren has chosen to run the primary route right through the middle of the tract with so much as an attempt to ameliorate the negative impact on production , not to mention the value of the land by trying to find a nearby right-of-way.
I request the Commission to view carefully all information that comes forth during the evidentiary portion of the hearings because much less intrusive and confiscatory routes are plentiful and those routes will preserve prime farmland, a rapidly dwindling natural resource.
Deborah Rooney, St. Charles, IL
12-0598 · Deborah Rooney
November 26, 2012
I would like to ask for you to consider a different route for the ATXI. I live on an alternate power line route and I have just done a complete remodel of my family home at a substantial cost. I would not have invested that amount of money if I would've known I was on the route for a power line. Furthermore, their route goes through beautiful, natural rock formations and disturbs the woods on our property. By clear-cutting the path, the hills that they are disturbing will erode at an even faster rate than they do now. I had placed the woods in a timber management program years ago to preserve the natural beauty and scenery it provides, as well as to maintain a suitable environment for the wildlife that lives within it. The natural beauty of the landscape and the effects that the power line will have on people's lives should be taken into consideration as well. I would like to ask that the power line be routed to where it does not come through Clark County, in a way that will have as little geographical, biological, and environmental impact as possible. I would also like to offer an invitation for anyone who it may interest to personally come and see first-hand what the power line would be impacting should it be ran on the current planned route.

Thank you for your time,
Eric Wallace
12-0598 · Eric Wallace
November 26, 2012
I live in Clark Co. IL on a farm that will be affected by this Ameren Power Line. I am very much opposed to it running through my land but I am opposed to the way it is being ran through IL period. It is my understanding that the proposed route parallels another Ameren power line. I have had discussions with experts that it is possible to upgrade the existing line without having to acquire more land. It should also be possible to use more land along the interstates and abandoned railways. It is a very serious matter when a for profit company can acquire private property through eminent domain or any other legal means when there are alternatives. The cost to the Power Company should not be the only criteria for deciding where the power line should go. Hundreds of peoples lives are being affected. The damage to the land is irreversable. If you fly over these counties power lines already criss cross the landscape. Can't we get it together enough that there is a plan instead of farms and homes continue to be taken without a choice on our part? It had never occurred to me that my land could just be taken away. The citizens are coming together to oppose this and find viable alternatives. We will have interveners in this case and I hope that you will consider our side of the story also.
12-0598 · Peggy Mills
November 26, 2012
Why is Ameren allowed to put wires next to our home that they openly told us will double our children’s risk for childhood leukemia? We do not understand how, in 2012, people in the “land of the free” are legally driven from the homes they love, in some cases, homes that have been in a family for generations or in others a brand new home. Before this massive project goes any further, the ICC needs to require Ameren to set regulations against putting high voltage power lines within 1000 feet of any existing residence or business. The CDC cites that thorough research is still underway about the dangers of high voltage power lines to humans, but that possible links to childhood leukemia, brain cancer, breast cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease are already there. If this line goes in, this means that Ameren, the ICC, and our government, who is supposed to protect us, are allowing the citizens of rural Illinois to be the research data. They may stop putting such lines close to homes after they see what happens to our family members in the next 5, 10, 50 years.

Ameren’s other tactic that is completely un-American is their method of divide and conquer in each county across the state. Ameren said that the only way to keep the power line from our yard was to fight that it be put in our neighbors’ yards on the other route. In Clark County, many of us are working hard to not turn against each other as Ameren would like, but to work as a county to get this right, for ourselves, and for future citizens of Illinois and other states who will someday face this nightmare imposed on us. There is plenty of open space in Illinois to put this line, and if this line is even necessary at all, that is where it needs to go. People need to come first in this project, not cost or any other factor.

George and Nancy Orin, Justin and Angie Perry, Ben and Abbie Furlong
Northern Clark County
12-0598 · George Orin
November 21, 2012
We own 7 thousand acres of farm land which has been targeted to put the new power grid on. Our children and 7 grand children live within a short distance of these powerful lines, plus will have To travel daily under them to school and to each others homes. We feel this is an invasion of our personal safety and health security. The State owns several thousand acres of ground that could be used for this and yet will not even consider it.
There is an Amish school which is also within a close range of these lines. It is located North and west of Allenville.
Please consider moving this project to another state where so many people are not impacted. Or Possibly going under ground!
12-0598 · Gary W Melvin Theresa Melvin
November 19, 2012
IN RE: Moultrie County Illinois
Marrowbone Township Sections 7,8,9, and 10

Supplement to previous comment # 5764

As an absentee landowner impacted by the proposed transmission line I ask that you investigate the activity of the airstrip located along this property boundry. This is apparently is the reason that Ameren has proposed draping their power line across the middle of some of the most productive farm land in the world.

I expect Ameren and the ICC to confirm the lack of airstrip activity before anyone asks me for survey access or even thinks about an easement.

I will be receptive to both once the lack of use has been confirmed and the power line route move a few yards north to the property line.

Until Ameren communicates that change in writing, I will be very resistive to any Ameren access.
12-0598 · Dave Tipsword
November 19, 2012
Fellow victims please see my Facebook page: Citizens Against Ameren's Illinois Rivers Project.
12-0598 · Theresa Pearce
November 19, 2012
We are totally opposed to the power line and believe that nuclear plants serve as clean energy and we need more of them in the East where the demand is greatest. Thank-you for listening to my concern.
12-0598 · Tom Murphy
November 16, 2012
Dear Sir,

I respectfully request that you disallow or veto Ameren's petition for placing high voltage power lines in Clark County.
Ameren has stated that this project is necessary in order to comply with the renewable resources requirement. I disagree! Doesn't Illinois have nuclear power facilities as well as alternative options for the transmission of electical power?
The citizens of Clark County,my family, friends and neighbors are concerned about the possible adverse effects this power line will have on our health and that of future generations. The economic impact is also a great concern. How is this going to effect our domestic animals and the wildlife? There are families of wildlife living on our property. We have many deer, turkeys, raccoons, squirrels, and a variety of birds that share our acreage. A small creek provides a constant water source for them and they are able to find food and refuge in our woods. They are a constant source of pleasure and entertainment for my family especially my grandchildren.
The proposed power line will be approximately 200 feet from my home creating a negative effect on our lives. It will cause a disruption in our lives and that of future generations and destroy the natural surroundings that we have worked so hard to maintain.
Thank you for your consideration.
12-0598 · Paula Eldridge
November 15, 2012
I am writing to oppose the construction of the Ameren Illinois Rivers Transmission Project through Clark Co. This 345,000 volt power line will negatively affect everyone in Clark Co.
We are concern about our well being and health. The project will be only a few miles from our farm of over 40. The co. board, school board, city committees farm bureau ,have all voted against It will affect the only radio station we have. In a emergency times we can count on battery powered radio for immediate information.
12-0598 · Wayne and Sue Cassady
November 15, 2012
Ms Cody opposes Ameren's proposed route for the IL Rivers Project transmission lines. Her family has owned land in New Berlin township for over a century and 5 acers of their land was just surveyed to build hers and her finace's new home for after they get married in 2013. The alternate route would not impact their land nor the home they plan to build. She would prefer Ameren use any other route other than what is said to be their preferred route that will go directly through their land.
12-0598 · Christina Cody
November 15, 2012
Hi I am the son of Marvin Miller that owns land on the planned primary route. I live on the property and do not want power lines on it. I can tell you my father does not want them. We make are living as farmers taking away highly productive farm ground that goes to feed the world is not a good idea. God will never make any more of it and it is already a struggle to feed the world with so few acres available. We know every person on the route you intend to take on the primary route on the Illinois side until you reach Richfield, il and none of them want this power line going through their back yards. My father was only notified by mail this past week he attended the Ameren meeting yesterday September 24th. I was just made aware of this forum to state my opinion. The view from my home will be destroyed along with many of my neighbors. We enjoy living in the country to be away from high voltage lines and the big cities that need them. Finally I would like to say put yourself in another man's shoes for a moment and ask yourself how you would like a appraiser walking in your yard, a land buyer coming to your home asking to buy your house when you have no desire to sell it, a construction crew building 100 foot tall towers 10 feet in diameter right behind your house, is that something you would be willing to do. I for one do not want power lines on our property.
12-0598 · Shane miller
November 15, 2012
I am writing this letter to inform you of my opposition to the route selected by Ameren Transmission, of Illinois Rivers Project proposed in Clark County Illinois. The selected route passes as near to my house as the law allows.

I built this house with my own two hands on a farm that has been in my wife’s family for over one hundred years. We raised our two daughters and our grandson in this house. My wife came to the meadow where this house is now with her grandmother to pick berries when she was a little girl. It is the only home my grandson has ever known and is transferred to him in our will. There has never been any question that he was going to raise his own family on this property.

The home sits in a grove of oak and hickory trees backed up to a wooded ravine that contains a branch feeding the Mill Creek watershed. Just below the house is a spring feeding the branch which flows fresh water year round even in the driest summers. This spring is a source of water for numerous wild animals and birds including deer, turkey, rare white squirrels, rabbits, box turtles and owls. This particular copse of woodland has been home to generations of owls since my wife was a little girl. The clear cutting necessary for the right of way will destroy this habitat and remove the cover used for the wildlife to access drinking water under tree cover.

The genetic load for cancer is heavy for my family. My father had lymph node cancer and both of his sisters died young of leukemia and pancreatic cancer. The dream of my grandson raising his family here with the power line in such close proximity will be destroyed if the line is placed on the indicated route. The fear of the increased incidence of leukemia in infants would preclude any such dream. In fact, I think it would be foolhardy for my wife and I to continue living in the house where we had intended to spend our retirement years although with the dramatic reduction in value caused by the proximity of the power line we may have no choice.

I have retained counsel and intend to contest the construction of this power line by all legal means possible to stall delay and increase the cost of construction.

Ted Snedeker
15635 E Arbuckle Road
Marshall, IL 62441
12-0598 · Johnie T. (Ted) Snedeker
December 7, 2012
I would like to state my objection to the Southern Route crossing Clark County of this transmission line. The proposed route passes near sub divisions, a public radio station's transmission tower, cuts through the middle of a limestone mining operation and near a number of rural homesteads. I think a route adjacent to Interstate 70 would affect less citizens and businesses of Clark County.
12-0598 · Johnie T. (Ted) Snedeker
November 13, 2012
Hello,

I live at 4205 Prairiewest Dr , Champaign IL. I live in a small subdivision at Staley Rd and Rising Rd. I have attended all the meetings and have asked that consideration on the final route be one that is not the primary choice which goes to Rising IL. This primary route runs down Rising Road, directly behind our subdivison to the west.

I am asking that you chose the alternate route which pushes the final track 1 mile west, closer to Barker Road.

The reasons i am asking this are these.
1) Currently, there is another Transmission Supply project that directly affects us. The Bondville to Southwest Champaign project has plans to put up these transmission lines directly to the North of our subdivision, and now you are wanting to put more lines direclty to our West. I belive this totally unfair to us .
2) Our property values will plummet and i am sure there will be no compensation from you or Ameren for our financial loss.
3) Our view to the North and West will be ruined. This will ruin our neighborhood.

Please do the right thing and select the alternate path that hooks up Sidney to Rising, at least along the Rising Road / Barker Road Corrider. We should not be ground zero where 2 major transmission lines meet.

Thanks for your time.
James Borror
12-0598 · James Borror
November 13, 2012
Please STOP Ameren's high voltage power line from zig-zagging across Moultrie County. There is plenty of public land around Lake Shelbyville it could use. If the ICC thinks it is OK to run it right by human dwellings, then it is surely OK to run it in the unpopulated land around Lake Shelbyville. We do not need another barrier dissecting our county like the lake does. The farmland left in Moultrie County is the best farmland in the world. Moultrie County is THE WORST POSSIBLE ROUTE Ameren could have chosen.
BOTH OF AMEREN'S PROPOSED ROUTES THROUGH MOULTRIE affect 300 to 900 year old prehistoric Native American sites in the county. One ancient site (the largest prehistoric site in the county) has the remains of FOUR prehistoric ceremonial mounds as verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers in their 1960 archaeological survey for Lake Shelbyville. Both former Indian village sites have oral tradition and some surface physical evidence of the presence of 18th century French trading posts. Both Ameren routes cut through the route of the Kaskaskia-Detroit Road, the ancient French fur trading route between Illinois country and Detroit in the 1700's. It was also a branch of the famous Hubbard Trace. Neither of these sites have been excavated and studied by professional archaeologists. I am a professional historian, as well as the founder and former president of the Moultrie Co. Historical Society. I have researched, explored, and published histories of these early trails. I have found surface artifacts at one of the sites. I know that this information is true. Please do not let Ameren disturb the spirits of these "ancient ones" with a power line!!!
12-0598 · Janet S. Roney
November 13, 2012
I am opposed to Ameren's Illinois Rivers Transmission Project.
1. Ninety-five percent of Moultrie County is classified by the latest (1992) USDA soil survey as "PRIME FARMLAND". It is the most valuable farmland IN THE WORLD! Moultrie County, Illinois should NOT be used as an utility corridor!
It is poor stewardship of the most valuable, most productive farmland in the world to run a power line across any route in Moultrie County. When the last glacier dipped south over Moultrie County 10,000 years ago, it was farthest point south the glacier reached. It left THE RICHEST FARMLAND WITH THE LONGEST GROWING SEASON AND MILDEST CLIMATE of ANYWHERE ELSE it touched in the world. Last month, bare farmland near the route of the powerline sold for $14,000 per acre.
Our appraiser says that our property will be devalued by 30% with a powerline running across it. This will be an UNCOMPENSATED 30% hit on land values NOW and every time the land sells IN THE FUTURE!
The power line should cross older, less valuable land below the terminal morraine, and go east from Pana.
2. The power line routes go right next to many homes. They will be devalued as much as 50%, according to our appraiser, and many homes that are on small acreage, will receive NO compensation. That concerns me very, very much. Many homeowners will have to move unless the powerline is moved.

12-0598 · Roger J. Roney
November 9, 2012
Dear Sirs,
I am writing you to express my concern with the Ameren Illinois Rivers Project. I farm a tract of land that my Parents own which will be highly affected by this. We recently attended a meeting of concerned land owners in Moultrie County and the turnout was tremendous. Over 100 citizens were present to voice their concerns. I implore you to find a less intrusive route for this project. One possibility would be to run straight from Pana to Sugar Creek, Indiana. The farm ground in Moultrie County is very productive and this project would not only cause agriculture difficulties but will also reduce property values by as much as 30 percent. On my Parents 80 acres that would be a reduction of 320,000 dollare in value. Ameren is proposing to run their poles through our field to avoid a grass airstrip that runs along the north side of our property in section 9 of Marrowbone township. This airstrip has only been used twice since it was built six years ago and the owner's pilot license has been revoked. We don't believe an unused grass airstrip should cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't have a problem with progress but we can surely come up with a better solution then the one Ameren has come up with. Thank you for your time and consideration.
12-0598 · Michael Tipsword
December 7, 2012
Hi I am the son of Marvin Miller that owns land on the planned primary route. I live on the property and do not want power lines on it. I can tell you my father does not want them. We make are living as farmers taking away highly productive farm ground that goes to feed the world is not a good idea. God will never make any more of it and it is already a struggle to feed the world with so few acres available. We know every person on the route you intend to take on the primary route on the Illinois side until you reach Richfield, il and none of them want this power line going through their back yards. My father was only notified by mail this past week he attended the Ameren meeting yesterday September 24th. I was just made aware of this forum to state my opinion. The view from my home will be destroyed along with many of my neighbors. We enjoy living in the country to be away from high voltage lines and the big cities that need them. Finally I would like to say put yourself in another man's shoes for a moment and ask yourself how you would like a appraiser walking in your yard, a land buyer coming to your home asking to buy your house when you have no desire to sell it, a construction crew building 100 foot tall towers 10 feet in diameter right behind your house, is that something you would be willing to do. I for one do not want power lines on our property.
12-0598 · Shane miller

Entries: 157

Search
Consolidations

Daily Case Filings

11-0662 Petition for RehearingPublished:September 29, 2011
11-0588 Petition for RehearingPublished:August 18, 2011
13-0413 New CasePublished:June 19, 2013

Notes

If you add a shortcut to your browser, you may revist this report anytime you wish.
To receive any updates to this query, you may subscribe to the RSS feed.

Illinois Commerce Commission

Search

Main Menu

Navigation

Public Comments

e-Docket

Menu

Entries

Cases

Consolidations

Daily Case Filings

Notes

Footer

Copyright