Case Number: 12-0598

  • February 27, 2014

    Thanks to the ICC Commissioners for their vote of 5-0 in favor of the PDM/CFT route.
    Janice Wilson
  • February 25, 2014

    My family and the families in Edgar County IL do NOT want this power line going thru!!! My family raise cattle and crops and live where you want the power line to go. We do NOT want you around!! We are trying to preserve this land that our family has lived on for 7 generation. We want our child, their children and the children after them to have the opportunity to come back and farm. They are our future and if we don't do something about it to help them, then we have failed. My question to you is why didn't you take a population survey and go threw the less populated area? What will this power line do to our cattle; make them infertile, make them aboard their calves? If the power line can do that to cattle what can it do to a human? And with already having one power line going thru what's another going to do? When we spray our crops, airplanes are not going to want to fly over to spray because there is 2 lines in our field. That means more input cost on us to try to make up for no spraying or a loss in our crop production because we couldn't spray. So what's in this for use? Yes you are 'paying us off', but what's a little money now when this line is going to effect us for the rest of our lives and for generations and generations to come!!! I WILL do EVERYTHING in my power to STOP this power line coming thru!!!!
    Amanda
  • February 24, 2014

    I hope you reconsider a different route than having it go thru Edgar
    County. My farm is a family farm that has been in the family for several
    generations. I have a feedlot with several head of feeder calves, that will
    be not very far from the lines. I also have a cow-calf operation too,that
    will be affected too in another field. Hopefully there will be another
    route, that won't effect homes or livestock operations.
    Thanks!
    James H Tate
    jatate@joink.com

    James H Tate
  • February 24, 2014

    My farm ground is on the route for the new high voltage line. I hope
    you do not approved it. The farm has been in the family for several generations. I know I do not want to wake up and seen the lines out
    my bedroom windows. I have heard stories with the affect of livestocks.
    My husband & I operate a cow-calf pairs and also feedlot cattle too.
    This is one of the ways for my income. It is hard enough, to make a good
    income and try to support three boys. I hope you consider a different
    route, that is not so close to people homes or livestock.
    Thank you for your time!
    Angela Tate
    jatate@joink.com

    Angela Tate
  • February 21, 2014

    I would like to object to re-routing of Ameren electric transmission lines from Moultrie and Coles counties through Piatt and Douglas Counties, a proposal of MCPO residents. This rerouts the lines to the North and lengthens the original Ameren proposal by some 9 miles and will cost an extra $17 million. Moreover, this northern detour would run as proposed through our family farm land near the city of Tuscola. It is surveyed to pass through our land alongside the Tuscola airport. It would be just 2000 feet to the west of the runway and be parallel to it. Normal landing and take-off patterns would have flight school students coming in right over the lines and be a real hazard for inexperienced pilots, especially when weather and visibility are poor. The potential loss of life would be hard to justify to the families of those with losses. Surely the direct routing of transmission lines proposed by Ameren and by PDM/CFT would be preferable to this northern detour with its inherent dangers and increased costs.

    Larry Johnson

    Larry W. Johnson
  • February 20, 2014

    I am writing to add my support for the MSCLTF Route for the Ameren Transmission Line along the Meredosia to Pawnee segment. It is cheaper, shorter, and affects fewer landowners than the route proposed by ATXI. Isn't that what we are looking for?
    Joe Murphy
  • February 20, 2014

    Do you really know who lives in your path? Many people have moved in since your 2012 date and why don't they get notified before they buy land? So wrong
    CJ Novotny
  • February 20, 2014

    Dear ICC Commissioners,

    I am writing to state my opposition to the MCPO route through Piatt and Douglas Counties.

    The Administrative Law Judges concluded that the preferable route for the line segment from Mt. Zion to Kansas is the PDM/CFT route with the ICC Staff modification. This route is clearly the shortest, most efficient, and best choice option as it affects far fewer family farms and does not place massive towers across the most often used entryway into Arthur’s well known, historic Amish districts.

    Please make the right choice and support the ALJs’ conclusion and the PDM/CFT route. It consists of a hybrid of Ameren’s original routes, and it is clearly the least cost option.

    Sincerely,

    Bretta Hammerstrom
    Douglas County property owner

    Bretta Hammerstrom
  • February 20, 2014

    I would like to take a moment to comment on the Ameren Transmission Project which is due to permanently change the lives of Edgar County Residents FOREVER! As we all know Ameren has been approved to construct a 345,000 High-Voltage power line through Edgar County. I am asking you the ICC to take a look at this project, reconsider the choices that have been made. This is the largest transmission project to ever be completed in the State of Illinois, and you are going to allow it to occur without even giving us, the residents of Edgar County, a chance to fight....or even present our case for that matter.

    I would like for you to know that I was notified of this project on NOVEMBER 23, 2013. Please tell me how I have been given due process. The decision was made in AUGUST! How was I supposed to oppose or complain?

    Please remember that during EACH of the three community meetings it was stated that the line would NOT cut through Edgar County- aside form the substation in Kansas Illinois.

    How could I....Why would I....oppose a line that was not coming within miles to my home?

    After inquiring with Ameren, I have found that the ICC has given the responsibility to contact and notify the new land owners on the new route ...to the land owners on the last route?? Is that the truth?

    This is the most unorganized project I have ever seen.

    When this lawsuit goes to the appellate court, you need to make the right choice, and tell Ameren to Start from the beginning- do some research- hold TRUE community meetings- and notify ALL LAND OWNERS that will be effected in a timely manner ( Not 5 months after the ICC has already voted).

    I have faith that you, the ICC, will do the right thing, please prove me right.

    Meghan Creech
  • February 20, 2014

    I would like to take a moment to comment on the Ameren Transmission Project which is due to permanently change the lives of Edgar County Residents FOREVER! As we all know Ameren has been approved to construct a 345,000 High-Voltage power line through Edgar County. I am asking you the ICC to take a look at this project, reconsider the choices that have been made. This is the largest transmission project to ever be completed in the State of Illinois, and you are going to allow it to occur without even giving us, the residents of Edgar County, a chance to fight....or even present our case for that matter.

    I would like for you to know that I was notified of this project on NOVEMBER 23, 2013. Please tell me how I have been given due process. The decision was made in AUGUST! How was I supposed to oppose or complain?

    Please remember that during EACH of the three community meetings it was stated that the line would NOT cut through Edgar County- aside form the substation in Kansas Illinois.

    How could I....Why would I....oppose a line that was not coming within miles to my home?

    After inquiring with Ameren, I have found that the ICC has given the responsibility to contact and notify the new land owners on the new route ...to the land owners on the last route?? Is that the truth?

    This is the most unorganized project I have ever seen.

    When this lawsuit goes to the appellate court, you need to make the right choice, and tell Ameren to Start from the beginning- do some research- hold TRUE community meetings- and notify ALL LAND OWNERS that will be effected in a timely manner ( Not 5 months after the ICC has already voted).

    I have faith that you, the ICC, will do the right thing, please prove me right.

    Regards, Meghan Creech

    Meghan Creech
  • February 20, 2014

    After looking at the map and seeing that the MCPO route is much longer, crosses much more farm land, jogs, twists and turns, I am oppose this route.
    I support the PDM/CFT route - shorter, less costly, misses the Tuscola Airport, retains farmland, and there is no requirement to clear forestland. Ameren found PDM/CFT better after years of study!

    Sharon Ponder
  • February 19, 2014

    ICC Commissioners,

    As a concerned property owner I wish to add my support to the opposition to MCPO route for the Ameren power line, rather than the PDM/CFT route. I believe it is irrational to choose a route that is longer and far more expensive, especially when it has so many flaws in it, such as passing near an airport, crossing historic and/or religious property, or being constructed with so many right angle bends. The additional cost should be enough to make the route suspect. The MCPO plan was created without the necessary precautions and attention to detail that the original route planners used. Please do not even consider this an appropriate route for this transmission line.

    Lois Streib for Prairie View Farm
    ,

    Lois Streib for Prairie View Farm
  • February 19, 2014

    It would seem to me that saving $36,000,000.00 of tax payer money would the first thought of simplicity. We live in a state that is financially struggling .But I would assume as a taxpayer in the state of Ill I shouldn't expect anything different. There is a current route to take this power line along side of another power line which would take less farm ground out of use and seemingly be cheaper to maintain.So lets do the right and sensible thing run the power line along with the existing power line and save farm ground and taxpayer money, and maintenance costs. I am certain someone stands to get wealthy off the proposal of the creation of the new route at the expense of the common tax payer, and farmers along the proposed route. Let use some common sense ,save time and money and use the existing route.
    John Sonneborn
  • February 19, 2014

    Dear Commissioners,

    I am the farm tenant for 2 farms in Morgan county(with 2 different landlords) which the proposed "alternate" to the Meredosia-Pawnee route cross. From previous comments you are aware of the impact this alternate route will have upon landowners. Previous comments have also reiterated the fact that the Meredosia to Pawnee route already has an existing 138 kV line, costs $36 million dollars less to build, and has no opposition from current landowners along that route. Please use common sense, facts, and the recommendation of the Commission staff and have the line follow the existing Meredosia to Pawnee route.

    Sincerely,
    Aaron Williams
    Farmer

    Aaron Williams
  • February 19, 2014

    Honorable Commissioners,

    I oppose the longer and more expensive route through Piatt and Douglas Counties. As far as I'm concerned the whole Ameren Route across Illinois needs to be scrapped. Ameren has pitted farmers as well as Landlords, home owners and Counties against each other.

    Ameren just sits there and watches us fight each other while the Attorney's get rich.

    It's too bad we all didn't work together from the start to stop this from going across our state.

    Gary Appleby
  • February 19, 2014

    I SUPPORT the PDM/CFT route and OPPOSE the longer and more expensive MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties.
    John M. Zoller
  • February 19, 2014

    My family has owned farm land in Douglas county for 4 generations and after reviewing the proposals I think that it would be damaging to property and costly to take an alternative route as proposed by MCPO. I do not support this route.
    The original proposed PDM/CFT route would make more sense due to the cost and direct route it will take. I know that this route was well planned out and many variables were considered in this proposal. I urge you to approve the original ICC proposed route.

    cynthia Jurgens Hostert
  • February 19, 2014

    In regard to the Meredosia to Pawnee segment I think they should run the new line right along the 138kv line that is already there. It seems obvious to me that this is the better choice. It affects 1/3 as many homeowners, 18 miles shorter and costs over 30 million dollars less to construct the line.
    Rustin Godfrey
  • February 19, 2014

    I am writing in SUPPORT of the proposed second order on rehearing & the least cost, far more direct PDM/CFT staff route. I am OPPOSED to the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt counties that weren't even included in Ameren's formal petition.
    As a 6th generation with a son that's 7th generation family owned and continually farmed land that was purchased in 1834, I hope you will make the better choice rather than devalue this land with a high line running right through the middle of 160 acres of good flat farm ground.
    Please make the choice for a cost effective and energy effecient route. Thank You, Pam Sigler

    pamela j sigler
  • February 19, 2014

    This Twin Rivers power line running threw Edgar Co. Please don't allow it we don't need it. all it will do is deface our countryside even more than it already has been as being Paris Township Road Commissioner I am worried it will hurt our land and home values even if Ameren pays off the land owner that is a one time payment not doing me any good my township income is largely based off property tax. Plus I will be stuck with the road damage We are not able to afford all of undue expense at this time for a project that will do Edgar Co. nothing but take from our tax base Please Stop IT Thank You Chuck Wooten
    chuck wooten
  • February 19, 2014

    Hon. Commissioners,

    I again would like to express my opposition to the high voltage transmission line in Edgar County, proposed by Ameren Transmission Co. This transmission line will destroy countless acres of prime woodlands, farmgrounds, and grazing pastures, not only in Edgar County, but across the entire State of Illinois. The imbalace of population growth, and dwindling farmland is a serious issue in this country. It's nice to have a light over the dining room table, but it's better to have food upon it.
    I respectfully ask The Commission to halt this transmission line proposal. The must be a better way.

    with respect and sincerity,
    Daniel D. Smittkamp

    Daniel D. Smittkamp
  • February 19, 2014

    The facts are conclusive that Ameren should run their new line along their existing 138kV corridor. This route is 18.3 miles shorter meaning: less line exposed to the elements, less construction cost, and less maintenance costs that save $36.8 million dollars. This route also affects significantly fewer residential and commercial structures along with property owners while reducing visual, environmental, and historic resource impacts. With these facts I respectfully ask you to support the MSSCLPG's proposed corridor.

    Kate Dodsworth

    Kate Dodsworth
  • February 19, 2014

    Very hard for the average person to understand why with the incredible amount of facts that show the MCPO to be more costly to build and maintain and ground permanently laid to waste, that would even be considered. Makes someone wonder what's really going here. Very suspicious one even might say.
    I would not be that affected much by either route, but one clearly makes more sense. Why on earth would someone not use the original route PDM/CFT. Surely shorter and cheaper makes more sense, unless there is something or someone behind the scene pressuring for this. I would hope that if that was the case you could get protection from the authorities so you could do the right thing with out fear.
    I will pray for all to be courageous and make the right decision and be safe.

    Stan Ochs
  • February 19, 2014

    Honorable Commissioners,
    I object to Ameren's proposed Meredosia to Pawnee route segment. Along with my family, I have lived on and farmed the former Clark S. Dodsworth Estate farm and other nearby properties located in the direct path of Ameren’s chosen route in rural Winchester, Scott/Morgan Counties, Illinois as a tenant for my entire 50 year life. This property consists of a good mixture of productive agricultural land along with many acres of unspoiled natural area rich in native flora & fauna and very significant Prehistoric Native American sites as well. This property has not only provided a source of livelihood for my family, myself, & the owners, but has also offered the primary source of low cost sustainable recreation opportunities for my loved ones and I over the years. Far be it from me to stand in the way of progress, realistically as we move forward I do embrace the need for a modern electrical power grid, reliable information & communication systems, efficient modes of transportation for travel & commerce shipping etc…these things are undeniably needed for the good of all citizens, if I lived in a straight line path of necessary objectives I might not be happy about it, but could better understand the need to accept the destruction. Bulldozing a wide path through the trees, streams, ponds & fields to install noisy power lines on massive ugly towering support structures will disrupt & destroy the aesthetics & serenity of a naturally beautiful area to degrees unknown. Archaeological evidence of past societies will be forever erased. Precious wildlife habitat will be destroyed. Opportunities for camping, meditation, hunting, fishing, hiking & the gathering of morel mushrooms, berries, nuts, etc will be permanently diminished. Prime Cropland will be altered. One must question the wisdom of meandering 18 miles from the more direct route, incurring a minimum of $36 Million of estimated additional costs (which obviously would eventually be passed on to unwitting consumers through rate hikes insisted upon by Ameren) when technical staff experts have recommended a shorter, and much lower cost route parallel to existing power lines. With all due respect, unnecessarily wasting such large sums of other people’s money can give the appearance of politics & elitism, imprudent decisions of this nature are in no small part to blame for the faltering economy of our beloved State. I respectfully request that the decision be reconsidered, and the shorter route parallel to existing lines be adopted for the common good of all concerned.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
    Greg Clayton

    Greg Clayton
  • February 19, 2014

    Dear Sirs,

    I too am urging you to vote AGAINST the MCPO route. I have family who have farmed in the affected area for generations. The new route is longer, and more expensive. I object as both a taxpayer and a customer of Ameren's. Please use the existing route as recommended BY YOUR OWN STAFF.

    Sincerely,

    Mark L. Kelly

    Mark L. Kelly
  • February 19, 2014

    We support the PDM/CFT route and oppose the longer and more expensive MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties.
    Robert and Dorothy Rothermel
  • February 19, 2014

    I am writing to you today to voice my concerns about Case #12-0598. This proposed Ameren power line would go from Meredosia, Il. to Pawnee, Il. through my farm and next to my home.
    This high voltage power line will come within 200 yards of my home that has been in my family for four generations. The line in question will cut across my pristine farm. My family has farmed this ground since the early 1800s undisturbed. I do not want to farm around or look at this huge high voltage power line.
    The Commission Staff recommended that Ameren should use a much shorter route which is an existing corridor between Meredosia and Pawnee. The people of Illinois should not have the extra cost of $36.78 Million dollars put on there back. The Staff's recommended route is also 18.3 miles shorter. This means less cost, less to break and less ugliness for all of us.
    I have also been notified that all of the land owners along the existing route have been made aware of this case and not one of them has voiced any objection to the paralleling of lines.
    Ameren has said that they would prefer not to parallel the lines, as it "might" cause some problems. I do not believe Ameren is giving the true reason for preferring 18.3 more miles of high voltage power line.
    Putting the new line on the shorter, existing right-of-way would prevent valuable acres being taken out of production. Our productive land base will be reduced if the proposed August 2013 order is approved. I am respectfully requesting that the whole commission take a strong look at this case. Please use the existing right-of-way between Meredosia and Pawnee,IL. that was first recommended by the Commission Staff.

    Respectfully,

    Curt W. Dodsworth

    Curt Dodsworth
  • February 19, 2014

    Dear Commissioners:

    I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Meredosia to Pawnee segment of the new proposed power line. My concern is at several different levels.

    1. There is already an existing 138 kv route in existence which can be followed. It would not affect any new residences, farms, etc. The commissions own engineers recommend this route. They are the supposed experts, why not listen to them?
    2. The existing route is 18.3 miles shorter and would be 36.78 million dollars cheaper.
    3. The new route would affect many new households and landowners. This route passes through some of the most scenic woodland in this part of the state.

    I am a professional farm manager and this route would be a detriment to my clients land.

    Additionally, my parents own land in the path of this proposed route and I am a future heir. I do not want this new line passing through family land.

    Please follow the advice of our own engineers and follow the existing route.

    Respectfully,

    Allan Worrell

    Allan Worrell
  • February 19, 2014

    Commissioners, 2/12/2014

    My name is Matthew Dodsworth. My family has properties in Morgan and Scott counties that would be negatively impacted by the proposed route Ameren is seeking in the Meredosia to Pawnee segment.

    I ask that as commissioners you look critically at all the facts and be good stewards of Illinois land. The proposed route is longer and more expensive. Ameren has yet to effectively quantify why there is such a need for this route over the other existing route. A cost / benefit analysis should clearly show that the purposed route is not a logical choice. This route will negatively impact a significant number of people. I know it will have a lasting negative impact on my families farm, and this problem will be one that even my children someday will inherit.


    Please take a critical look at the facts and rule in favor of the less expensive less destructive shorter existing 138 kV corridor.

    V/R,

    Matthew Dodsworth

    Matthew Dodsworth
  • February 14, 2014

    I am opposed to the Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois constructing a high voltage service line in Edgar County
    yvonne adwell
  • February 14, 2014

    Re: Meredosia to Pawnee Segment

    Honorable Commissioners:

    I urge you to select the 138 kV line from Meredosia to Pawnee. This route will be 18.3 miles shorter, cost $36.8 million less to Ameren, its shareholders and customers and most importantly, will cause the least amount of disruption to the lives of homeowners along the route.

    It is my understanding that very little if any residential development has occurred along the 138 kV in the last forty years. Please think of the lives of all the families along the proposed route that will be affected both economically (lower home values due to the Ameren transmission line) and emotionally due to the construction of a transmission line either on their property or very near their personal residence.

    Please ask yourself: Would you want to subject your family's health and well being to an Ameren transmission line just outside your front door that will be there the rest of your life?

    My family owns farm land along this route and we do not want an Ameren transmission line destroying the economic value of our farm property we have worked so hard to create. But I feel most strongly about the rights of the home owners along this route.

    Please select the 138 kV route.

    Steve Rhea
    Rhea Family Farms
    Waverly, IL

    Steve Rhea
  • February 14, 2014

    Dear Sirs,

    Please support the decision supporting the PDM/CFT route. This opposes the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt county. The MPCO route is more costly, and would destroy the beautiful gateway to the Amish countryside.Common sense seems to dictate staying with the PDM/CFT route.

    Thank you.

    Carol Stutzman

    Paul and Carol Stutzman
  • February 13, 2014

    Dear sirs,
    I am writing to ask that you vote against the MCPO route and vote for the original proposed route. Ameren/ATXI spent years preparing for this route taking in to account costs, environmental impacts and human implications. We realize that their will be unhappy people with either route but please consider these FACTS: the cost will be $17 million more, 9 miles longer, impacting 103 farms as well as the historic Amish community. In a 6 mile span there will be six 90 degree turns. More towns will be impacted as well. The original plan followed existing roads,property lines and section lines. The original plan was drawn up with public input and took years to refine. Please vote against the MCPO Plan which took THREE WEEKS to plan.
    Please vote against the MCPO PLAN.

    Stuart James
  • February 13, 2014

    Please do the right thing and vote against the MCPO route. It is definitely more expensive, longer with more turns and crossing more creeks and highways. It also affects more family farms. The reason we hire experts is because of their experience and education. If the Ameren/ATXI experts agreed that the original route was the best, we beg you to bow to their wisdom and expertise and not to the MCPO Six. With 40 percent more cropland, more wetlands and more forestry and waterways being impacted, our ecosystems will be forever damaged if this line goes through as the MCPO would like. Again please vote against the MCPO Plan.
    Janet James
  • February 13, 2014

    Commissioners, 2/12/2014

    My name is Kelly Dodsworth. I have properties in Morgan and Scott counties that would be adversely impacted by the "Proposed Route" Ameren is advocating in the Meredosia to Pawnee segment.

    First I would like to thank you and your staff's diligence in reviewing the facts and granting us(Morgan, Sangamon and Scott Counties Land Preservation Group)our rehearing against Judge Yoder's recommendation. As I recall Chairman Scott stated "This (Ameren's proposed route) goes against out own tenents, it is longer and more expensive than other possible routes and should be further studied".

    The facts are now even more conclusive that Ameren should run their new line along their existing 138kV corridor. Your technically qualified staff continues more adamantly to support using the existing 138kV corridor as they did in the first hearing. This route is 18.3 miles shorter posing less exposure to storms, less construction and maintenance expense that saves 36.8 million dollars. This route also affects significantly fewer residential and commercial structures along with property owners while reducing visual, environmental and historic resource impacts. All landowners on this 40 year old plus existing corridor have been notified of this case and not one has objected. Everyone's interests, but Ameren would be satisfied following the existing 138kV corridor.

    Ameren has provided no substantive evidence as to why they "prefer" not to parallel lines when they do so regularly. We asked Ameren for maintenance costs of single and parallel lines and they refused our request. I feel this supports our point that parallel lines cost less to maintain, they can inspect two lines at once using mutual access roads. Ameren also says parallel lines "might" cause "possible" problems in a storm with no further facts or substantiating data. These lines are already built to withstand storms and can't be built dangerously close to comply with regulations as your staff and our witness elaborated.

    I purchased 200 ac. in 2010 from our family trust for its quality recreational resources; camping, hiking, hunting, fishing and ATV use. Prior to my ownership this timber/cropland had been extensively developed for resource conservation through wildlife habitat, hill prairie restoration and CRP (conservation reserve program) from state and federal programs. The Proposed Route would bisect the entire 200 ac. property including two tracts of land in CRP that are rated HEL (highly erodible land)by the Natural Resource Conservation Service and should not be disturbed. The clearing of timber/prairie will destroy existing wildlife corridors and habitat.

    This same property is historically significant in that the IL. Geological Survey's Chief Curator Ken Farnsworth has identified and documented hundreds of artifacts of the Hopewell Indians from the Middle Woodland Period-1000 yrs. older than Cahokia Mounds. The highest concentration of artifacts is located on the Proposed Route.

    Ameren has not rebutted or challenged any of our (MSSCLPG) or ICC staff's substantial testimony or factual evidence to justify this senseless 36.8 million dollar land grab at taxpayers expense. It is simply beyond all rational reason why the two judges would recommend the Proposed Route!!!

    Please take a strong look at the facts and rule in favor of your technically qualified staff's less expensive less destructive shorter existing 138 kV corridor.

    Respectively,

    Kelly Dodsworth


    Kelly Dodsworth
  • February 13, 2014

    I ask that you please consider the following so you can make an informed decision regarding the Ameren ATXI Route.

    1. The PDM/CFT route outperforms the MCPO propsed route on 11 of 12 known factors. The PDM/CFT route was thoroughly researched over years which involved multiple public meetings. That is not the case with the MCPO proposed route.

    2. Douglas and Piatt counties were not even considered by Ameren as possible sites and were not included in Ameren's formal petition.

    3. The MCPO proposed route is 9 miles longer, costs $17 million more and splits 103 family farms.

    Thank you.


    Theresa Mattix Quinn
  • February 13, 2014

    We would like to again state that we support the more direct PDM/CFT/Staff route and oppose the longer and more expensive route through Piatt and Douglas counties. Thank you.
    Curt Cannon
  • February 13, 2014

    As Piatt county land owners of property that will be directly impacted by the MCPO Route. We OPPOSE the MCPO route and support the PDM/CFT/Staff route.
    E.Clifford & Lavonne Cates

    E. Clifford and Lavonne Cates
  • February 13, 2014

    Hon. Commissioners,

    As my grandson and I were walking in our Edgar County woods this fall we discovered a volunteer persimmon tree. This set off a chain of events involving granddaughter and grandmother. Picking, they taste good right off the tree, cleaning, what a mess, cooking, what an aroma, and eating. All the seeds we opened had spoons in them. This time together can not be duplicated at Disney World or any other place on this planet except our woods.
    Ameren's Illinois Three Rivers project proposes to cut a 150 feet wide swath through our woods taking most of our wooded property. Do you think there will be another volunteer tree on a mown right of way? These lines present challenges that can be easily overcome in a field dedicated row crops. Do not destroy our woods.
    On property west of ous there is an existing 138,000 volt line causing a 100 feet wide scar through his woods. Ameren proposes to leave 200 feet of woods and cut another scar 150 feet wide 200 feet south of the existing line. If we were to add another lane to Interstate 70 would we build it on existing right of way or go 200 feet south and build an entirely new road? Ameren has a list of reasons for additional right of way all of which can be overcome. This company must be brought under control. Ameren has plans for more lines to cross our state.
    Illinois ranks 44th in population growth since 2010. Recent data shows our state population to be in decline. Do we need more power?
    Upgraging our nations electric, and the transportation of electricity need a more prudent approach considering the recent development of abundent natural gas, clean coal, and renewable sources. Crisscrossing our state with TEN intrusive high voltage power lines is NOT THE ANSWER. I ask the commission to STOP THIS LINE.

    Pleading,
    Vern See

    Vern See
  • February 13, 2014

    OPPOSE the longer and more expensive MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties. I support the PDM/CFT route.
    Don Cordgs
  • February 13, 2014

    I would like to state my opposition to the MCPO route, which appears to be nothing more than a poorly thought out route to avoid a small number of property owners. The PDM/CFT route is more direct, costs less, and is a much more carefully chosen route. I urge the ICC to make the right choice and move forward with the PDM/CFT route.
    Sarah Harvey
  • February 13, 2014

    In these tough economic times, it is unthinkable to use anything but the least cost route. Why would anyone want to do anything other than try to save as much money as possible? This appears to be another case of "government getting their cut under the table." And the tax payers will foot the bill. PLEASE do not do this to us.
    Randy Mayhall
  • February 13, 2014

    I would like to object to an additional transmission line from Pana to Pawnee.

    If a transmission line is deemed necessary between Pana and Pawnee Illinois, please do not use the alternate or secondary route west of Pana.

    Currently there is an existing Ameron owned electric transmission line that runs on a diagonal line between Pana and the Kincaid, Pawnee area. The Ameron proposed alternate route in Christian county appears to be more costly and more disruptive to the community than the line that has been in place for 45 plus years. Instead of following the diagonal to Pawnee ( direct route) the route is laid out in a series which parallels the existing line then runs west for three miles then back north for two miles crosses the line parallels it and then 3-4 miles west then two miles north etc. . This route is obviously longer (more costly for consumers) and affects more property owners in Pana, Rosamond, Locust, Johnson and Bear Creek townships than the existing line.

    My family and I own and farm properties having the existing Ameron owned transmission line and also properties along the proposed alternate route. We have two properties that are 5 miles apart that are affected by the existing line and the proposed line. In both cases the proposed line is 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the existing line. If realized we will have two transmission lines on each farm going different directions that end up in the same place as the existing line.

    The existing line has been in place for 45 plus years. In that time it has developed into a no build zone where new houses, farmsteads , livestock structures and businesses have not been built. However, the proposed route conflicts with several homes and would become another area in the same community where building, development and farming would be affected. While an easement payment may partially compensate us for problems involved in row crop production our property rights are greatly deprived for the life of the project.

    I feel the alternate route needs to be dismissed or modified to use the existing route based on the negative impact to the community.

    1) Diagonal route (existing line) is the shortest and most cost effective route. The existing route includes fewer properties.

    2) Easements are in place for the existing routes. Less cost for the consumer and fewer people and properties affected.

    3) The existing line has become a No Build Zone where very few homes or businesses would be would be affected differently than they are now. The proposed line is adjacent to several homes , farmsteads and development sites. The proposed route crosses new properties and will create a new no build zone in the same community as the existing line and in some cases on the same property.

    Thank you

    Dean McWard Christian County farmer and landowner

    Dean McWard
  • February 11, 2014

    ICC Commissioners:

    On page 75 of the Rehearing PO ICC the ALJ’s express frustration with the parties as to which alternate power line route is closest to Arthur. PDM responded to this and it is easy to see on a detailed map that the MCPO route crosses the Arthur Road about 3-1/2 miles north of Arthur. Conversely, the PDM/CFT route runs east-west about 7 miles south of Arthur. The routes are ‘not’ equi-distant from Arthur as ATXI has claimed.

    As importantly is the design of the MCPO route. To compare this 'keep-it-out-of-Moultrie-County' route with the much shorter and less expensive PDM/CFT route, please refer to the "map of final routes on rehearing" at the defendpiattanddouglas web site under 'Project Information. (Direct links to other web sites are no longer allowed at ICC even if the link is not 'hot' and must be copied and pasted into your web browser -- this has delayed this posting since Jan. 31.)

    As shown, the MCPO route traverses eastward on the north side of US Rt. 36 toward Atwood, but then turns 90 degrees southward and crosses Rt. 36 very near to the southward turnoff onto Arthur Road. This proposed MCPO power line then turns eastward and crosses Arthur Road only 3-1/2 miles north of Arthur. This angled double-crossover of Rt. 36 and Arthur Road would result in an eyes-full of intrusively tall towers and high-voltage power lines as the 'warm welcome' to visitors expecting to see and feel a bucolic Arthur Amish Community. All of these turns and cross-overs would also be detrimental to the Atwood community that shares a tourist interest.

    Noteworthy is that the tourist industry in this area amounts to hundreds of thousands of visitors annually, from all states of the US and many foreign countries. The Arthur area is not just a local attraction.

    The ‘Impacts on Historical Resources’ factor therefore greatly favors the PDM/CFT route that would be well to the south of Arthur –- on its bee-line directly toward the Kansas sub-station.

    Another matter that makes the MCPO route a poor choice is the negative impacts on the great numbers of people located in the 7 or 8 towns along Rt. 36 that would be within 1/4 to 1/2 miles of the proposed MCPO route. Whether a towering power line is within 150 or 1,500 feet (or more) makes little difference in its ugly intrusion. Not to mention the many farms that the MCPO route 'splits' without concern for roads, land boundaries, etc. Nor how disruptive (destructive?) maintenance equipment would be when accessing this power line that runs for many miles across open farmlands nowhere near a parallel roadway.

    Neil McDonald

    R. Neil McDonald
  • February 11, 2014

    I support the PDM/CFT/STAFF route and I OPPOSE the MCPO route through Douglass and Piatt Counties.
    John Hodam
  • February 11, 2014

    I support the PDM/CFT Staff route and I OPPOSE the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties
    Sam Clark
  • February 11, 2014

    I support the PDM/CFT/STAFF route and I OPPOSE the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties!
    Victoria Doane
  • February 11, 2014

    I support the PDM/CFT/Staff route and I OPPOSE the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties.
    John Gans
  • February 11, 2014

    I support the PDM/CFT/Staff route. I OPPOSE the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties!
    Sonya Gans
  • February 11, 2014

    We are asking the ICC Commissioners to support the Administrative Law Judges' Proposed Second Order and Selection of the PDM/CFT Route. As stated at the ICC Proposed Second Order on Rehearing, Jan. 17, 2014, the PDM/CFT route is the least cost and outperforms the MCPO route on 11 of the 12 known factors. It presents no difficulties in construction or maintenance and affects fewer property lines. The PDM/CFT route follows Ameren's original, properly vetted routes through Moultrie County, which Ameren spent years studying, reviewing, publicizing and refining. Thank you.
    Carol and Glen Myers
  • February 10, 2014

    Commissioners,

    I do not support docket number 12-0598 regarding Ameren's proposed route to construct, operate, and maintain a new high voltage electric service line, specifically the Meredosia to Pawnee segment.


    I live inside the city of Jacksonville so this project does not physically affect me, however, I understand there is a proposed power line corridor 18.3 miles shorter using the existing power line corridor between Meredosia and Pawnee. This will save us, Ameren customers, an estimated $36.78 million dollars. In fact, the shorter, paralel to the existing route is the route that the Commission's technical Staff has been recommending all along.

    I respectfully request that the Commissioners take a strong look at this case because of the savings by using the existing Meredosia to Pawnee segment and approve the line as recommended by the Commission's own technical Staff.

    Thank you,

    David G Miller
    2375 Mound Rd
    Jacksonville, IL

    David G MIller
  • February 10, 2014

    "We support the Proposed Second Order on Rehearing and the 'least cost' and far more direct PDM/CFT/Staff route," and we "oppose the longer, far more expensive, and far more destructive MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties--two counties that were not even included in Ameren's formal petition for this project."
    Jerry D. Gasjh
  • February 10, 2014

    My name is Rita Bergschneider Walsh. I own a farm in Morgan County that would be affected by this power line . My parents Paul and Eileen struggled through depression to be known as a farmer in agriculture not agri-business. My father studied the land and took care of the land. in 2014 we only want a quick fix not considering the affects that could destroy this country's farmland. If our country continues to destroy farmland we are in grave danger of extinction.
    I now own some of the farmland my parents sacrificed to maintain. I want to keep this farm for my heirs. By placing this proposed line through two segments of my property will destroy farmland that otherwise would be saved.
    I request you look at the big picture for these reasons:
    1. My farm continue to be a farm in agriculture not in agribusiness.
    2. The existing line is 18.3 miles shorter
    3. It saves $36.78 MILLION dollars to put the line along the existing corridor.
    Why would you want to spend more money when you could be saving as our parents sacrificed to tend to the earth. We can not make more land.
    Please consider the damage that will occur.
    Thank you.
    Rita Bergschneider Walsh

    Rita Bergschneider Walsh
  • February 10, 2014

    (12-0598) Meredosia to Pawnee Segment

    Mr. Scott and Commission members,

    I am writing to voice my opposition to Ameren Illinois’ request to put new transmission lines up between Meredosia and Pawnee, IL. I am not opposed to better technology, but the proposed route Ameren wants to use is going to hurt the livelihood of many farmers and will be another eye sore for everyone to have to look at each day.

    It has been brought to my attention there is an existing route that could be used which would not cause a disruption to farm fields and would not add to the unpleasant site of more power lines than there already are to obstruct viewing nature. The existing route makes more sense because it is also much shorter and would save millions of dollars in costs to taxpayers. I am told the existing infrastructure is also the route recommended by your staff.

    Some of the land affected has been in my wife’s family for generations and it will hurt people I care about by taking pristine farm ground and turning into another place for unsightly power lines. Please listen to your staff and go with their recommendation and not the route proposed by Ameren. It will be better for the landowners, Ameren users and taxpayers in the end. Thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,
    Shaun Newell, MBA

    Shaun Newell
  • February 10, 2014

    I am strongly opposed to Ameren Illinois’ plan to create a new route to run power lines from Meredosia to Pawnee, Illinois. The proposal by Ameren will mean taking away a big chuck of farm land from my father and brother and many of my childhood neighbors. They depend of using tillable land to make a living and it is not right to take that away when there are better alternatives on the table.

    I have been told there is already a line that the new lines can be built next to that actually decreases the miles of lines needed by over 18 miles. This will save Ameren and its customers millions of dollars by making for a much shorter route that already has the proper right-a-ways vehicles would need to get to and from the lines.

    Additionally, I have been told using the existing route is the recommendation made by your staff. It seems to me if this is the most cost effective and already approved by your people, then that is the way to vote. Please do not approve the plan proposed by Ameren. It will be better for the landowners, Ameren users and taxpayers in the end. Thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Amanda Newell, MS RD LDN

    Amanda Newell
  • February 10, 2014

    Re: The Meredosia to Pawnee segment

    1) The MSSCLPG proposed route saves $38.78 million dollars vs. the ATXI route.

    2) The MSSCLPG proposed route is shorter by 18.3 miles, or 24%, than the ATXI route.

    3) The MSSCLPG proposed route is parallel to an existing route that is proven in all metrics.

    4) ATXI has not provided any factual support for their assertions that maintenance cost and storm damage might be higher for the route proposed by MSSCLPG, paralleling the existing 138kV route.

    5) ATXI has not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is employing the least-cost routing. They have provided no factual proof, only vague allusions.

    6) ATXI's proposed route has 18.3 miles more exposure to Damage of all sorts than the MSSCLPG proposed route.

    7) ATXI's proposed route, costing $36.78 million more than the MSSCLPG proposed route, has no documented benefit to offset the higher cost.

    8) The State of Illinois budget situation is dire; acceding to ATXI's unnecessary high-cost plan when another, better plan is available at much lower cost is inappropriate in this context, in addition to the factual reasons outlined her and in the submissions of the MSSCLPG.

    9) The MSSCLPG proposed route, parallel to the existing short 138kV route, isolates and protects both lines from aerial blown debris in a storm better than the ATXI proposed route.

    10) ATXI's witness Jeffrey V. Hackman, P.E., submitted sur-testimony that is a "Straw Man." That is, he stated that "…ABSENT sufficient separation between the lines, …paralleling poses a threat."

    FACT: All electric utilities, including ATXI, would only build parallel lines with SUFFICIENT separation between the lines, to NERC reliability specifications. So his statement is meaningless.

    11) The same witness, Jeffrey V. Hackman, then went on to agree with I.C.C. expert staff Greg Rockrohr that MSSCLPG's proposed route would comply with NERC reliability rules.

    12) ATXI has presented zero evidence that their proposed route will cost less long-term than the MSSCLPG 'least initial dollar cost' route.

    13) ATXI has not objected to, rebutted, or cross-examined the only disinterested witness in this case, the I.C.C.'s own Greg Rockrohr, who is highly qualified and experienced on the entire issue.

    14) That witness, Greg Rockrohr, (and the Initial Brief of Staff) clearly support the MSSCLPG proposed route, and states that "…more parties will accept the MSSCLPG route..."

    15) FutureGen and MSCLTF both have previously advocated for the MSSCLPG proposed route, and neither has indicated that the route no longer satisfies their interests.

    16) ATXI did not provide information requested by MSSCLPG about cost of maintenance for single routes vs. parallel routes.

    17) MSSCLPG's expert witness, Steven J. Lazorchak, P. E., CEM, in sur-rebuttal, stated that "…no evidence to date has been presented that would justify an initial expenditure of approximately $36.78 million more to construct the Rebuttal Recommended Route…"

    AND: ATXI did not object to this statement, nor to any other testimony presented on rehearing by MSSCLPG, and ATXI did not choose to cross examine any of the MSSCLPG witnesses.

    SO: The MSSCLPG expert witness testimony stands uncontested, defining the MSSCLPG route as the best choice.

    18) ATXI did not provide any factual information requested by MSSCLPG stating the number of miles of parallel lines they currently operate in Illinois, nor any factual information regarding safety of single vs. parallel lines.

    SO: We can only assume that such information, necessary for ATXI operations and thus surely available, supports choosing the MSSCLPG route.

    19) An additional 18.3 miles of transmission line has higher environmental impact than 18.3 miles less.

    20) An additional 18.3 miles of transmission line has more social and land use impacts, and the ATXI proposed route has far more affected landowners and stakeholders.

    21) The ATXI proposed route has 126 improvements within 500 feet proximity, while the MSSCLPG proposed route has only 30 improvements.

    22) The MSSCLPG proposed line is in a location that already has a transmission line. The ATXI proposed line will have new Visual Impact of over 60 miles.

    QUESTION: Given the above facts, why would administrative law judges recommend twice against the recommendations of the highly qualified, disinterested I.C.C. staff witness, Greg Rockrohr, as well as the Initial Brief of Staff, when ATXI's assertions are unsubstantiated?

    I respectfully propose that the facts, the regulations, and good stewardship of the budget of the State of Illinois strongly support Commission choice of the MSSCLPG's proposed corridor.

    All best regards,

    Clark Dodsworth
    6th generation farmer, and owner of pristine farmland north of Franklin, Illinois in the ATXI corridor.

    Clark Dodsworth
  • February 10, 2014

    re: case # 12-0598, Meredosia/Pawnee segment

    I, Janis Dappert, am writing in regards to Ameren's ATXI alternate route which was initially approved in August 2013. My family (The Richard J. Coultas Farm Trust) has lived for seven generations in the area and adjacent to this route. The line will cut across part of the good tillable farmland which has been in my family. It will also cut though some of the oldest timber in the area, and destroy shrinking wildlife habitat.

    I have been informed that there exists a shorter route which uses the existing corridor between Meredosia and Pawnee. This shorter route has been in existence as a 138kV line, and is 18.3 miles shorter and would cost $36.78 million less to construct! In fact this existing route is the one the Commission staff recommended throughout this case! In addition it is my understanding that more than 90 homes are in close proximity to the AXTI route, as opposed to less than 40 in the existing route.

    All the landowners along this existing route have been notified of the case and not a single one has voiced any objection to the new line being place along the existing route. It would seem it would satisfy everyone's best interests if the new line be placed parallel to the existing 138 kV line: everyone's that is except Ameren. Ameren would "prefer" not to have the lines run parallel as that might cause some "problem" in the case of a catastrophic storm.

    It seems to me that with the estimated $36.78 million in savings, Ameren should be able to add safeguards, and could prevent the disruption to pristine lands and habitat that will certainly occur should the line take the proposed route approved in August 2013. It is also my understanding that the project is largely taxpayer funded, and it would make sense to go the less expensive route and not waste taxpayer dollars, let alone Ameren's.

    Please consider carefully this case as to the Meredosia-Pawnee segment and approve the line as recommended by the Commission staff.

    Respectfully,
    Janis Dappert
    The Richard J. Coultas Farm
    Scott County Illinois

    Janis Dappert
  • February 10, 2014

    My family has property on the MCPO route and therefore I am asking the ICC to please use the PDM/CFT route. It is shorter and less costly to the people of the State of Illinois. I grew up in Arthur and understand the Amish cottage businesses that would be hurt by the MCPO route. The MCPO routeis longer, affects more property owners and cropland, and affects the Tuscola airport where students from the U of I train. I support the ICC selected PDM/CHT route and oppose the MCPO route. Thanks for your time.
    Beth Kinkelaar
  • February 10, 2014

    Franklin, Illinois, my hometown, is a part of the proposed power line route that Ameren wants to build a new line through. My father, Joseph Bergschneider, has taken care of our Franklin family land for years and years. This potential power line route will cut through our farm, through several fields, if this route is approved. In today’s world, it seems impossible that a little farmer like my father could win a battle against a corporate giant like the Ameren company. I was taught at a very young age to defend myself and to always fight for what’s right, and I’m hoping the Illinois Commerce Commission makes the right decision. This case comes close to the heart for many reasons, but my main concern for this power line is simple. It comes down to the facts.

    I am very aware that there is an existing power line corridor between Meredosia and Pawnee, and that corridor has been around for a long time. I am also aware that this corridor will make Ameren’s project 18.3 miles shorter, saving $36.78 million dollars. That may seem like pocket change to Ameren, but that’s not the point. Ameren has not given any valid, detailed explanation about why they want to build even more power lines instead of using existing lines. Zero of the landowners along the existing corridor route oppose selection of this route. Your commission staff has been recommending the shorter, existing route, since August of 2013, and that route is the route Ameren should be approved to work on.

    Ameren stated that they prefer the longer path because of parallel power lines and for issues due to storms. Well, that just doesn’t add up. All Ameren’s power lines are designed to withstand storms. Ameren never mentioned the fact that the longer new route would go through our land and expose 18.3 more miles of power line to the storms. Bottom line is, keeping the power line on the shorter, already existing corridor would prevent disruption to natural land, save money, and save miles of new line that isn’t necessary to build.

    I hope this case is looked at very closely, and the existing power line route that has already been recommended by the commission staff is approved. The cost of savings and far fewer miles of transmission lines would benefit everyone affected by this project. Let's do the right thing.

    Susan Bergschneider
  • February 5, 2014

    Dear Mr. Scott and ICC Members:

    My name is Linda Cline. My husband, Gary and I own a home at 749 McNeely Road, Franklin, IL. The home sits 1300 feet to the west of the Meredosia to Pawnee Segment of Transmission Company’s proposed Illinois Three Rivers Project. Gary and I raised our three children in this home (from 1981-2009) and we are returning this year, as I retire from my career as a grade school principal. I have an agriculture degree from the University of Illinois (1977).

    I was fortunate to have inherited the 110 acres across from our farm home in 2006 from my mother and father, Eileen and Paul Bergschneider. This farm will be cut in half with the proposed Ameren line. Please understand, my parents worked for many years, my father, 78 years until his death, on this land and not once took a vacation. My husband and I are now given the responsibility to care of this gift for future generations. Not just our children, but for all who come after us. My husband and I have a farm plan and started with removing 10 acres of the 110 from conventional to sustainable farming.

    You and I are responsible citizens for our country. I believe you share that same belief that I do, and I acknowledge you have a difficult decision to make. As a school administer, I must make decisions daily. I am able to make these decisions because my mission for school remains steady and clear, I must do what is right for the children under my charge. There are those that don’t always agree with me, but with experience and a long term vision I have had a successful career as a public school principal.

    I wish to share two major points:
    1. Consider the following from The Art of the Commonplace /The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry. In this Berry asks the question, “How does the corporate takeover of social institutions and economic practices contribute to the destruction of human and natural environments?” I would like to share with you a few of the critical standards listed in his essay regarding solutions-
    • “A good solution solves more than one problem, and it does not make new problems.”
    • “A good solution will satisfy a whole range of criteria; it will be good in all respects.”
    • “A good solution always answers the question, How much is enough? Industrial solutions have always rested on the assumptions that enough is all you can get. But that destroys agriculture, as it destroys nature and culture.”
    • “A good solution should be cheap, and it should not enrich one person by the distress or impoverishment of another. “

    2. My objection: Why would the ICC allow the company to build a longer and more expensive route, when a shorter, less expensive alternative is available? Don’t you agree that an existing corridor between Meredosia and Pawnee, is in existence, and has been for many years, carrying a 138 kVline? Isn’t that route 18.3 miles shorter and will cost $36.78 million less to construct? Who will pay the cost of the new line? Who will pay for the additional cost? Didn’t the Commission Staff recommend the shorter route? Which route best serves our country’s precious and non-renewable resource, soil?

    You and the Commission have to solve these questions.

    Mr. Scott, I respectfully request that you approve the shorter line as recommended by the Commission Staff.

    Sincerely,

    Linda Cline

    Linda Cline
  • February 5, 2014

    Mr. Scott,
    I am not in favor of the proposed line because I see so much more sense in following the existing line. It is better for families, farmers, and consumers,the environment, and the economy. I ask that you please respect the time your staff has done on this issue and the conclusion they have come to.

    Respectfully yours,

    Janie Bergscheider

    Janie Bergschneider
  • February 5, 2014

    This is "NOT" needed!Another bougus expence put on the backs of low income people,who are struggling to pay their bills.This needs to be stopped,and the ICC has the means to put the brakes on this.Stop giving in to Ameren's requests.......Dana
    Dana L. Darnell
  • February 5, 2014

    I am writing to encourage you to approve the existing 138kv power line that already exists from Meredosia to Pawnee. This existing corridor has been in existence for many years and would not adversely affect any new homes or farms. The line is 18.3 miles shorter and 36.8 million dollars cheaper than the alternate route. The staff of the ICC recommends this existing route. They are the only party whose responsibility is to look at the big picture and balance the route, upfront and long term cost with this project. They have done that, and have recommended the existing route.

    Thank you

    Paul Bergschneider
  • February 3, 2014

    My comments are on the Meredosia to Pawnee segment. The route that was approved in August 2013 is 18.3 miles further and will cost 36.78 million more than using the existing route Ameren's 138 kv line is on. If Ameren were to place the new line parallel to the existing one, they would be able to use the same access road to maintain both lines. Ameren says they don't want parallel lines but they also won't say how many miles of parallel lines they already have, and are not having an issue with them. All of the land owners from the existing line have been notified and no one voiced objection. The existing route was approved by the commission staff. Only Ameren wants the longer more expensive route. Thank you.
    Jeff Bergschneider
  • February 3, 2014

    After reading the MCPO Brief I found several incorrect statements. They were it is not 8 or 9 miles from Arthur to the MCPO route. The 500 intervenors were all in the areas or direct line of the MCPO route. The Registered Native American site has not been plowed and farmed. If I found these what else in incorrect by the MCPO? I volunteer at the Welcome Center in Arthur and one of the questions I ask visitors is how the come to Arthur and about 65 to 70% say from the north or Route 36. This transmission line crosses Route 36 and definitely would take away the quaint, quiet, and peaceful countryside that Arthur tourism promotes. I ask the Commission to support the Administrative Judges ruling supporting the PDM/CFT route.
    Janice Wilson
  • February 3, 2014

    Hon. Commissioners,

    The population of Edgar County in 2000 was 19,704 in 2010 18,576 and 18,191 in 2012. This does not appear to be a trend leading to an additional need for electricity. Agriculture is the base of the economy in Edgar County. We do not have an 800 acre industrial park awaiting a gigantic power consuming factory. We are quite happy in our rural setting. We are not responsible for the need, if there is one, of additional power on the east coast. The Kansas substation is not in our county. The Sugar Creek generating station is not in our county. I can not believe anyone would consider placing this obtrusion in Edgar County. This line should not be built. Certainly not in Edgar County.

    Bewildered,

    Vern See

    Vern See
  • February 3, 2014

    To the Illinois Commerce Commission,

    I believe that Judges Albers and Yoder have made a sound decision with their recommendation that the preferable route is the PDM/CFT Route with Staff's modification. They cited four critical factors which favor the PDM/CFT Route with Staff's modification being cost, length, social and land use impacts, and the presence of existing corridors.
    I encourage the ICC Commissioners to likewise reach the same conclusion provided by Judge Albers and Yoder.

    Respectfully,
    Elizabeth Jones

    Elizabeth Jones
  • January 28, 2014

    My family is landowners in the area near Atwood and Arthur Illinois being considered for a high tension high voltage overhead power line. I am writing reflect my support for the proposed PDM/CFT route. I oppose the alternative route being proposed by MCPO that would run through Douglas and Piatt Counties. The PDM/CFT route has been properly vetted in the communities it would run through. It will require an overall lower cost to construct, and will be less disruptive to local farms including those owned by Amish citizens in our area.

    I strongly urge you to support the administrative law judge ruling and approve use of the PDM/CFT route for this project.

    Sincerely,

    Kent A. Hammerstrom

    Kent Hammerstrom
  • January 28, 2014

    We concur with the conclusion by Administrative Law Judges John D. Albers and Stephen Yoder that the preferable route for the line segment from Mt. Zion to Kansas is that by PDM/CFT with ICC Staff’s modification. In addition to this route being shorter, much less expensive to construct, affecting fewer land owners, having better social and land use impact and better utilizing existing corridors, it seems logical that this shorter line with fewer towers will also result in much lower maintenance cost over the life of this project.

    We encourage the ICC commissioners to also concur with the ALJ’s conclusion.

    Deanna & Neil McDonald

    R. Neil McDonald
  • January 27, 2014

    Please red the Farm Focus in the Journal Gazette & Times Courier about the Sesquincentennial farm that the Illinois River Project Ameren high voltage power lines are going to destroy. This 180 year old farm was in operation the same year the Lincoln's built a cabin in Lerna, IL and predates any Amish settlement. Did you know that there are more Amish settlements in the are you will be re-routing the power lines through, than in Douglas County. Maybe you should take a drive through both routes and see the drastic differences. Please read the article about the farm you will destroy in the farm focus at www.jg-tc.com or direct link to: http://jg-tc.com/news/farm_focus/tug-of-war-continues-over-power-line-route/article_5f7ceed6-0c39-54ef-ac1e-a7fa144dc7a3.html
    Kim Ross
  • January 27, 2014

    Please keep these high voltage power lines OUT of Coles County! We don't want them! This is upsetting to say the least!
    Melissa Lumpp
  • January 27, 2014

    I want to thank the ALJ 's (Albers & Yoder) for making a great decision in choosing the PDM/CFT route over the MCPO route! The PDM/CFT route clearly makes much more sense impacting far less people, impacting far less farm land,and costing far less money to build and maintain these are just a few of the reasons why the MCPO route makes absolutely no sense!
    So I just ask the commissioners to make a common sense decision and choose the PDM/CFT route.
    Thank you! Gary Schlabach

    Gary Schlabach
  • January 24, 2014

    I think Judges Albers and Yoder have made a sound decision in stating the Commission believes the preferable route is the PDM/CFT Route with Staff's modification. They cited four critical factors which favor the PDM/CFT Route with Staff's modification being cost, length, social and land use impacts, and the presence of existing corridors.
    I encourage the ICC Commissioners to likewise reach the sound conclusion provided by Judge Albers and Yoder.
    Respectfully, Howard kamm

    howard kamm
  • January 24, 2014

    As a land owner in douglas county, I am concerned about the MCPO route running through piatt and douglas counties. I think this route was put together in a short amount of time, and I don't believe there could have been enough time to do a proper study on the impacts it would have on the land and surrounding area and towns. I think the PDM/CFT route is a much better option. It is shorter,less expensive to build,cuts through less property and takes advantage of amerens original primary route which has been properly studied and investigated.

    Thank you for your time.
    Jeff Lee

    Jeff
  • January 22, 2014

    It is really upseting how Ameren is sitting back and watching one county try to throw the other county under the bus and waste time and efforts fighting each other instead of fighting to stop this line. Their strategy has always been to throw out scraps of meat and let the dogs fight each other and not them. As far as following roads they told me they will have to stay at least 75 feet from the roads right of way so that puts the line out into the fields. as far as property lines who decides which side of the line or which person loses ? Also did you notice that one of the judges last name was Yoder? How many Yoders do see in Douglas County, A lot! We have what was a indian site on the Coles county / Morgan township site too, we have bald eagle nesting sites, cell towers, homes and farms that have been in the family for 180 years in the path of this line. We may not be Amish but we are just as important. Please just stop this line!
    brad morgan
  • January 22, 2014

    I have a child that I spent a whole year in the hospital with. He was diagnosed with neroblastoma cancer stage 3 stage 4 being the worst. Would like to see the high voltage lines go some where else besides my back yard. They cause cancer and there is all kinds of info out there why they do. Please be courteous of the people that surround the area you are putting these in at.
    Dwight Tell
  • January 22, 2014

    As a landowner in Douglas County I am voicing my support for the ALJ's conclusion that the perfered Route for case
    #12-0598 is the PDM/CFT Route.
    My reasons for supporting this route are based on the following facts:
    1-The PDM/CFT Route is 9 miles shorter than the MCPO Route
    2-The PDM/CFT Route is $17,000,000.00 cheaper than the MCPO Route
    3- The PDM/CFT Route follows roadways and property lines and the MCPO Route cuts through the middle of prime farm fields.
    4- The PDM/CFT Route has 50 less structures (towers) than the MCPO Route making it much cheaper to build and maintain.
    5- The MCPO Route destroyes a registered pristine archaeological site.
    I urge the commissioners to make the right choice and support the ALJ's decision.

    Thank you for your time.
    Terry Schlabach

    Terry Schlabach
  • January 22, 2014

    Please keep this line out of Coles county. We are very upset that the secondary route across Coles county is being considered again. We thought it was settled and was going through Douglas county and we let our guard down. I understand them not wanting it either. WE DO NOT WANT IT EITHER! TO MANY ACRES OF PRIME FARM GROUND AND TO AND TO MANY HOMES WILL BE RUINED.
    brenda morgan
  • January 22, 2014

    I support the administrative law judges recommendation of the PDM-CFT route. If you draw a straght line from the Mt Zion substation to Kansas on a map along with the MCPO and the PDM-CFT routes and ask a bunch of Gieco kid actors which route more closely follows the straight line to Kansas ten out of ten kids will pick the PDM-CFT route. I encourage the commissioners to do the same.
    Douglas county landowner: Larry Schlabach

    Larry Schlabach
  • January 22, 2014

    I am Jan Lommele, a retired actuary form a professional services firm and former visiting professor of actuarial science and statistics at the University of Illinois. I own a farm in the Atwood area. I think Judges Albers and Yoder have made a sound decision in stating "the Commission believes the preferable route is the PDF/CFT Route with Staff's modification". They cited four critical factors which favor the PDM/CFT Route with Staff's modification; those being cost, length, social and land use impacts, and presence of existing corridors. I believe that they correctly observed that there has been "confusion" regarding the factors that quantifies the number of houses and other buildings impacted by each proposed route. Based on my professional experience of 40 years, one cannot reach a conclusion on this factor, which is materially in error.

    I encourage the ICC Commissioners to likewise reach the sound conclusion provided by Judges Albers and Yoder.

    Respectfully, Jan Lommele FCAS, MAAA, FCA, retired

    Jan Lommele
  • January 22, 2014

    I object to the proposed route through Douglas and Piatt counties. I am a property owner along the Douglas county route and I was never given an opportunity to voice my opinion or know about the planned route until a preliminary decision was made and published. Below are items that I would like th commission to consider when making the final decision.
    ? The PDM/CFT route is the “least cost” and outperforms the MCPO route on 11 of 12 known factors.
    ? The MCPO route is over 9 miles longer and would cost $17 million more than the PDM/CFT route.
    ? The MCPO route includes 50 more towers and spans than the PDM/CFT route, thereby increasing construction and maintenance costs, visual and environmental impacts, and the danger to the public.
    ? The MCPO route splits 103 family farms (4x the PDM/CFT route!) by placing these massive towers and high-voltage lines right through the middle of cultivated fields for over 27 miles! In stark contrast, the PDM/CFT route reflects public input by attempting to follow roads, section lines, and property lines.
    ? The MCPO route would run massive high-voltage lines unnecessarily close to multiple towns (1/4 - 1/2 mile).
    ? NO public forums or public meetings have ever been held in connection with the MCPO route.
    ? In contrast, the PDM/CFT route follows Ameren’s original, properly vetted routes, which Ameren spent years studying, reviewing, publicizing and refining based on feedback from multiple public meetings.
    ? The MCPO route would include SIX 90° turns in just over 2 miles while crossing over US 36 and the Arthur Road into the historic Amish Community and would forever destroy the area’s beautiful, rural sight lines.
    ? The PDM/CFT route aligns with the interests of every intervening party in this rehearing, except MCPO.
    ? In contrast, over 500 individual Intervenors from every community across the 70+ mile MCPO route have formally recorded their opposition to it; that is over 10X the number of people who support the MCPO route.
    ? The MCPO route travels miles off course to the north and impacts 40% more cropland.
    ? The MCPO route, with its massive towers, runs directly across the historic Amish community, right through a registered Native American archeological site, and right next to the widely used Tuscola airport—which is a training site for over 91 University of Illinois Flight School students.
    Please stop the MCPO route which is currently under consideration. It is not the best option.
    Thank you,
    Chuck Holmes

    Charles Holmes
  • January 21, 2014

    January 21, 2014

    As land owners in Douglas county Illinois, we are writing about ICC case #12-0598, the proposed Ameren/ATXI transmission line through Piatt and Douglas counties.

    We support the Commissions proposed second order on rehearing and the PDM/CFT (Channon) route. The PDM/CFT is the least-cost route, affects fewer property owners and preserves the beautiful and historic Amish country.

    We oppose the miles longer, far more expensive and far more destructive MCPO route.

    Respectfully,
    John and Mary Burgett

    1725 E County Road 875 N
    Camargo, Illinois 61919

    John Burgett & Mary Burgett
  • January 21, 2014

    We are pleased that you have chosen the PDM/CFT route instead of the longer and more expensive MCPO route. Thank you.
    Curt Cannon
  • January 21, 2014

    Thank you Administrative Law Judges
    John D. Albers
    Stephen Yoder

    for making a common sense decision. I hope the ICC follows your lead.

    Bibby Appleby

    Bibby Appleby
  • January 21, 2014

    Dear Commissioners,

    I am writing in support of the PDM/CFT (Channon) route. I am a farmer, land owner, taxpayer, and Ameren rate payer that will be directly affected by the MCPO route. The PMD/CFT route is 9 miles shorter, 17 million dollars less expensive, and attempts to follow roads and property lines. The MCPO route is nothing more than a line drawn on a map that pushes this project out of Moultrie County and in to Piatt and Douglas Counties. The MCPO route makes no considerations for property lines, cost, distance, or just plain old common since.

    As a farmer, we are taught at a very young age to protect the land. I do not believe that constructing towers in the middle of fields and splitting farms with transmission lines is the right thing to do for us and future generations.

    I strongly encourage you to support the PDM/CFT route and oppose the MCPO route.

    Thank you.

    Joshua Lieb
  • January 21, 2014

    To Whom It May Concern,

    We would like to voice our support for the Commission's proposed second order on rehearing of Case No. 12-0598. We, also, strongly voice our support for the recommended PDM/CFT route for the Ameren high voltage line due to the following facts:
    1. The PDM/CFT route is more cost effective, costing $17 million less than the proposed MCPO route.
    2. The PDM/CFT route is a 9 mile shorter route.
    3. The PDM/CFT route uses 50 less towers than the MCPO route.

    Thank you for your time.

    Charles and Diane Anderson

    Charles and Diane Anderson
  • January 21, 2014

    I wish to support the PDM/CFT route that the Administrative Judges supported on Friday. I oppose the MCPO route which is 9 miles longer, $17 millions dollars more costly, splits 103 family farms, impacts 40% more cropland, more communities, more property owners, would impact the Tuscola Airport where U of I students use, and would impact the Arthur Amish countryside crossing route 36 two times. Again I support the PDM/CFT route and oppose the MCPO route.
    Tom Wilson
  • January 21, 2014

    I want the Commissioners to support the Administrative Law Judges decision supporting the PDM/CFT route. This opposes the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt County. The MCPO route is more costly, would destroy the beautiful gateway to the Amish countryside, and closer to more communities.
    Janice Wilson
  • January 21, 2014

    Illinois Commerce Commission

    As. landowner and Farmer in six counties in East Central Illinois I would like to make my position known that I oppose the construction of the proposed Ameren Tranmission line.

    The following are my reasons:

    The line will devalue the property it crosses.
    The line will pose problems and interrupt farming practices.
    The line will take up valuable farm ground needed for food production.
    The line is not cost effective.
    The line has not been studied as was in its crossing Moultrie County.
    The line appears to not use Common Sense in its route and cost.
    The line will split farm fields as it randomly crosses the countryside.
    The line will impact the environment.
    The line will limit future growth opportunities in our Amish Area.
    The people of downstate Illinois are feed up with Politics dictating their future!!
    Consider your feelings if it was crossing your home, your farms and livelihood.
    Consider the number of families that oppose the line crossing their counties.

    Again as an Illinois Citizen, Father, Husbnd, Grandfather and Farmer I ask that the Commision reconsider the best route for the Ameren Line. It is my dream that future generations will be able to be productive Agriculuralists and have the same opportunity that I have had to help feed the world in a productive and safe environment.

    Very Truly Yours,

    Michael D Green

    Michael D Green
  • January 17, 2014

    I am opposed to the new high voltage electric service line route. It will cost the tax payers of Illinois extra millions of dollars to run it north and then back south again for termination.

    It will run east and west 1/4 mile south of our home. We depend on internet service from atop the grain elevator in LaPlace and are worried that the line will interfere with our service. We run an internet business and rely on constant service from the provider.

    I find it deplorable that some farmers were allowed to change the most direct route for their own benefit to the detriment of other farmers and homeowners.

    This line will also run across ancient, protected Native American encampments.

    Judith T. Gash
  • January 17, 2014

    Sirs:

    You are aware of the many weighty reasons that MCPO plan re Ameren high voltage lines should revert to the original areas rather than chop up and destroy many farms, threaten and forever destroy the safe inhabitation of many homesteads, and to an unacceptable degree, ruin/complicate the farming businesses of many more farmers than is acceptable.

    I am writing for myself as well as my fellow owners of the HVK Family Farm Trust, which would be unnecessarily greatly harmed by the MCPO plan which was rapidly thrown together without any rational thought.

    Besides, MCPO has the huge increase in unnecessary structures, expenses, and the many more miles involved.

    Thank you for your sensible consideration of this matter.

    Edna Kuhns
  • January 15, 2014

    Hi, I am Gary Schlabach,
    I own a farm in Douglas County, and I am strongly opposed to the MCPO proposed route running through Piatt and Douglas County! There are numerous reasons as to why this route should not even be considered but to me some of the most glaring reason are:
    The MCPO will cost millions of dollars more to build and maintain, as a rate payer and a tax payer it would be greatly appreciated if our government body would quit throwing money around like we have it to throw around, common sense tells me we need to start being a little more thrifty in this great State and Nation !!!
    The MCPO will unnecessarily impact many more people then the Channon/staff routes: if it is necessary to run these obnoxiously huge power lines through this peaceful prairie why would anyone with any common sense unnecessarily run 9 miles out of the way to get this thing to it's destination? Destroying many more acres of farm ground, and causing unnecessary adverse environmental impacts!
    The MCPO route clearly does not make any sense to anyone with any common sense!

    Gary L Schlabach
  • January 15, 2014

    Will justice prevail? The people of Illinois do not want this proposed transmission line devaluating and destroying our homes and farmland! The FERC money would be better spent if they changed their line of thinking. Help the states where the power would be destined develop local power sources. But, if FERC is determined to proceed, then it should not be the MCPO route through PIatt and Douglas counties. As Chapin Rose stated, "It is flat out wrong to support a project that the ICC's own unbiased staff concludes should be denied. Given FERC 's outrageous 12.38per cent guaranteed return on equity for Ameren, there is no incentive whatsoever to build small or efficient transmigration-and that assumes that all of this is needed in the first place." Will justice prevail? We shall soon see.
    Glen and Carol Myers
  • January 14, 2014

    I oppose having the line in Piatt Douglas County. The Channon Staff Route is costly and more of a straight line. Why do you want to come thru Piatt Douglas and make many miles more. Also It is much more costly. I don't understand.
    Also I own the land and pay taxes on it. This line you re prposing will de-value my propery. Hsow would you like to have something like the line go thru your property?
    Also this would stop the aerial spraing of the crops for fungus. Our farmequipment is very large and it would be diffult to farm.
    Think what you would do if this was you.
    Pick the Channon Staff route

    Robert I Corman

    Robert I Corman
  • January 14, 2014

    My name is Lloyd A. Murphy. I am a lifelong resident of Douglas and Piatt Counties. I am the fifth generation of a family that has been engaged in farming in this area since the first half of the nineteenth century. I am President of Tuscola National Bank, a community bank founded by Douglas County farmers and merchants in 1890. For the past 30 years I have volunteered in economic development on the city, county, regional, and state level.

    I am opposed to construction of this 345,000-volt transmission line. The public record presents no convincing evidence that justifies placing a permanent burden of this magnitude on thousands of acres of the most productive farmland in the world. The damage goes beyond the physical limits of the easements when 100 family farms are cut up by structures that will be in place until the end of time.

    If this transmission line is to be constructed, I oppose its construction along the alternate route proposed by the Moultrie County Property Owners group. There is substantial evidence that their alternate proposal contains factual inaccuracies that make it even less desirable than it appears on its face. Both the route recommended by staff and the alternate route known as the Channon Trust route place a substantially lower burden on the land and residents of Central Illinois, at a cost that appears to be at least $17 million less. There are so many well-reasoned comments on the public record, I will not take the Commission's time by duplicating that information. I refer you to the comments of Jan Lommele, in particular, which coincide with my own conclusions.

    Lloyd A. Murphy
  • January 14, 2014

    I support the Channon and Staff routes and OPPOSE the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties. The MCPO route will ruin our family farm and will leave poor farming practices as the only choice for our children as they inherit the land. Our land is near Oakland Illinois and appears to be directly under the path of the MCPO route. We do not feel that our family should suffer monetary loss and the loss of the use of our land.
    Terrance R. Bassett
  • January 14, 2014

    I would like to express my strong opposition to the MCPO route proposed by Ameren Electric. It is inconceivable to me that this route would even be under consideration . The MCPO route is longer, costs more money, adversely affects more prime farm ground, comes closer to more towns therefore negatively impacting the lives and well being of more Illinois citizens and seems rather frivolous compared to the original Channon/Staff route. If you look at the map showing the two proposed routes you see that the general direction of the proposed line is Southeast. Why then would you go North and add many miles of extra lines, extra towers, extra corners and extra acres of prime farmland destroyed? It does not make any sense for Ameren to consider the MCPO route unless FOR SOME REASON THEY WANT TO SPEND MORE MONEY. Please do the right thing and reject the MCPO route as an inherently bad idea.

    Respectfully yours;
    Wayne Coykendall

    wayne coykendall
  • January 14, 2014

    I own land in Piatt and Douglas County. I oppose this route for several reason. 1. We buy the land and pay the taxes on it. How would you feel if I came thru your property and destroyed the value of it? This will de-value our property. 2. We use aerialspraying and this woul forbid it. How are we going to control the fungus in the crop that we are use to spraying. 3. What benefit is this plan for us? 4. Why go a lot more miles and a lot more costly? I was taught that the shortest distance between point two point is a straight line.

    I take it, that none of you own any ground. How would you like dit, if I decided to come thdru your property?

    Why are being punished for owning ground and paying taxes on it, Thenyou come thru and de-value our property?

    Thank-you
    Marlene

    Marlene K. Corman
  • January 14, 2014

    First and foremost, the Channon/Staff routes are “the least cost“ and they clearly outperform the MCPO route on 11 of the 12 known factors the ICC is supposed to use to decide this case. (One factor remains undetermined based on unreliable data.)
    In regard to the deciding factors, the MCPO route is over 9 miles longer than the Channon/Staff routes.
    The MCPO route would cost $17 million more to construct than the Channon/Staff routes, which represents more Illinois waste that will either be passed on to Illinois ratepayers and/or all of us as taxpayers.
    The MCPO route would include 50 more towers and spans than the Channon/Staff routes, thereby increasing maintenance and construction costs, environmental and visual impacts, damage to property and area property values, the chance for weather-related outages, and danger to the public..
    The MCPO route splits 103 family farms (4x the Channon/Staff routes!) by placing these massive towers and high-voltage lines right through the middle of cultivated field after cultivated field for over 27 miles! In stark contrast, the Channon/Staff routes reflect public input by attempting to follow roads, section lines, and property lines.
    The MCPO route would place these massive towers and high-voltage lines unnecessarily close to multiple towns (within 1/4 to 1/2 mile in several cases), negatively impacting property values, community aesthetics, and future community growth and development.
    The MCPO route would include SIX 90° zigzagging turns in just over 2 miles while crossing over US 36 and the Arthur Road into the Amish Community. Running these massive high-voltage towers and lines through the Amish Community would be devastating to this unique, historic area and would forever destroy the area’s beautiful, rural sight lines, which annually draw visitors from around the globe.
    Regarding opposition, over 500 individual Intervenors representing communities across the 70+ mile MCPO route have formally added their names to the Intervenor petition opposing the MCPO route.
    Those 500+ Intevenors represent over 10 times the number of people who are supporting the MCPO route, and now it is time for those 500 Intervenors to make their voices heard by posting a comment to the ICC site and writing the ICC Commissioners.
    In contrast to the MCPO route, the Channon/Staff routes align with the interests of every intervening party in this rehearing (except for MCPO), and based on the lower cost of the Channon/Staff routes, Illinois ratepayers would benefit from them as well.
    The MCPO route travels miles off course to the north and negatively impacts 40% more cropland, more property owners, and far more communities, including Mt. Zion, LaPlace, Casner, Hammond, Pierson Station, Atwood, Tuscola, Camargo, Newman, and Oakland, among others.
    The MCPO route, with its massive towers, runs directly across the historic Amish community, right through a registered Native American archaeological site, and right next to the widely used Tuscola airport, increasing the danger to local pilots and over 91 University of Illinois Flight School students who use the airport as a training site.
    The MCPO route would also require the clearing of forest land along the Lake Fork, Kaskaskia, and Embarras Rivers, and it crosses 19 more streams than the Channon/Staff routes, causing even more damage to the ecosystem.
    Looking back, the MCPO route through Piatt and Douglas Counties was developed in less than three weeks and submitted by SIX Moultrie County property owners.
    In addition, NO public forums or public meetings have ever been held in connection with the MCPO route.
    In stark contrast, the Channon/Staff routes follow Ameren’s original, properly vetted routes through Moultrie County, which Ameren spent years studying, reviewing, publicizing, and refining based on feedback from multiple public forums and a review of 32 different geographic sensitivities.
    As a final piece of evidence displaying how far off course the MCPO route travels, Ameren (the petitioner in this case) has never developed, submitted, or proposed any routes through Piatt and Douglas Counties, and Douglas and Piatt Counties were not even included in Ameren’s formal petition to the ICC!
    **And as you can see by your petition above - no where does it state that it effects Douglas County!** Please rethink!

    Marci Shoemaker
  • January 14, 2014

    The proposed MCPO route through Piatt and Douglas counties is a very indirect and non-efficient route. This will translate into excessive and unnecessary costs which will be passed on to Ameren's customers and the taxpayers of Illinois. Please reject this route. Thank you.
    Curt Cannon
  • January 14, 2014

    Please consider the negative effects of the MCPO proposed route now and on into the future. The MCPO route will cost $17 million more to put up and more each year to maintain. This will cost all customers more in the long run. The MCPO route is a hasty porposal without proper due dilegance by Ameren. This route needs to have all the studies and open to public meetings to best serve the people of Illionis. The MCPO route is a back door proposal that is in violation of the public trust that we must have in the ICC. If the well thought out ATXI/Channon route can be disgraded so easliy by a simple three week alternative the whole HIGH-Volatage Power line across Illinois is a bad idea that needs to be scrapped all togother.
    The people of Douglas and Piatt counties are counting on the ICC to do the right thing and repesent the best intrest of all the people not a select few. Please either approve your orginal well thought out open to the public route ATXI/Channon or vote no for the line crossing Illinois anywhere. If it is bad for some of Illinois residents it is bad for all.

    James Yoder
  • January 14, 2014

    I oppose the longer and more expensive MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt counties for same reasons I listed last July on this site. I am one of the nonexistent 500 that was denied due process last year at this time. I again noticed the more recent notices from ICC still do not list Douglas County as one of the impacted counties. In addition to all the facts presented at the recent hearings:
    1. As a local elected official I attended the Ameren public meeting that began 2 years ago come April. At that meeting I openly questioned the construction of a transmission grid before a realistic generating system was identified and constructed. Information that was to be mailed to me to address that question never arrived.
    2. The rural Midwest, electric ratepayers through our rural electric COOPs proactively participated and then paid dearly to share in the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant for future, dependable, plentiful,& clean energy. Is it right that we now help pay for the east coast renewable fuel mandate?
    3. The fact that FERC designed themselves a program that rewards their respective companies for spending the most possible rate payer money on construction should be paramount concern to state elected and appointed officials.

    Steve Jurgens
  • January 14, 2014

    Hon. Commissioners,

    We live in Edgar County. The recent heavy snow and high winds left huge snowdrifts along our fence rows demonstrating their usefulness. Ameren would like to remove these fence rows. We have owned a dozer for 40 years. These fence rows need to remain and perform their green job of controlling erosion. Some of these majestic white oaks are as old as our nation. The power line to transport wind energy is not green at all. This inefficient, federally subsidized, form of energy only serves to put green in the pockets of few while taking it from the pockets of many. How can it be efficient to transport this energy across our state? Please do not allow this line to be built.

    Respectfully,

    Vern See

    Vern See
  • January 14, 2014

    Please stop the Piatt/Douglas Re-route. We are property owners effected by this transmission line. Here are a few reasons why this transmission line should go through Piatt and Douglas County.

    First and foremost, the Channon/Staff routes are “the least cost“ and they clearly outperform the MCPO route on 11 of the 12 known factors the ICC is supposed to use to decide this case. (One factor remains undetermined based on unreliable data.)
    In regard to the deciding factors, the MCPO route is over 9 miles longer than the Channon/Staff routes.
    The MCPO route would cost $17 million more to construct than the Channon/Staff routes, which represents more Illinois waste that will either be passed on to Illinois ratepayers and/or all of us as taxpayers.
    The MCPO route would include 50 more towers and spans than the Channon/Staff routes, thereby increasing maintenance and construction costs, environmental and visual impacts, damage to property and area property values, the chance for weather-related outages, and danger to the public..
    The MCPO route splits 103 family farms (4x the Channon/Staff routes!) by placing these massive towers and high-voltage lines right through the middle of cultivated field after cultivated field for over 27 miles! In stark contrast, the Channon/Staff routes reflect public input by attempting to follow roads, section lines, and property lines.
    The MCPO route would place these massive towers and high-voltage lines unnecessarily close to multiple towns (within 1/4 to 1/2 mile in several cases), negatively impacting property values, community aesthetics, and future community growth and development.
    The MCPO route would include SIX 90° zigzagging turns in just over 2 miles while crossing over US 36 and the Arthur Road into the Amish Community. Running these massive high-voltage towers and lines through the Amish Community would be devastating to this unique, historic area and would forever destroy the area’s beautiful, rural sight lines, which annually draw visitors from around the globe.
    Regarding opposition, over 500 individual Intervenors representing communities across the 70+ mile MCPO route have formally added their names to the Intervenor petition opposing the MCPO route.
    Those 500+ Intevenors represent over 10 times the number of people who are supporting the MCPO route, and now it is time for those 500 Intervenors to make their voices heard by posting a comment to the ICC site and writing the ICC Commissioners.
    In contrast to the MCPO route, the Channon/Staff routes align with the interests of every intervening party in this rehearing (except for MCPO), and based on the lower cost of the Channon/Staff routes, Illinois ratepayers would benefit from them as well.
    The MCPO route travels miles off course to the north and negatively impacts 40% more cropland, more property owners, and far more communities, including Mt. Zion, LaPlace, Casner, Hammond, Pierson Station, Atwood, Tuscola, Camargo, Newman, and Oakland, among others.
    The MCPO route, with its massive towers, runs directly across the historic Amish community, right through a registered Native American archaeological site, and right next to the widely used Tuscola airport, increasing the danger to local pilots and over 91 University of Illinois Flight School students who use the airport as a training site.
    The MCPO route would also require the clearing of forest land along the Lake Fork, Kaskaskia, and Embarras Rivers, and it crosses 19 more streams than the Channon/Staff routes, causing even more damage to the ecosystem.
    Looking back, the MCPO route through Piatt and Douglas Counties was developed in less than three weeks and submitted by SIX Moultrie County property owners.
    In addition, NO public forums or public meetings have ever been held in connection with the MCPO route.
    In stark contrast, the Channon/Staff routes follow Ameren’s original, properly vetted routes through Moultrie County, which Ameren spent years studying, reviewing, publicizing, and refining based on feedback from multiple public forums and a review of 32 different geographic sensitivities.
    As a final piece of evidence displaying how far off course the MCPO route travels, Ameren (the petitioner in this case) has never developed, submitted, or proposed any routes through Piatt and Douglas Counties, and Douglas and Piatt Counties were not even included in Ameren’s formal petition to the ICC!
    So please consider stopping the re-routing of this transmission line through PIATT/DOUGLAS Counties. Thank you.

    Danny & Linda Jent
    Property owners in Douglas County

    Danny & Linda Jent
  • January 14, 2014

    Dear ICC:
    We support the Channon and Staff routes and OPPOSE the MCPO route through Douglas and Piatt Counties.

    The Channon Staff routes:
    are the least cost and clearly outperform the MCPO route on 11 of the 12 known factors the ICC is supposed to use to decide this case;

    will cost $17 million less;

    will break up 103 fewer family farms;

    will have 50 fewer towers and spans;

    will follow the original, properly vetted routes through Moultrie County, which Ameren spent years studying, reviewing, publicizing, and refining based on feedback from multiple public forums and a review of 32 different geographic sensitivities (Ameren NEVER developed, submitted, or proposed ANY routes through Piatt and Douglas Counties, and Douglas and Piatt Counties were not even included in Ameren's formal petition to the ICC!

    Please OPPOSE the MCPO route and support the Channon and Staff route.

    Respectfully,
    Max and Donna Zollers

    Max and Donna Zollers
  • January 14, 2014

    The turning, meandrous MCPO route is absurd. The length of the MCPO route is excessive and thus, it requires an excessive number of towers. The route advanced by the MCPO negatively impacts more communities and land than necessary to accomplish the power transmission. Because the MCPO route is off course, longer than necessary, and extraordinarily more expensive, destructive, and wasteful than appropriate alternatives, it should be rejected.

    The MCPO route violates a basic farming maxim, i.e. you do not throw something off onto your neighbor's property. Via their suggested route, the MCPO is attempting to do just that to the property owners of Piatt and Douglas counties.

    I object to the MCPO route on the most strenuous of terms. I support selection of either the Channon or the Staff route.



    Douglas C. Kamm
  • January 9, 2014

    My name is Butch Fisher, retired Resource Conservationist from Douglas County Soil and water conservation District. We have the Best Soil in the World to produce food. The MCPO shows that there will be 245+ acres more effected by their route over the Channon/Staff routes. The problem is that these acres will produce less, due to compaction of the soil, which would reduce yields by 50% over 10 years which means there will be over 26,960 bushel of grain lost for ever. With the world population getting larger and larger we need all the food we can produce.
    The MCPO route makes TWO 90degree turns in the middle of a producing land so it can go around a Cemetery, that would cost more and more lost production.
    There will also be more lost of habit for wild animals and birds, which we need more not less.
    Also the MCPO route goes though the Forth Largest Old Order Amish community in the Untied States. This Old Order Amish do Not believe in electricity!
    The MCPO route goes though a native American Archaeological site registered with the University of Illinois Archaeological Survey.
    It appears that the MCPO route has no consideration of Religion or our Native Heritage
    Then the MCPO route goes 135FT. Of a VIETMAN VETERAN'S HOME.
    I would therefore recommend that the Channon/Staff route be the final route for this Project.

    Butch Fisher, RC, Representative on the NRCS State Technical Committee, ERMA Director, School Board President, Retired,

    Butch Fisher
  • January 9, 2014

    I have several reasons why I am opposed to the power line across Edgar County and in particular across our property.
    Ameren did not give us due notice or due process in order for us to take part in the process of approval of the line. While we had heard about a line going south across Clark and maybe even southern Edgar County, it wasn't until September of 2012 that we received any personal notice of our property being involved. If we had had proper notice that they wanted to split our property with a power line of this magnitude we would have been at every public meeting held.
    Also Ameren hasn't even attempted to use the best route. With some more work, even if they wanted to cross in this area, which by the way isn't the shortest or most direct route (the most convoluted of all routes proposed that we have since heard about), but if they wanted to go this way, they could take the time to route the line to be least invasive and away from homes, etc. In our area just a couple small changes would save property values and demand less from owners, etc... but then that would save money and Ameren has a lot to spend and to make in the process by lengthened and doing 90% angles, etc.
    The easement offers financially and legally need adjustments. With the amount of money Ameren is spending on the project, they need to offer more money and also pay for destruction and loss of trees, etc. The easements are ridiculous in giving them over bearing access to entire properties, too much initial construction easement that they can level, and forever is too long a time. And I could go on and on.
    Send the power line down the I-70 corridor. Better yet, allow the States to develop their natural resources again (fossil fuels, etc.)
    We have eagles beginning to inhabit our area and the power line will may be a hindrance to their nesting capabilities as well.
    If we have the opportunity I could allow my 13 year old grandson to look at the map and draw a better, more cost effective, less invasive, and proper route for the line.
    Thank you,
    Jack Hoffman (awaiting due process)

    Jack D. Hoffman
  • January 9, 2014

    ICC,
    Please please please read every word of this. First and foremost, the Channon/Staff routes are “the least cost“ and they clearly outperform the MCPO route on 11 of the 12 statutory factors the ICC is supposed to use to decide this case.
    In regard to the deciding factors, the MCPO route is over 9 miles longer than the Channon/Staff routes.
    The MCPO route would cost $17 million more to construct than the Channon/Staff routes.
    The MCPO route would include 50 more towers and spans than the Channon/Staff routes, thereby increasing maintenance costs, environmental and visual impacts, damage to property, the chance for weather-related outages, and danger to the public.
    The MCPO route splits 103 family farms (4x the Channon/Staff routes!) by placing these massive towers and high-voltage lines right through the middle of cultivated field after cultivated field for over 27 miles! In stark contrast, the Channon/Staff routes reflect public input by attempting to follow roads, section lines, and property lines.
    The MCPO route would place these massive towers and high-voltage lines unnecessarily close to multiple towns (within 1/4 to 1/2 mile in several cases), negatively impacting property values, community aesthetics, and future community growth and development.
    The MCPO route would include SIX 90° turns in just over 2 miles while crossing over US 36 and the Arthur Road into the Amish Community. Running these massive high-voltage towers and lines through the gateway to the Amish Community would be devastating to this unique, historic area and would forever destroy the area’s beautiful, rural sight lines, which annually draw visitors from around the globe.
    Regarding opposition, over 500 individual Intervenors representing communities across the 70+ mile MCPO route have formally recorded their opposition to the MCPO route with the ICC.
    Those 500+ Intevenors represent over 10 times the number of people who are supporting the MCPO route.
    In contrast, the Channon/Staff routes align with the interests of every intervening party in this rehearing (except for MCPO), and based on the lower cost of the Channon/Staff routes, Ameren and Illinois ratepayers would benefit from them as well.
    The MCPO route travels miles off course to the north and negatively impacts more cropland, more property owners, and far more communities.
    The MCPO route, with its massive towers, runs directly across the historic Amish community, right through a registered Native American archeological site, and right next to the widely used Tuscola airport, which is used as a training site for over 91 University of Illinois Flight School students.
    Looking back, the MCPO route through Piatt and Douglas Counties was developed by SIX Moultrie County property owners in less than three weeks, and NO public forums or public meetings have ever been held in connection with the MCPO route.
    In stark contrast, the Channon/Staff routes follow Ameren’s original, properly vetted routes through Moultrie County, which Ameren spent years studying, reviewing, publicizing, and refining based on feedback from multiple public forums and a review of 32 different geographic sensitivities.
    As an additional outrage and as a final piece of evidence displaying how far off course the MCPO route travels, Piatt and Douglas Counties were never even selected by Ameren as project routing sites, and they were not even included in Ameren’s formal petition to the ICC.kf7z8

    Elizabeth Jones
  • January 9, 2014

    I respectfully request that the ICC commission seriously reconsider the proposed MCPO route thru Douglas and Piatt Counties and make a financially responsible decision. The MCPO route is much longer than the original route thru Moultrie County. It is way off course, only to satisfy a handful of prominent Moultrie County landowners. It impacts more prime farmland, as well as more private residences. It is also dangerously too close to the Tuscola Airport. The facts are clear. I
    challenge you to make a responsible and ethical decision.
    Douglas property owner,
    Karen Perkins

    Karen Perkins
  • January 9, 2014

    I reject the proposed MCPO route and I would hope that the ICC would do the same.The Channon/Staff route are the least cost to ratepayers and outperform the MCPO route on all 12 of the statutory factors. The MCPO route would cost more and would include 50 more towers and spans than the Channon/Staff routes.The MCPO route would spilt more family farms and be unnecessarily close to multiple towns.Over 500 individual Intervenors representing communities across the 70+ mile MCPO route have formally recorded their opposition to the MCPO route with the ICC.The MCPO route was developed in less than 3 weeks with NO public forums or public meetings when ATXI spent years and millions of dollars studying, reviewing,refining based on feedback from the 32 different geographic sensitivities. If MCPO can plan this route so fast why didn't AXTI hire them to develop the entire route across ILLINOIS!Thank you very much for your time and hopefully the ICC will reject this MCPO route and select the Channon/Staff route.
    howard kamm
  • January 9, 2014

    My name is Tom Wilson and I want you to consider all the facts that were presented to you at the rehearing. Most important to all the people of the state of Illinois is the amount of $17,000,000.00 more it would cost for the MCPO route to be considered. 173 acres more for the MCPO, 50 towers, splits 103 family farms and concerns more property owners. The tourism in the Arthur Amish countryside would be financially hurt! As Bob Doan, the Arthur Economic Development Administrator, testified the Amish businesses would feel the loss of business. People come to the Arthur area for the beauty of the peaceful countryside not to see high voltage lines crossing RT. 36 twice! Route 36 is the doorstep to the village of Arthur and all the Amish citizens. Please consider all of this and especially the Amish when making your decision. Tom Wilson
    Tom Wilson
  • January 9, 2014

    I am opposed to the power line proposed to go through Douglas county. This alternative route proposed by MCPO is not logical as it adds distance and is an unnecessary expense. Also, citizens effected by this alternative route were not given the same notification and allocation for protest that was given to those effected by the original route. I ask tha you put a stop to the alternative route as it is not in the best interest of the residents in Douglas county.
    Hope Walker
  • January 9, 2014

    I am strongly opposed to the transmission line being forced though Douglas and Piatt counties by a poorly thought out and grossly wasteful plan outlined by MCPO. MCPO's only concern in this project is to simply avoid having it go across their property, which is the cheapest and most direct route for the line. I am hopeful that common sense and logic will win out in this project and the origional route Ameren proposed after years of study will be used to build the line.
    Leo Walker
  • January 9, 2014

    I am strongly opposed to the transmission line being forced though Douglas and Piatt counties by a poorly thought out and grossly wasteful plan outlined by MCPO. MCPO's only concern in this project is to simply avoid having it go across their property, which is the cheapest and most direct route for the line. I am hopeful that common sense and logic will win out in this project and the origional route Ameren proposed after years of study will be used to build the line.
    Timothy Walker
  • January 9, 2014

    I want to comment on the Piatt/Douglas highvoltage line. First of all thank you for the rehearing on this matter. As witnesses have testified to the effect this route would have on the Arthur Amish tourism business I hope you will consider the many Amish businesses that would be affected by this route. 500 intervenors have been listed opposing this route and I hope you would consider their opinions. We have had no public foum and this would affect multiple towns. This route would split family farms (103) and more croplands, property owners, and communities with the route through Piatt and Douglas Counties. Please take all of this into consideration before making your decision.
    Janice Wilson
  • January 9, 2014

    I am Jan Lommele. I am a retired Chief Actuary from one of the largest professional services firms in the world and have 40 years of experience in my field. One of the major responsibilities of my professional life was to review the highly technical work of others in a financial reporting context and provide state and federal regulatory opinions on the degree to which the work was done in accordance with professional standards. After retirement, I was a visiting professor at the University of Illinois where I taught actuarial science to students and graduate students. I am a fifth generation owner of a farm in the Atwood area which has been in the Lommele name since 1865.

    I am pleased to be able to comment on this case, and I appreciate the complex issues which the ICC needs to address to make their decision. I know many (about 500) parties are deeply concerned about the MCPO route, and the waste and unnecessary impact it presents. I hope these comments are helpful to the Commissioners. I know it takes a huge amount of time to be fully informed on these complex issues.

    It makes no sense for the MCPO line to run through a native American archaeological site registered with the University of Illinois Archaeological Survey.
    • The rehearing testimony showed unequivocally that the MCPO route is closer to and cuts through the historic Amish area and key access roads of Arthur than the Channon/Staff routes. Given the cultural attitudes of the Amish people, this is an adverse impact to a key historical area in the State of Illinois. Over 80 residents from the Arthur community area are members of the PDM group opposing the MCPO route (which has only xx members). In the ICC’s Final Order, it noted that affected communities and stakeholders had not intervened, and now there are over 500 parties from along the MCPO route who have intervened to show their opposition to the MCPO route.
    • B Doan, who manages the Arthur Amish Community Welcome Center, testified that the MCPO line would cut through the triangle of the Amish community (Arthur, Tuscola, and Arcola) and have a negative effect on tourism. To say the least, a 345kV line running through this area is a travesty for the appeal of an area that exhibits what life was like when life was simpler and we had less technology.
    • Dr. Emanuel, Director of the Aviation Institute at the University of Illinois, testified that the MCPO route would have an adverse impact on the Tuscola Airport for students and staff in the University’s aviation training program. Towers that are 80 to 140 feet tall and only about 2,000 feet from the runway would pose a potentially fatal hazard to students who are learning to control small airplanes.
    • On rehearing, MCPO admits that its route impacts more prime farmland than the Channon/Staff routes. Farmland in the PDM area is a valuable, diminishing resource in our country, and we cannot afford to unnecessarily take such land out of production. And, the MCPO route splits 103 farm properties, almost four times as many properties as the Channon/Staff routes. This will have an extremely adverse impact on sensitive and valuable agricultural land if the ICC allows the MCPO route to be constructed.
    • According to testimony, MCPO’s data shows that its route impacts 40% more farmland than the Channon/Staff routes.
    • Unreliable aerial data has been used to estimate the impact of the number of residences affected by the respective routes, and both sides (MCPO versus Channon/Staff) admit this. MCPO made a demonstrably false assertion that three schools were affected by the Channon/Staff route; they admitted there were errors in their data. The testimony showed that many residences on the MCPO route were missing from their assertions on the number of residences affected by the MCPO route. This is a factor which cannot be reliably determined and the indications should be viewed with limited if any weight. However, none of the routes requires the displacement of any home.
    • Eleven of twelve factors clearly favor the Channon and Staff routes over the MCPO route, and the one factor going the other way on residences impacted is based on unreliable data. It would seem that any ICC Commissioner who was reasonable in viewing the considerations could only conclude that the Channon/Staff route is a much better value for ratepayers’ money and the parties impacted than the MCPO route.

    If there were a potential argument that Illinois ratepayers should not be concerned about the money because they will not pay all of it, my response is "waste is waste" and how much trouble have we created in our country with the attitude "it's not my money"?

    Jan A Lommele, FCAS, MAAA, FCA, retired

    Jan Lommele
  • January 9, 2014

    I am Jan Lommele. I am a retired Chief Actuary from one of the largest professional services firms in the world and have 40 years of experience in my field. One of the major responsibilities of my professional life was to review the highly technical work of others in a financial reporting context and provide state and federal regulatory opinions on the degree to which the work was done in accordance with professional standards. After retirement, I was a visiting professor at the University of Illinois where I taught actuarial science to students and graduate students. I am a fifth generation owner of a farm in the Atwood area which has been in the Lommele name since 1865. I am pleased to be able to comment on this case, and I appreciate the complex issues which the ICC needs to address to make their decision. I know many (about 500) parties are deeply concerned about the MCPO route, and the waste and unnecessary impact it presents. I hope these comments are helpful to the Commissioners. I know it takes a huge amount of time to be fully informed on these complex issues.

    I respectfully request that the ICC Commissioners read and understand the testimony and case briefs, which are compelling in demonstrating that the MCPO route is a gross waste of ratepayers’ money, and creates additional unnecessary adverse impact over the Channon/Staff routes. The Channon/Staff routes should be selected and the MCPO line proposal should be abandoned. While there are many components of waste and downright selfish interests that go into the MCPO route, a few of the highlights of the components are bulleted below:
    • The MCPO route is 9.5 miles longer from substation option 1, unnecessarily wasting of ratepayers' money and causing unnecessary adverse environmental impacts
    • The MCPO route wastes ratepayers’ money as it costs $17 million more to construct than the Channon/Staff routes
    • The MCPO route travels 13.5 miles off course, 6.75 north and then 6.75 back south, causing additional unnecessary environmental impacts over the Channon/Staff routes
    • MCPO’s witness, R. Reinecke, testified that he had a route south of Route 36 which appeared to be better for a number of reasons, but MCPO never filed the more southerly route which would have gone through Moultrie County. It appears that MCPO simply wanted a route out of Moultrie County, and did not care about ratepayers’ waste or additional environmental impacts
    • An ATXI witness, D Kramer, testified that MCPO’s route was “primarily driven by a need to find a planning rationale to eliminate any route from traversing Moultrie County”
    • The MCPO route creates hazards by unnecessarily crossing Route 36 twice, crossing existing power lines, and running parallel and very close to other lines for over one fifth of the total distance. Testimony indicates that this can create problems for maintenance and create reliability issues such as a storm bringing down two lines at once.
    • ATXI stated in response to a data request that it did not develop routes to the north of Route 36 because that would require additional line length, which would increase cost and create a greater potential for impact. MCPO’s wasteful routing through Piatt and Douglas Counties is so far afield that the petition and case caption for the line construction do not even mention these two counties.
    • Because the MCPO route is over 9 miles longer, easements will have to be purchased for 173 more acres of land, which is an additional waste of ratepayers’ money and causes additional adverse environmental impacts.
    • A common sense view of the geography of the MCPO line indicates that it will cost more to maintain a line 9 miles longer than another over similar geography (which we have in this part of the country), and the testimony in the case does not indicate otherwise. This is a waste of ratepayers’ money.
    • More miles of line on the MCPO means more structures to build and more line to maintain, which ought to indicate to the ICC and ATXI that the MCPO route is a waste of resources.
    • The testimony indicates that from an engineering perspective, a longer line is less efficient than a shorter line, because there is less impedance.
    • It makes no sense for the MCPO line to run through a native American archaeological site registered with the University of Illinois Archaeological Survey.
    • I will continue in another comment.....
    Jan A Lommele, FCAS, MAAA, FCA, retired

    Jan Lommele
  • December 30, 2013

    My name is Daniel Smittkamp. I am a landowner, taxpayer and father of 2 young children. I am against the high voltage transmission line which Ameren has proposed to build through Edgar County.
    It is my belief that a better, and less destructive route can be found for this transmission line by following the existing interstate system. This proceedure is already in use by several other states.
    While the need for reliable energy is undoubted, the updating and improving of our current infrastructure should be the priority; not the further destruction of farmlands and our rural way of life.
    I respectfully ask that this Commission not allow this transmission line to proceed.

    Sincerly,
    Daniel D. Smittkamp

    Daniel D. Smittkamp
  • December 27, 2013

    Hon. Commissioners,

    My name is Tom Ogle. I come from a family of 10 childern. I was blessed to be raised on Jefferson Street and educated at St. Mary's Grade School.

    I always dreamed of being a cowboy. With a good job in town, I saved my money and bought a bare piece of ground when I was 23 years old. With a pair of leather gloves and help from God, I and my cows now turn green grass into steaks and hamburgers for everybody that eats beef.

    No privately owned transmission line company has the right to condemn my land, my home, my way of life and take what they need for a 12.38% return on investment.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My first notice from Ameren was a certified letter on September 10, 2013 stating a 345,000 volt power line was approved on August 20, 2013 by The Illinois Commerce Commission. A large percentage of affected homeowners and landowners are disturbed with Ameren's lack of transparency and ethics used by its employees and representatives during this expedited process.

    I have been wronged and no amount of money will replace due process, justice and truth.

    Oh, by the way, farmers and ranchers have been in the Green Energy Business on these lands before 1776.

    submitted by Vern See for Tom Ogle

    Vern See
  • December 23, 2013

    please do not approve the alternate route through coles county. This is prime farm ground and has many homes close to the proposed route and some in direct path way. There are bald eagles living in the route plus homes, cell towers and conservation areas. The alterate route passes next to, or over a 150 year old barn built by my family and through our sesquicentennial farm. over a mile of my farm is in the path, my house is in or right next to the route, my brothers house and my daughters house are close by and not far away my son and my sister and my aunts houses. It would be a huge blow to most of my family in the way of lower farm and home values, health issues do to living and working near the high voltage lines and the loss of our abilty to farm part of our ground, or spray by air when needed, and the loss of communications & gps signal disruption. I am strongly opposed to this powerline!!
    bradley morgan
  • December 20, 2013

    I would like to make a formal request of the Illinois Commerce Commission to please ask these representatives of Ameren to not make any further contact with myself or my wife concerning any activity on our personal property by Ameren or its agents or representatives in connection with the proposed construction of this highly disputed "green" transmission line, as we are named in court record as litigants in the case to be presented before the 4th Appellate Court in Springfield, Illinois, in March of 2014. It is my understanding that, as there is pending court action, any further contact by any means by any representative or agent of Ameren is to be considered illegal, and also harassment. They have been informed by my wife and myself that we have no intention of signing any lease agreement or any other document, yet they continue to persist with mailings and Fed Ex deliveries. If their actions continue, we will be forced to take further court action. James Fluckey
    James Fluckey
  • December 20, 2013

    Ameren does not care about the landowner whose private property is on the route they have decided to use for their "Green" electricity transmission project. Ameren is a corporation with corporate lawyers that will pay no heed to any landowner that is standing in the way of their project. The only thing Ameren cares about is money. Their lawyers will chew up the little man and spit him out and say "Enjoy your new perspective!" Prove me wrong. GOD BLESS AMERICA! James Andrew Fluckey
    James A. Fluckey
  • December 20, 2013

    Greed and corruption rule the day in Illinois. What is happening to the landowners in the path of Ameren's Illinois Rivers Project is another fine example. Ameren is now sueing Edgar County landowners for not allowing them to TRESSPASS on PRIVATE PROPERTY! GOD BLESS AMERICA!
    James Fluckey
  • December 20, 2013

    Hon. Commissioners,

    While considering this project please consider the following. The line is not needed. The Sugar Creek station is in Vigo County Indiana. The Vigo County commissioners were not informed of this line by Ameren. The contacts Ameren has offered land owners are absolutely ominous.
    I live in Edgar County. Please do not allow this line to be built.

    Sincerely,

    Vern See

    Vern See
  • December 18, 2013

    We are very strongly opposed to Amerens proposed sub station location on sulpher springs rd. in Mt. Zion. It would be the most expensive location,it would bound the village of Mt. Zion from any future growth to the south,and it would be in close proximity to numerous residences and a sub division. Staffs proposed sub station locations option 1 and option 2 in our opinion would be a much better location. Either of these staff recommended sites would be less expensive than the sulpher springs location,they are both in a remote area with no residences near, and they would allow the village of Mt. Zion to continue to expand to the south. Ameren started this whole process preaching that they wanted to work with the towns , villages and communities that would be affected be this project, but now it seems the only party they are concerned with is themselves!
    Todd Rigg and family
  • December 16, 2013

    Hon Commissioners,

    If this line follows its latest proposed route it will destroy our way of life enjoyed for six generations. This line is not needed and unwanted. Do not allow it to be built.

    Sincerely,

    Vern See
    SS74G

    Vern See
  • December 16, 2013

    I oppose the alternate route in Coles co. for the transmission line. It would affect my farm and make environmental impact that would be unrepairable. It would affect conservation program to place that through the alternate route in Coles County and affect the land to the native prairie.
  • December 10, 2013

    I am a fifth generation farmer who is now farming around 2 existing power lines in the Hutsonville area. I have been reading about the possible placement of the new line next to the existing line. My great-great-grandfather signed the easement in 1942 for 1 of the lines. However, please remember that some of today's farmers had no say about those decisions made in the past. After going through rebuilds of both the lines in the last 2 years, it has not been pleasant. I can assure you that farming around them every year is not an easy task either. I would ask that you not allow the placement next to existing lines where it is already difficult to work. Please place them in a new area, such as along an interstate or somewhere where the farmers are not already faced with the challenge.
    Ryan Love
  • December 6, 2013

    I am opposed to the alternative route through Coles County as it compromises "TWO" of my family " homes".
  • December 4, 2013

    I have been working out of town for several years and retiring this December 2013. For 40 years I have been planning my retirement home and organic mini farm on my family farm in southern Edgar county and have now found out that high voltage power lines are planned to go directly over this property. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN and I will do all I can to keep these people off of my property.

    I have spent my life in construction and engineering and after looking at this route in it's entirety I cannot think of a more expensive and indirect way to run this power line than the one that is currently proposed. What political decision would have chosen such a route with so many 90 degree turns compared to all the existing routes in the state and the nation. It makes no economic sense something is wrong.

    Mike Dunlap
  • November 25, 2013

    My business and property are on the proposed route through Douglas County.
    I object to the currently proposed route through Piatt and Douglas counties for the Ameren transmission line. This route is longer and more costly than the originally proposed route through Moultrie County. The Piatt-Douglas route has not had an adequate investigative study while the Moultrie route has had a thorough review.
    The selection of the Piatt/Douglas county route is not in the best interest of the citizens of Illinois or the customers of Ameren who must bear a portion of the cost of this utility infrastructure investment. The direct route through Moultrie county, as originally proposed, offers the citizens of Illinois and Ameren customers the preferred route.
    I also object to the proposed revenue Ameren will "earn" from construction of the transmission line. The ill conceived plan that allows Ameren to "earn" a 12% profit on the construction of this line, without any limitation, will not encourage them to control costs.

    Charles Holmes
  • November 20, 2013

    I am opposed to the construction of High Voltage service line through Edgar County! No opportunity was given to voice opinion or opposition prior to a decision being made on this route!!!
    Trebbie Thome
  • November 18, 2013

    I am very much opposed to the high voltage electric service line that is being proposed through Edgar County. We were not given notice in time to attend meetings and have any input into the routing of the service line. I urgently request that you review this whole process. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
    Audreyfaye Eitel
  • November 18, 2013

    Very concerned about the lack of due process the line that is now on the map for Edgar county was never shown until after it was approved . Kind of reminds me of obamacare let's approve it then amerin can show us where they are going to put it.
    Gary jewell
  • November 14, 2013

    I am voicing my opposition to this project that was shoved into Edgar County . You all know full well that the expediting of route approval through our yards and woods and croplands was wrong from the start. To deny that fact would only serve to bolster the opinion shared by most that there is dirty business going on here. Greed and corruption in Illinois is rampant, and Ameren has taken full advantage of that, obviously. Prove me wrong.
    James Fluckey
  • October 31, 2013

    Yesterday we received a Notice to Landowner. I thought the Commission had entered their ruling and we were in the clear. I have spent 3 hours pouring through the documents and cannot find a map showing how our property is impacted by this. We would like to see a map showing exactly how they are proposing to come through our property. All the maps we have seen are so vague we cannot tell anything about them.

    We also thought the ICC had denied Ameren's expansion of the Kansas Substation--but it certainly looks like they are expanding anyway.

    Judy Justice
  • October 31, 2013

    Re 12-0598: We are OPPOSED to the MCPO route of the Ameren High Voltage Electric Service Line as it was approved by the ICC. As landowners in the Douglas County corridor of the line we don't feel due diligence was followed in changing the route of the line. The only correspondence we received on the proposed route did not include Douglas County, as seen above. There were no public hearings, environmental, archeological or impact studies done on the MCPO route. The MCPO route is longer and zig zags through Douglas and Piatt Counties making it difficult for farmers and landowners to utilize their properties, and of course makes it more expensive. We strongly urge the ICC to rescind the appoval of the MCPO route.
    Arthur & Barbara Moss
  • October 4, 2013

    Customer states she is opposed to the proposed route of transmission lines thru Waverly.
  • October 4, 2013

    customer is opposed to proposed route for Ameren tansmission lines, states they could find a shorter route, that they already have liens on adjacent property and would ony need to but additional land to avoid tearing up current land and making it be able to produce for years to come.
  • October 2, 2013

    I am opposing Ameren's plan to cross our land. I encourage the ICC to have the case reheard. I fell the originally proposed route is a better choice.
  • September 30, 2013

    They shouild just go with the shorter route which is 18.3 miles shorter than the original route.
  • September 27, 2013

    Customer is opposed to the proposed route for the transmission lines and would like the other less expensive route to be considered.
  • September 27, 2013

    I am against the route for the transmission line that will run along the existing 138 volt line which runs through my property.
  • September 27, 2013

    I am against the route for the transmission line that will run along the existing 138 volt line
  • September 27, 2013

    Customer states he is opposed to Amerens high powered lines crossing his property
  • September 26, 2013

    I would like for the ICC to consider having a rehearing on the transmission line case
  • September 23, 2013

    Please re-hear the petition for rehearing on the section from Meredosia to Pawnee to consider a route that 18 miles shorter and $36.8 million dollars cheaper. The route that I would like to be followed is the one that follows an existing 138 kv route.
  • September 18, 2013

    We would like to voice our strong opposition to the current route being considered.The proposed route doesn't appear to be guided by anything other than who can raise the most money to keep it out of their county. As a resident of Macon county we believe we have been kept in the dark. If you look at the map or what ameren thinks passes for a map, you will notice that the Mt. Zion section is blank with no route at all indicated.I personally have attended every meeting and public hearing that concerns this issue in Macon county. I can't get a straight answer out of a single person exactly where this thing is going to run now that the original route has been what I will call altered. We reside in rural Macon county in the Mt.Zion area. We live rural for a reason. We have a vested interest both with property and life style. We will do everything with in our legal rights to oppose the construction of these eyesores. Randy and Melinda Richards Dalton City
    Randy and Melinda Richards
  • September 13, 2013

    Log # 43
    Customer states that they are very much opposed to the proposed MCPO reroute through Douglas and Piatt Counties

  • August 23, 2013

    This last min transmission line change through piatt, douglas stinks to high heaven, some land owners were contacted one day before final hearing.if this is not against the law its certainly immoral.
    dave martens
  • August 23, 2013

    I would like you to reconsider your choice of routes for this high power line. I can't imagine you would go practically through Atwood... and it looks like you would almost be in my back yard... and I'm not willing to pay for this long re-routing of this project. I would think you wouldn't be either. That's a LOT of metal and wire.... not to mention the manpower. I also can't imagine you would hold a meeting in Champaign County, making it difficult for some of us in Piatt and Douglas to attend. I am very upset about this, as are a lot of us, who will be affected.
    Judith Collins
  • August 22, 2013

    As a farm ground owner I believe the ICC is not being reasonable. They don't "have a horse" in the race. To be a farmer one must accept the pain, the extremely long hours of toiling and being expected to give more, the disparagement from many. Having a farm to tend means so much more than harvesting the crop to make some money. It means for many the connection with ancestors and all of their hard work toward this moment, the ever present possibility of failing and damaging one's family, the pure joy of hopefully getting to see new life immerge. To then allow all of these companies to force us to give up what our Ancestors toiled so hard for is pure insanity. How dare people believe it is their right to take away my property? So what if they "need" more electricity/phones/gas/etc.? This is mine. My family worked and sacrificed for it. They wanted me to be the conservator, not you or a utility company. I presently have FIVE (5) different obstacle messes to deal with - the last having been the Rockie Mt. mess; already have some "high wire" giants; plus three other compete strips that I'm not allowed (not allowed on my own property that I pay taxes for) to grow anything upon. And now I'm seeing in the Decatur paper that you have approved Ameren more access to personal property. You are not serving your Constituents well.
  • August 22, 2013

    As a farm ground owner I believe the ICC is not being reasonable. They don't "have a horse" in the race. To be a farmer one must accept the pain, the extremely long hours of toiling and being expected to give more, the disparagement from many. Having a farm to tend means so much more than harvesting the crop to make some money. It means for many the connection with ancestors and all of their hard work toward this moment, the ever present possibility of failing and damaging one's family, the pure joy of hopefully getting to see new life immerge. To then allow all of these companies to force us to give up what our Ancestors toiled so hard for is pure insanity. How dare people believe it is their right to take away my property? So what if they "need" more electricity/phones/gas/etc.? This is mine. My family worked and sacrificed for it. They wanted me to be the conservator, not you or a utility company. I presently have FIVE (5) different obstacle messes to deal with - the last having been the Rockie Mt. mess; already have some "high wire" giants; plus three other compete strips that I'm not allowed (not allowed on my own property that I pay taxes for) to grow anything upon. And now I'm seeing in the Decatur paper that you have approved Ameren more access to personal property. You are not serving your Constituents well.
  • August 20, 2013

    My residence sits beside Keller Lane, Quincy, IL (my address is 5912 South 30th Street, Quincy, IL. The proposed 'Alternate Route' appears to run just across the street from my house. I am opposed to a transmission line that close to my residence.

    I am my Mother's guardian, Rose M. Dodd, the 'Alternate Route' maps are very indistinct on how close they will run to her residence at 2220 Turtle Lake Road (South 24th Street) but appear to be too close.

    The proposed alternate route does show running across my Mother's ground at the intersection of South 24th Street & Keller Lane, Quincy, IL. We have had several requests to sell this property for new home construction. A transmission line crossing the section of my Mother's farm will hurt the value of this property.

    Also, I have not received any correspondence from the Illinois Commerce Commission on the proposed project. I found a news article on it this morning.

    Kevin R. Dodd
  • August 20, 2013

    Please do not vote to pass this petition! This has been a whirlwind learning that this high voltage power line is going up in Piatt and Douglas County. We live in rural Tuscola and we believe high voltage power line is going up on our property very close to where we live. We moved here three years ago and thought we found the perfect rural place for our children to grow up. Now learning about this I am unsure. I am very concerned about the health risks of this power line and how it could affect my family and small children. We are also very unhappy about how this can decrease the property value of our house up to 50%. This just doesn't seem far. I don't feel like we were property told about this and am very confused as to why it is going up here. Would you want this on your property! Please reconsider this!
    Chris and Cassie Rennels
  • August 20, 2013

    The Ameren Transmission project seeking ICC approval is very short on facts and appear to be a slight of hand attempt to gain ICC approval with little to no due process. The ICC prides itself on obtaining a full record of the facts and circumstances of public interest in the telecommunications industry that I'm familar with. This project lacks integretity from its inception and further appears that Ameren is not interested or making any attempt to educate the public or potential land owners along the route. My home sits approximately 100 yards from a stake that was driven along an east-west route what I later discovered was the proposed Ameren route south of Camargo. All parties with this project appear to maintain a code of silence as even the surveyor refused to provide any specifics about his contracted services and the reason for his staking when directly confronted. My mother in law, Helen Hatchel owns a small farm and homestead that lie directly east of this survey stake and neither her or I have received any notice of a potential right of way interest in this property. The consumer comments are overwhelming and consistent here on all of the key facts of what a responsible public utility does or in this case doesn't do when it seeks to provide public improvements and cooperation. This project appears to be flawed on its merits and should be denied for gross procedural deficiencies at the least and reexamined if it is determined to be necesary for the most optimum capital project deployment which a reasonable engineering assessment would be the most direct route if all enviromental issues are generally consistent.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Brian Carr
    V.P. Carrier Consolidated Communications

    Brian Carr
  • August 20, 2013

    I own 200 acres on Sugar Creek Bottom in Schuyler County That will be terrible effected by the Primary Route proposal on this project. The cost in dollars and to the ecosystems of this area are huge when using the "Primary Route" as compared to the first route segment option running north out of Rushville, Fredrick Township that leads to the alternative route, and will not cost as much in dollars or ecological destruction.Illinois citizens can not afford a Primary route which will cost nearly double the first route segment option running north out of Rushville, Fredrick Township that leads to the alternative route. The Primary route has some brutally rough areas requiring great machines and manpower. The alternative route does not have the type of ruggedness our area has.
    Using the "Primary Route" will clip off sections of habitate that are as productive to wildlife as any in the United States. The woodlands in this area are small scale and any tracts that are cut and dozed will certainly harm the area forever. Cutting into these unique draw, ridges and rock formation will forever change the dynamics of this area. Any environmental study will certainly detail the uniqness and stand alone character that the Primary area route shows. Woodland Native American encampments are scattered about. They will be buried by the dozing of these awe inspiring timbers, draws, rock formations and ridges. Why use the Primary Route? Money and Greed!
    I will gaurantee that someone in this matter has a relatve that has a contractor in the family that will make twice the money on the Primary Route than the first route segment option running north out of Rushville, Fredrick Township that leads to the alternative route. Even though the first alternative rout out of Rushville is clearly a more affordable and less environmentally destructive route.
    Somewhere mixed in here is a politician that is getting
    his "conscienceless hand" filled with our money. You bastard! We will eventually find out and look out. I offer to take any commission member on a tour of the area so you can see the strikingness of this area. It truely is the end of Illinois. There are no other places like it in Illinois. Please contact me and we will show you a place that dosen't need to be forever disfigured for the benefit of some jokers wallet
    Doug Bartlett

    Douglas W. Bartlett
  • August 20, 2013

    The whole thing seems unnecessary and if you do it, you should use the original route.
    Wayne Humphres
  • August 20, 2013

    vvvv
    doug Bartlett
  • August 20, 2013

    Dear Commissioners,

    Our family farms land in Douglas County going back to our great-grandfather going back over 100 years. My cousin Amy Boyer whose owns farmland adjacent to mine, has informed me abou the proposal from Ameren. I would like to add my objection to this proposed transmission line through Douglas County.

    I am opposed to the proposed transmission line reroute through Douglas County. I am asking for your vote to support either of Ameren's original, shorter, and more direct routes through Moultrie County. The alternative route through Douglas County was created by the Moultrie County Property Owners, and with it there is a lack of due process, lack of proper notification, lack of public input, and complete inefficiency and unnecessary expense. The proposed Douglas County route runs miles off course to the North, is longer and outside of Ameren's original study area, runs through two counties that are still not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren or ICC web pages. It includes route segments submitted after the December 31 ICC deadline, impacts more total crop ground by cutting right through the middle of field after field, includes more unsightly 90 degree turns, and crosses right through multiple Amish districts, a registered Native American archeological site, and right next to the Tuscola airport. On this very ICC Comment page, Douglas County is still not listed as an affected County in the Petition. How is a landowner supposed to know in which case to file a Comment?The more direct routes through Moultrie County have been widely publicized and properly vetted with the public for over a year, included public input and participation via dozens of public meetings held throughout 2012, were carefully studied for years, and included a full review of 32 different sensitivities.

    Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

    Frances Westbrook
  • August 20, 2013

    We would like to voice our opposition of the proposed transmission line through Douglas County. We live within view of the proposed site and our family owns 3 separate farms that would be impacted by soil and crop damage, and loss of acreage. We are asking to support the original, shorter, more direct, and obviously more cost effective route through Moultrie County.

    There has not been due process, timely notification, prudent public input, or diligent impact study on the route through Douglas County. The proposed route through Douglas County is many miles off course of the most direct route, has many more 90 degree angles, travels dangerously close to higher populated areas, including the Tuscola Airport and Amish settlements. The proposed route through Douglas County would obviously take more total acres out of production due to the longer, meandering nature of the route. The two counties affected, are still not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren or ICC web pages, and were submitted after the Dec. 31st ICC deadline.

    The more direct route through Moultrie County has been widely publicized and properly vetted with the public for over a year. This included public input via dozens of public meetings held throughout 2012. We are now half way through 2013 and Douglas County is just now becoming aware of this proposal. The original route was carefully studied for years, and we feel is the most appropriate direct route, with the least impact to farmland and communities. The full review from the original route included 32 areas of sensitivities, we have not seen this for Douglas County.

    Respectively, Kirk and Julie Little

    Kirk and Julie Little
  • August 20, 2013

    We disagree with the proposal to place a high voltage line thru the farm land in Douglas county! This will place varied restrictions on the land owners and certainly make it difficult to care for their land! This transmission line MUST be reevaluated to a site that does not produce the countries resources! thank you F, Stinson
    James and Fern Stinson
  • August 20, 2013

    In section 22 of Macon County, there is a very high frequency omni-directional radio range (VOR)/Tactical Air Navigation Aid (TACAN). The structure is approximately 6/10 of a STATUTE mile (.521385...NM)from Henry Road (the original primary route) and approximately 4/10 of a STATUTE mile (.34759...NM) from McDonald Road (the original alternate route).

    In the FAA JO 7400.2J (Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters), Chapter 6-3-10 (Evaluating Effect on Air Navigation and Communication Facilities),Page 6-3-23, shows the following:

    3. Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Radio Range and Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VOR/TACAN). Usually, there should be no reflecting structures or heavy vegetation (trees, brush, etc.) within a 1,000 foot
    radius of the VOR or the TACAN antenna. Interference may occur from large structures OR POWERLINES UP TO 2 NM from the antenna. ..............(refer to FAAO 6820.10, VOR, VOR/DME, and TACAN Siting Criteria).

    There are currently 138's on McDonald Road, nothing on Henry Road. I'm
    thinking the higher the voltage, the more potential interference? The
    distances from both routes are way below the FAA notation of 2 NM for
    potential interference.

    Please be advised.

    Thank you

    Paula Cooley
  • August 16, 2013

    We, as tax payers and land owners in Douglas County oppose the proposed transmission line reroute through Piatt and Dousglas Counties. There has been a complete lack of due process, proper notification and public input, and the complete inefficieny and unnecessary and wastful expense of the MCPO route. This proposed route runs miles off course to the North, is much longer and outside of Ameren's original study area. Piatt and Douglas counties, to date are not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren or ICC web pages describing the nature of the case, includes route segements submitted after the December 31 ICC deadline, impacts more total crop ground by cuttimg right through the middle of numerous fields,includes more expensive and unsightly 90 degree turns, and crosses through multiple Amish districts,a registered Native American archeological site, and right next to the Tuscola airport. We are asking that you please support either of Ameren's original shorter and more direct routes through Moultrie County, which have been better publicized and properly vetted through public review over the last year. This overal vetting process involved public input and comments periods, dozens of public meetings, and was carefully studied for a number of years to fully review the impact on the 32 identified areas of sensitivities. To set aside all this effort, review, and discussion would, in our opinion, be short-sighted and not in the public interest.

    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

    Kim and Vivian Murphy

    Kim and Vivian Murphy
  • August 16, 2013

    I vote NO
    Darryl Dague
  • August 16, 2013

    I am absolutely opposed to the establishment of the high voltage transmission line running through Douglas County or any other IL county for that matter. This project is the most ridiculous waste of resources imaginable. If it isn't apparent to those that understand electricity, then it should be made known that the longer the transmission line, the more the loss of voltage that occurs. It is exactly like when you run several garden hoses together from your outdoor faucet; the more you add, the less water pressure you have at the nozzle. To provide supply to the east coast, this project should have been built on the east coast. This is nothing but an band wagon that utility companies have jumped onto to add to their bottom lines. Common sense needs to be returned to our electrical supply system. It is my hope that the ICC is able to see the detriment this project will cause to land owners as it makes its wayward path east. Several land owners have the transmission line jogging through their farming land several times. Please vote NO to the High Voltage Project.

    Best regards,
    Linda K. Mahnken

    Linda K. Mahnken
  • August 16, 2013

    Case no 12-0598
    We are opposed to transmission line through Piatt and Douglas County.

    This process hs not been given due process and public imput. It is inefficient and unnecessary expensive. The route run miles off the course to the north, is longer and outside Amerens orginial study area.
    Thge proposed line runs throughh Douglas and Piatt which were not now and hadve never been listed on Amerens web site. There are numerous and expensive ninty degree turns and it crosses through multiple Amish districts , a regostered Matove American Archeological site. and next to theTuscola Air port.
    Please advise why this MCPO line is even being considered.
    Thomas J Wilson 865n Cr 125 E Atwood, Ill 61913 217 578 2781
    tjwilson38@consolidated.net


    Thomas J. Wilson
  • August 16, 2013

    As an owner of crop land in Douglas County, and for the many reasons already well documented, I would like to re-state my opposition to the attempted, longer-than-necessary reroute through the counties of Douglas and Piatt. I respectfully submit that the ICC should select one of Ameren's original, widely publicized, and already properly vetted routes through Moultrie County.
    Douglas C. Kamm
  • August 16, 2013

    Dear Commissioners,

    My family owns land within sight of the proposed transmission line through Douglas County. I am opposed to the proposed transmission line reroute through Douglas County. I am asking for your vote to support either of Ameren's original, shorter, and more direct routes through Moultrie County.

    The alternative route through Douglas County was created by the Moultrie County Property Owners, and with it there is a lack of due process, lack of proper notification, lack of public input, and complete inefficiency and unnecessary expense. The proposed Douglas County route runs miles off course to the North, is longer and outside of Ameren's original study area, runs through two counties that are still not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren or ICC web pages.

    It includes route segments submitted after the December 31 ICC deadline, impacts more total crop ground by cutting right through the middle of field after field, includes more unsightly 90 degree turns, and crosses right through multiple Amish districts, a registered Native American archeological site, and right next to the Tuscola airport.

    On this very ICC Comment page, Douglas County is still not listed as an affected County in the Petition. How is a landowner supposed to know in which case to file a Comment?

    The more direct routes through Moultrie County have been widely publicized and properly vetted with the public for over a year, included public input and participation via dozens of public meetings held throughout 2012, were carefully studied for years, and included a full review of 32 different sensitivities.

    Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

    Amy I. Boyer
    Wilmette, IL

    Amy I. Boyer
  • August 15, 2013

    As a landowner and a farmer, I am opposed to the proposed transmission lines. Early on we were told Douglas and Piatt County would not be effected. Whatever happened to being honest, open, and up front about things?
    I have been a private pilot for 34 years; I fly out of Tuscola Airport on a regular basis. This transmission line will pass near the airport within a 1/4 mile on the south. This is entirely too close to be safe. My grandkids love to fly with me and I always put safety first. It appears to me that Ameren really does not care about the safety of people (me, my grandkids and agricultural pilots), that fly in and out of Tuscola.

  • August 14, 2013

    I oppose Ameren’s proposed transmission line reroute due to the lack of: 1) due process, 2) proper notification, 3) taxpayer/landowner input, and 4) information justifying the efficiency and necessity of the MCPO route through Piatt and Douglas Counties.

    As a taxpayer, I am guaranteeing profit for Ameren, and should be involved in the decision whether or not they should be allowed to construct a Power Transmission Line. And if it’s decided this new line is to be constructed, I should be involved in the decision of where it is to be constructed. I should be involved in every part of this decision, including 1) Is this new Power Transmission Line needed, or are there other options? and 2) What route makes sense, and is that route engineered with consideration of the taxpayer/landowners as well as the company?

    I believe it is through the Illinois Commerce Commission office, specifically, that the taxpayer should be involved, and this involvement should include consultation, offering an opportunity for concerns to be heard, and consideration of the taxpayers’ recommendations. I also believe affected landowners should, as a separate group, be included in route and engineering decisions, since, as landowners, they alone bear the cost of land devaluation. So just as with taxpayers, it is through the Illinois Commerce Commission office, specifically, that the landowners should be involved, and this involvement should include consultation, being offered an opportunity for concerns to be heard, and consideration of the landowners’ recommendations.

    I respectfully request you halt all progress on the proposed Transmission Line until all concerned parties are made a part of the decision process.

    Phil Kappes
  • August 14, 2013

    I would urge the ICC deny Ameren's request for the proposed transmission line through Piatt and Douglas counties. There has been a glaring lack of due process in this project. I read one comment from the ICC that there seemed to be no oppostion to this route. It is hard to oppose someting you don't know about. There are still landowners coming forward that have not been notified this line crosses their land. You have to notice that Piatt and Douglas counties are not even mentioned in the header for this comment section. That should be a fairly strong indication there was insufficient notice of this routing. The Piatt Douglas segment of this powerline was drawn with little regard to property lines or existing rights of way. In addition to that, as I understand it, the site for the proposed Mt Zion substation has not been set, or if that it is even needed. It seems to me that it is hard to choose a route for a powerline when you don't know where the west end of it is going. The entire process of siting this powerline is tainted and Ameren should be forced to start over and start with proving there is even need for this line
    Larry Dallas
  • August 14, 2013

    If the ICC and the ALJ's allow ameren to build the Mt. Zion sub station in the proposed location and run the lines inside village limits they have failed to protect the residents of Illinois!!! If the lines follow the primary route out of the Mt. Zion sub station the village of Mt. Zion will never expand any further south. There are thousands of acres further south that would be a better location for a sub station. The only reason ameren chose the proposed sub station location is some bone head approached them, they settled for this location, it isnt an ideal location by any means. I hope the ICC and the ALJ's see what this will do to the village of Mt. Zion and require ameren to find an alternate location south of the village in a more remote location.
    Todd Rigg
  • August 14, 2013

    I am stating opposition to the proposed transmission line reroute through Piatt and Douglas Counties. Although my husband Gary and I live in Mahomet, Gary's family farms and lives on land in the proposed area, and Gary will inherit some of the farmland upon his mother's death. There has been a lack of due process, proper notification, and public input, and there is complete inefficiency and unnecessary expense of the MCPO route (which runs miles off course to the North, is longer and outside of Ameren's original study area, runs through two counties that are still not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren or ICC web pages describing the nature of the case, includes route segments submitted after the December 31 ICC deadline, impacts more total crop ground by cutting right through the middle of field after field, includes more unsightly 90 degree turns, and crosses right through multiple Amish districts, a registered Native American archeological site, and right next to the Tuscola airport). In addition, I encourage the Commissioners to support either of Ameren's original, shorter, and more direct routes through Moultrie County, which have been widely publicized and properly vetted with the public for over a year, included public input and participation via dozens of public meetings held throughout 2012, were carefully studied for years, and included a full review of 32 different sensitivities. Thank you for your consideration.
    Judy Ring
  • August 14, 2013

    We are against the proposed Ameren line that would be constructed through Douglas and Piatt counties. It meanders in a very indirect route to its final destination and would cost the taxpayers much more than is necessary. If the line is needed, it should be constructed through Moultrie county, along the original route proposed and recommended by Ameren in the beginning. Thank you.
    Curt Cannon
  • August 14, 2013

    The MCPO-proposed reroute through Douglas and Piatt Counties should be rejected for the following reasons:
    ? Ameren spent years studying and reviewing possible routes for this project, and based on Ameren’s findings, Douglas and Piatt Counties were not selected as sites for the “study” routes published by Ameren and discussed during dozens of public forums held across the state in the summer of 2012.
    ? 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 less than three weeks (per MCPO).
    ? Part of the MCPO route was submitted two days after the ICC’s December 31 deadline. This zigzagging segment includes SIX 90 ° turns in just 2 ½ miles while crossing from Piatt County into the Amish Community in Douglas County and would forever destroy the area’s beautiful, rural sight lines.
    ? Part of the MCPO route through Douglas County is not even in Ameren’s original study area.
    ? MCPOs’ route consisted of a two-mile wide swath, not an exact 150-foot corridor like Ameren’s routes.
    ? The MCPO route travels miles off course to the north, is longer, and impacts more total cropland.
    ? The MCPO route, with its massive towers, runs across the Amish community, right through a registered Native American archeological site, and right next to the widely used Tuscola airport.
    ? No public forums or opportunities for public feedback have been held in connection with the MCPO route.
    ? Ameren reviewed 32 geographic sensitivities in selecting their routes whereas MCPO only reviewed six.
    ? The only ICC notification sent to Douglas and Piatt property owners in relation to this project was dated January 7, 2013, and the letter listed 18 impacted counties across Illinois (including Moultrie County). Piatt and Douglas Counties were not included in the list, nor are they mentioned anywhere in the letter.
    ? Douglas and Piatt are not listed as impacted counties on Ameren’s Illinois Rivers Project website.
    ? Piatt and Douglas Counties are not listed on the ICC web page describing the nature of this case, despite the fact that the ICC directed property owners to go to the case site for more information.
    In short, Douglas and Piatt property owners cannot find clear information related to their counties in this case.
    Based on the presence of vague—and even conflicting—information, the lack of proper notification and full due process provided to individual property owners, the absence of any public meetings regarding or discussing the MCPO route, not to mention months of testimony from Ameren’s routing expert(s) stating that Ameren’s routes represent the only “viable” options for this project, the MCPO route should be rejected!

    We are Douglas county landowners and never received notification that the line would go through our property, and knowing about it now we oppose it.

    John and Mary Burgett

    John and Mary Burgett
  • August 14, 2013

    I object the passage of this petition by Ameren to construct a new high voltage power line through Douglas County. This petition was not given enough thought or notice and should not be passed.
    Connie Prosser
  • August 14, 2013

    The proposed route though Douglas County crosses 3 seperate tracts of my farm ground, all in a short distance PLUS will cross another tract in coles county. Neither I or my landlords have had any due process concerning this project. Its obvious this projected line though Douglas County is LACKING the proper reseach and should be voted down before the damage is done!...I AM APPOSED!
    Adam Moore
  • August 14, 2013

    The purposed route through Piatt and Douglas counties is going to drive up the cost of this project considerably which will be passed on to all Ameren customers. The ICC has the responsibility of looking at the issues and making decisions that are best for all people involved. It is obvious that the MCPO alternative route does not consider this and would be a huge burden to all of Ameren customers and would have the greatest impact on people living on a fixed income. It is my hope that the ICC would look at the issues and realize that the most cost effective route would be a straight line or as close to that as possible. So remember millions of people will be affected by your decision for years to come.
    John N. Terril Jr.
  • August 14, 2013

    I am the highway commission of Garrett Township, which is in Douglas County. I am strongly opposed to the Ameren Transmission Line. I have been the Highway Commissioner of Garrett Township for 23 years and every time we have utility work in our township we end up getting cheated as a community and taxpayers. I know there will be significant road damage due to the increase of heavy truck traffic and drainage will be effected due to the heavy loads being hauled across ditches and through fields. Our roadways were not built to sustain such weight and traffic therefore this will cause great damage to our roadways and drainage. Our budget for our roads and drainage is already stretched to the limit without dealing with extra expense of damage to these areas.

    As a taxpayer and an Ameren customer I feel there is a great deal of money being wasted with this project. It does not take an engineer to figure out the more turns and the more miles of the transmission line only costs more money, taxpayer money. The cost will be at the expense of the Ameren customers and the 12% they receive by F.E.R.C. will come from the taxpayers as well, in the long run. I feel they should go back to the inception of the project and decide if it is really needed and if so, how can it be done without putting the financial burden on Ameren customers and the taxpayers.

    Ed Swisher
    Garrett Highway Commissioner

    Ed Swisher
  • August 14, 2013

    I find it a little disturbing that the 3rd proposed route thru piatt and douglas county is not even listed in the above case heading,and yet that is the route that is being considered.
    The proposed route was presented after the deadline, has had no studies by Ameren, no time for public comments by the people impacted.
    The new 3rd route is more expensive, is longer, has more turns, takes out more farm land. Don't understand why it is even being considered.
    I own property in moultrie that is why I am commenting

    cody p cundiff
  • August 14, 2013

    I am very concerned about the proposed high voltage transmission line that Ameren is considering thru Douglas County. The property owners were not properly notified of Ameren's plans according to due process of law. I think it would be wise to back up and start over. The people of Douglas and Piatt counties deserve the same due process as Moultrie county landowners. Wouldn't you agree? I hope you will consider you motives and reasons for ignoring the rights of the people of Douglas and Piatt counties, as even as a leave this comment Piatt and Douglas counties are still not shown on this case number. I am sure after taking a second look, you will do what is right for everyone. After all, It would be wise to stop and see if this project is even needed at taxpayers, expense of course.

    I trust that you will do what is right, honest, and sincere in this matter. After all, people's heritages are at stake, and we are concerned about our children and grandchildren. Thank you in advance in having integrity and doing what is right.

    Rev. Matthew Perkins
  • August 14, 2013

    I want to voice our family's strong objection to this ATXI power line cutting through farm land in Douglas County. We own farm property that would be adversely affected by such a path in that the proposed route shows it making two turns right in our fields requiring two towers getting in the way.
    Additionally, as we were not notified properly to provide our input to this, it is clear that we were specifically singled out so we could not voice our objection until June 25. We have already filed our objection with the courts but it was ignored and denied without comment.
    The route that is apparently the one pushed is longer, more expensive and poorly designed. Politics instead of intelligence seem to be dominating here.

    John Channon
  • August 14, 2013

    Commission Members:

    I am writing in regard to the Ameren powerline proposal Case 12-0598. It is my understanding that an issue has arisen in the area of Moultrie, Piatt, and Douglas counties.

    The Ameren proposed route is based on certain criteria that meet both corporate and public requirements. It should be approved. Recently a group of land owners in Moultrie county, evidently with the financial backing of one individual, has proposed an alternate route considerably north of the Ameren proposal. This only increases capital and operating costs for the company and impacts additional land. There seems to be no justification for the new proposal other than NIMBY. I urge the commission to consider only the criteria already establish for power line routing and not cave-in to the rant of some rich-guy. It would set a dangerous precedent.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    John and Shirley Miller

    John Miller
  • August 14, 2013

    I OPPOSE this High Voltage Electric Service Line going through Douglas County, Illinois and Piatt County Illinois...these counties are NOT even cited on the Case information above so how can it be included without people knowing.
    Jennifer
  • August 14, 2013

    I wish to comment on the transmission line proposed by MCPO through Piatt/Douglas County. Fifteen years ago my husband retired and we found this peaceful and quiet property in the country. Today this line would destroy many trees on our property and the farms on our neighbors property. There is a Native American registered with the Illinois Archeolog sites. It has been proved to be the longest and most expensive route. Ameren's route through Moultrie County was their first choice. Why destroy valuable property and farmland in the heartland of America to furnish electricity for the east coast. There have to other ways they can get their electricity without destroying all this land in the midwest. Again, I feel postive the ICC will agree and not grant their request.
    JANICE WILSON
  • August 14, 2013

    I relocated to Illinois several years ago, and thought surely the poor reputation of how the state handles its affairs must be over-blown. But time and again, is it not confirmed?

    Rerouting a transmission line several miles north, that has a final destination well south of the Mount Zion substation, is a fine example. Multiple millions of dollars in extra cost. Questionable notice practices given to property owners. Ignoring the original proposed routes created by the employees at the very utility that is constructing the line. And most shockingly, choosing a path determined by a small gruop of private citizens who simply don't want it in their back yard. With that logic, Piatt and Douglas County folks should just draw some lines through Shelby County. Problem solved for them.

    While we all want the lights to come on when we hit the switch, and the milk to be cold when we pour it on our cereal, no one wants a constant reminder of how this happens (a large utility pole on their property). That is the very point of why the ICC exists. Determine what projects are needed by society, and how they should be accomplished with the least cost and detrimental effects. To appease the squeakiest wheel, with little regard to the next domino in line, will always be bad public policy. The Land of Lincoln yes, but maybe we should start putting "Kick the Can Down the Road" on our license plates.

    Please prevent this nonsensical route from happening. Thank you for your time.

    Eric Miller
  • August 14, 2013

    This is my second comment concerning this process and building of the AMeren Rivers project.

    As we look over the process I am against any utility line coming through Piatt county, and my farm. ATXI (i.e., Ameren) studied this for several years, many environmental impact and economic analysis of the correct routes (primary / alternative). Both the Ameren engineers and your inhouse experts determine that these were the best routes.

    Ameren submitted their plans and posted information on the websites disclosing these routes.

    The ICC left the communication and education to Ameren. Ameren visited several times in Piatt /Douglas and constantly told our residents that the No site ever updated the Moutltrie county route

    Additionally, at no time did Amren update any maps to show the MC land owners new map. Additionally, I was never afforded due process being notified any map change or impact to my property.

    The economics of the MC land owners is more expensive and impacts more fertile farmland than either Amren submitted! Routes.

    The risk of reduced redundancy by building so close (parallel lines) also is a major concern if a bad storm hits.

    The cost of building a zig zag across these fertile lands, the addiitonal distances and overall cost make the MC land owner plan not permissible under State Law as well as the agreement with the Univ of IL in any plan must impact farm land least.

    Lastly, to promise an extremely high ROE of 12.38% makes the further case of how the totallity of the propositions to be out of synce and not in the best interest of IL Tax payers.

    The Ameren Primary and Alternative routes were choosen and supported by both Amren and ICC engineers. Make the lawful and correct choice.

    If not, we will look to litigate under violation of State Law and prior ICC decisions.

    Sincerely,

    David Learmonth, PIATT County Land Owner /Farmer
    817-845-9190
    707 Brookdale Ct.
    Southlake, TX 76092

    David Learmonth
  • August 14, 2013

    We are writing because of our opposition to the proposed power line route by the MCPO through Douglas and Piatt counties. This past January, we received a letter in relation to this project. However, the letter listed 18 impacted counties, with Piatt and Douglas not on the list, so we wondered why we were even receiving it.

    Piatt & Douglas counties are still not listed on the ICC website or on Ameren's Illinois River's Project website.

    It is our understanding that Ameren spent years studying and reviewing possible routes and Piatt & Douglas were not even considered. There has been little opposition until now, because the land owners were not even aware we are the main route under consideration. There has been lack of proper notification and full due process provided to us, along with the absence of any public meetings regarding the MCPO route.

    The MCPO route should be rejected.

    Glen & Carol Myers
  • August 14, 2013

    To continue thoughts about lowest project cost objectives by ICC Commissioners and Ameren please copy/paste the following link into your web browser:

    https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Study/Candidate%20MVP%20Analysis/MVP%20Portfolio%20Analysis%20Full%20Report.pdf

    Scroll to the Executive Summary on page 1. Here you will see MISO's map that shows its proposed 345kV power line across the middle of Illinois. 'Block 11' identifies the power line segment from Pana to Mt. Zion to Kansas, IL. This generally follows Ameren's MCPO route through Piatt-Douglas Counties.

    Most viewers immediately ask, "What is this camel hump in the line about -- I thought this line was to run diagonally to the southeast. This must be a map or design error."

    Well, the left north-south line is the segment climbing up to Mt. Zion while the right north-south line is the segment dropping back down to Kansas. These vertical lines contribute nothing to constructing a power line diagonally to the southeast toward Kansas, IL from a point several miles south of Mt. Zion. These vertical lines are a complete waste of project funds. And we are talking 'very big bucks' here. The total length of these north-south vertical lines total something like 30 miles. At $1.8 million per mile this totals OVER FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS OF WASTE.

    ICC and Ameren need to re-analyze their cost objectives and locate the sub-station for Mt. Zion several miles south of Mt. Zion, and continue the power line south-eastward from that point directly toward Kansas, IL.

    A lower voltage line can be provided separately, when needed, from the relocated sub-station to the existing sub-station in Mt. Zion.

    And again, this doesn't include project savings to be gained from shortening power line routes from Pana, Kincaid or Pawnee to the relocated sub-station -- to the tune of an additional $18 million +/-.

    I recall Illinois Senator Everitt Dirksen saying, with his dry humor, "A million here and a million there and before long you're talking big money."

    Neil McDonald

    Neil McDonald
  • August 14, 2013

    I am very much in disagreement with the first plan to erect these power lines. I think it will affect the people and the wildlife in an adverse way. Please use the direct path which will have less of an impact.
    Joseph H. Batista
  • August 14, 2013

    Although I don't live in the above counties I feel strongly opposed to the route being planned for new high voltage lines through these areas. Let the natural beauty of the landscape stay as is. I understand that the second proposal is more of a direct path. Please use that one.
    Thank you for your consideration.

    Janice M. Batista
  • August 14, 2013

    Friends own land in central IL that will be destroyed if this project proceeds. We oppose the primary route which runs through Schuyler County, north of the Town of Rushville. We request that the lst segment option out of Rushville in Fredrick Township be utilized which connects to the Alternate Route going straight to the Ipava Substation. This segment route is a direct path that shows the least resistance ad impact to the environment.
    Gail Ferro
  • August 14, 2013

    Let it be known that I oppose this projects, especially the primary route proposed which runs through Schuyler County, north of the Town of Rushville. I request that the first segment option out of Rushville in Fredrick Township be utilized, which connects to the Alternate Route going straight to the Ipava Substation. I vacation in this are several time throughout the year. My family and I value the time we get to spend together on the property that in my opinion will be destroyed by the actions proposed. I could not disagree more with any thought of thought of this eyesore polluting this beautiful area, especially when there are other options. Please rethink!!
    Rick Sabo
  • August 14, 2013

    Yes, one of ICC's (and Ameren's) primary concerns is to provide least cost power service and project costs.

    With this in mind, any reasonable person can readily see that relocating the Mt. Zion sub-station to the south, as originally proposed by ICC staff, will 'lengthen' the proposed Piatt-Douglas transmission route, mile for mile, at something like $1.8 million per mile. If the new Mt. Zion sub-station were located 10 miles to the south, for example, the cost of this route would be increased by $18 million. Conversely, the route through Moultrie County would be 'shortened' by 10 miles for an $18 million project savings. But that is only part of the matter.

    Additionally, the 345 kV route or segment from either Pana, Kincaid or Pawnee to the relocated 'southern' sub-station becomes much less when compared to their longer routes to the original sub's location near Mt. Zion. Again, by moving the sub-station south by 10 miles makes a power line from either Pana or Kincaid 10 miles shorter, and one from Pawnee at least 5 miles shorter.

    Overall, it seems that relocating the sub-station 10 or more miles south would reduce overall 345kV power line length by about 20 miles for a total project savingss of about $36 million. Granted, a new 10-mile length of 138kV line would be needed to service the existing Mt. Zion sub from the relocated sub, but this would be at much less cost than one of 345kV capacity.

    Neil McDonald

    Neil McDonald
  • August 7, 2013

    CASE #12-0598

    To the Illinois Commerce Commission,

    Below is your Mission Statement

    The Illinois Commerce Commission mission is to pursue an appropriate balance between the interest of consumers and existing and emerging service providers to ensure the provision of adequate, efficient, reliable, safe and least-cost public utility services.

    In the past I believe that you have done exactly what your Mission Statement states. That is why it is so hard for me to understand your actions with Case #12-0598. I am a landowner in Douglas County. You have granted Ameren, without question, a route that goes at least 33 miles off course to accommodate a group called MCPO. This is NOT THE LEAST-COSTLY ROUTE NOR IS THIS EFFICIENT SERVICE. YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING YOUR OWN MISSION STATEMENT.

    I did NOT receive due process because the letter that I received did NOT list Douglas County! As of late today, Douglas nor Piatt counties are NOT listed on Ameren’s website. I have been told that there is NO opposition to this new route approved by you. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! There are signs throughout both counties in opposition and I attended a meeting on 08/01/13 in Tuscola, IL where over 300 people learned the truth about this entire situation. There were 2 TV stations and several newspapers covering this event.

    I am asking that on 08/20/13 that you make the right decision and go with the route that Ameren did a 6-year study on. That would be the original route through Moultrie County.

    Respectfully,
    Elizabeth Jones

    Elizabeth Jones
  • August 7, 2013

    bad idea dont need let people out east make there own power,just makes common sense
    john pangburn
  • August 7, 2013

    Our family & friends like many others, own land in central Illinois that will be destroyed if this project is permitted to proceed. PLEASE do not let this project go through!
    Anthony Slavic
  • August 6, 2013

    I am commenting on the proposed Illinois River Transmission Project that the full Illinois Commerce Commission will be deciding on August 20th.

    According to the Transmission Line Route proposed by the Moultrie County group, the line would be located on the north end of our family farm… as far as we can tell. There is a two mile buffer that the line could potentially exist in. So who really knows whether the power lines will be off in the horizon on in their front yards.

    Our family realizes that no one wants the line to disrupt their farming operation, however the facts in this case point to the Piatt Douglas route to be less advantageous, more expensive and poorly planned and communicated.

    I am sure by this point, you have been made aware that the ICC staff was firm in their assessment as to the benefits of Moultrie-Coles route. It was more direct and followed less damaging path to area farms. The staff report also states that there is a very questionable need for the linking of the Mt. Zion power station and the Kansas Power Station. So if the commissioners were to follow the advice of their own experts, the Transmission Lines from Decatur to Kansas might not be approved at all and if it were, the logical path would be through Moultrie County.

    The path through Piatt and Douglas counties would be longer, less direct and has multiple 90% turns. The route was submitted by the Moultrie County group, created in less than two weeks and submitted at the very last moment. In fact, part of the document containing the route was submitted after deadline. Using Ameren’s projections, it would cost million of more dollars to build, which in turn would be paid for by the public if Ameren falls short of the guaranteed profit margin. Thousands of households could be paying higher power bills for an unnecessary, ill planned path.

    And finally communicating the project has either been woefully done or criminally negligent. We were one of many landowners who never received the letter communicating the Piatt Douglas Route. In fact, we never heard word one about the change in route until the news media picked up the story. Shortly after that we receive a letter asking for permission to survey.

    The letter that has been purportedly sent by the ICC staff doesn’t contain Piatt or Douglas counties in the list of counties affected by the route. That omission seems to have taken place across the public outreach materials. The Illinois River Transmission Project website doesn’t include the counties of Piatt and Douglas, doesn’t contain a map showing the proposed route and when someone tries to contact a representative the phone number is wrong. Leigh Morris is the listed contact for Ameren Transmission and the voice message says that he retired and to call the Ameren Power PR department. When you call them, they say to leave a message with Mr. Morris number. After doing so, no return call was received after several attempts.

    As I was writing this I noticed that Piatt and Douglas Counties aren't even mentioned in the description above. Is this really how we want to decide important policy decisions? It is either massive failure on both the ICC and Ameren Transmission communication staffs or an attempt to hide the route until it is too late. We hope that it is just an oversight.

    In short, we realize that no one wants their lives and incomes disrupted by a public work project. We realize that more than most. Our farm was dissected by the building of Interstate 57. We lost a huge chunk of the family farm. We understand the benefits that the highway brought to the state and the area. By comparison, that process was much better communicated and the process was perceived as being much fairer than this one.

    The idea of fairness and transparency is so important on a project like this. To the Commissioners we ask them to please consider all this when deciding the issue on the 20th. And please reject the proposed route through Piatt and Douglas counties until a full, detailed and fair consideration of all the data can be done. Rushing through a half baked idea like this, just to appease the people that screwed up the Clinton Nuclear Plant (decades late and billions over budget) is not the way Illinois should be growing right now.

    Laura Peralta
  • August 5, 2013

    our county is not listed in the above and should not go throught our ground - it is not feasible and you should NOT ACCEPTS the route that has been discussed. take the route if you must that engineers say is the best and cheapest way to go. it is not needed anyway/quit giving big companies MONEY.
    karen and roger winn
  • August 5, 2013

    I am writing in regards to the proposed Ameren's transmission line through Piatt and Douglas Counties. I am opposed to this project for the following reasons:

    1. One of the many 90 degrees turns is within 1/4 mile of my home. In fact there are six 90 degrees turns in just 2 1/2 Miles. This is not practical or wise and is not the best path.
    2. This route is out of the way, it goes too far north and then goes back south, instead of taking a path from east to west, straight line, instead of a zigzag pattern. This route was only added to appease the residents of Moultrie county(who complained).
    3. I have read where this transmission line is not needed and is only being built because Ameren is being guarented a 12.5% rate of return.
    4. I was not informed of this change in location, I only found out about it from my neighbors.
    5. I live 7 miles from the nearest Verizon tower, which is on the east side of Hammond. I live 1/2 mile east of LaPlace. I have a hard time getting a good signal for my cell phone and internet. This proposed line will be parallel with the Verizon tower. What type of interference will I have?
    6. Why is Piatt and Douglas counties not listed in the information from your site and Amerens site? There are 18 counties, but ours is not listed?
    7. Why take out the beautiful trees, country sides and taking all the turns when they need to take a more straight path from Mt Zion to Kansas.
    8. You need to really take a look at a map and you will see what a strange path this route will take.

    Your attention to these matters are important to me and I request you take these matters into account when making your decision. Thank-you

    Jerry D. Gash
  • August 5, 2013

    I am a resident of Tuscola, IL and I became aware of the proposed MCPO route through Piatt and Douglas Counties in the last few weeks. I learned of this alternative route that Ameren is now supporting as the preferred route only by reading an article in our local newspaper about a meeting of concerned citizens who happened to find out about the MCPO route. In the last year I have received 1 or 2 notices concerning the high voltage power lines that Ameren wants to construct through central Illinois but none of these notices ever listed Douglas County as a county a proposed route would go through. It is hard to object to a proposed route if you do not know about it. Now I have learned that the Illinois Commerce Commission will be making a final decision by August 20, 2013. This is NOT ample time for any group to prepare an objection for such a big issue that will greatly affect many lives. I live on the south side of Tuscola in the city limits and as best as I can tell from the limited information I have, the power line will pass just short of 1 mile from my house. I definitely do not want a power line of that size constructed that close to where I live.

    Ameren spent years studying this project and finally proposed 2 routes that did not go through Douglas or Piatt County. Then just in the last few months they endorsed a totally new route, the MCPO route. It is hard to believe enough study has been done on this route for Ameren to endorse the route so quickly. It also seems too quick for the ICC to be making a final decision on this issue by August 20, 2013.

    I object to the power line being constructed so close to the Tuscola airport. It appears the power line will run about a quarter mile from the airport.

    Should the substations near Mt Zion and Kansas, IL and the high voltage power lines between them even be constructed? Is this really needed? Who exactly is benefiting? I doubt the residents of central Illinois are the beneficiaries.

    We already have large natural gas power lines that run through our area. (Near Tuscola the natural gas lines and proposed high voltage power lines will be in close proximity.) Is it fair for our local area to also facilitate the transfer of electric energy, that is intended primarily for other areas of the country?

    Neither ICC or Ameren have conducted any public forums or opportunities for public feed back in connection with the MCPO route that is now Ameren's preferred route. Opportunities like this should be conducted for the residents of Piatt and Douglas County to voice their concerns before the ICC makes a decision on this issue.

    Linda Kincaid
  • August 5, 2013

    I oppose the alternate route for this tranmission line. I am very concerned for the safety of my parents which the alternate route will go by their house within 150 feet. Studies have proven being in the vincity of high voltage lines have cause cancer clusters. It terrifies me to think my niece will not be able to enjoy outside time at her grandparents house. I spent my childhood in the woods that will have to be demolished. I spent my youth growing up with a woods that has been there for centuries that will be removed if this power line goes this route. My niece will never get to take nature hikes on her own family's land without the fear of damage from the emmisions from the high voltage line.

    My great great grandfather wrote in his journal that he had hope his descendants will be able to live on this land for time to come. If this power line goes through that will not be possible. It will be destroying a legacy of farming and nature lovers.

    My family land also houses a registered archeological find of the Indians that came this land to settle. If this line goes thru you will be unearthing precious artifacts that lay in this ground. Please preserve what is left of this heritage.

    Ameren spend time and money devising a main route that would be less harmful to families. How can a route that was devised in 2 weeks be better. I also feel due process has not been met by the landowners in this Piatt Douglas area. Some went to the informational meeting to be turned away because it did not concern them.. Next they are getting certified letter asking for permission for surveyors to come on their land and survey their property for line that was none of their concern. A gross injustice is happening here. Ameren is trying to squeeze the life out their rate payers to fund this alternate route. Please let us keep our farms and homes out of danger.

    Melissa Kamm
  • August 5, 2013

    I am a landowner affected by this proposed high power transmission line. I am not being notified of the public meetings and have read about them in the newspaper after the fact. Of course I am opposed to the route and wonder how one group of land owners can recommend another route? I too do not begrudge them for opposing the route affecting their land but how do you justify an inefficient route based upon the proposed and alternative location of the not yet approved substation? I do not have any political affiliation and I believe this transmission line will be located on the land of the owners with the weakest political representation. Please consider the most efficient route if this transmission line is at all necessary. My land is in Douglas County which is not mentioned in the summary above. This seems to be a significant oversight.
    Phyllis A Webster
  • August 5, 2013

    As a landowner in Douglas county, I am very concerned about the new high voltage line that Ameren is trying to railroad through this area. We were not properly notified of this route. Douglas county is not even listed here on this website as an option! Where is the honesty and integrity that this country was built upon? All citizens have a legal right to due process of law. It looks like that has not been the case here, yet. I hope the ICC will act with integrity in this matter.
    Thank you

    Karen Perkins
  • August 5, 2013

    the latest route proposal thru s. piatt & douglas co. was not in the original route(s) that were presented in 2012 and moves farther away from the most sensible route and has not been researched for impact. It appears that an"end run" is being attempted by Ameren to appease opposition to the original studies which took several years to complete and select the "best route(s) which happen to be several miles farther to the south.
    richard evans
  • August 5, 2013

    First, full disclosure. I live in Douglas County on the near south side of Tuscola on east-west running Hillcrest in that subdivision. It appears to me that, if approved by the administrative law judges, the MCPO-proposed Piatt-Douglas route would pass uncomfortably close either to the north or to the south of Hillcrest Sub. I don't work for Ameren,nor am I an electrical engineer. Without topographical maps, I am using only a state map and the local one of Moultrie-Piatt-Douglas, while trying to take account of towns, lakes, and state parks, etc.
    Second, I attended the public meeting held last evening in our community building. The map of proposed routes immediately caused me to question Ameren's reasons for having both of their proposed routes make such a stair-step pattern across Moultrie County. I am unaware if an Ameren representative was present, having come in about a half hour after the meeting started. I doubt that most people there would have had much understanding about the factors involved in the actual transmission of electric power. Still, the seemingly knowledgeable assertion was made that there always is power lost in transmission over long distances, and even more lost with each sharp-angle change in the line's direction.
    Similarly, we don't know Ameren's business or engineering rationale for proposing a substation at Mt.Zion. Likewise, we don't know why Ameren's preferred route enters the Moultrie-Piatt-Douglas area from the west across Macon County south of Decatur: coming from Springfield? Their alternate preferred route appears to come north from the St. Louis area. If they were to use that route, they could supposedly build the substation on that northbound leg much farther south than at Mt.Zion --which the administrative law judges apparently do not favor anyway; nor does Mt. Zion. On the theory that the best transmission line would be the straightest one, it could be well argued that the best route would be engineered across rural Bond or Montgomery, then Shelby or Fayette, to far eastern Cumberland or far western Clark, then north to Kansas. In other words, roughly paralleling I-55 out of St. Louis, then east either north or south of I-70.

    To summarize, I believe the remotest possible rural areas of Shelby or Fayette, Cumberland and Clark would be the best route. Lastly, one of the main points made at the meeting was the presentation of the Piatt-Douglas proposed route which was made after the deadline date. Also the claim that constitutional due process is not being followed, because of the claim of large numbers of potentially affected property owners that they had never received any notification from the ICC. An estimate at the meeting was that at least 50-60 raised their hands in response.


    Thomas D. Bennett
  • August 5, 2013

    Please do not allow this to pass for so many reasons, let alone that Ameren can't keep up with the lines they have, let alone have new ones. Especially since our power lines should be underground in this day and age, not above ground.
    Madeline.Reese
  • August 5, 2013

    Please do not allow this to pass.
    Madeline Reese
  • August 5, 2013

    I am extremely against the process, or lack there of, that has been used to change the route of the Ameren transmission line. Due process has not been afforded to landowners and the proposed MCPO reroute will place a hardship if not unsafe situation on the Tuscola airport. I urge the Commission to stand back and take a good hard look at whether or not due process has been served and to also even challenge the merit of this project for the good of all citizens of Illinois.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Dan Kleiss, Mayor, City of Tuscola

    Dan Kleiss
  • August 5, 2013

    This needs to be stopped!!!Ameren has blatantly showed no concern to land owners to where the high power lines are to go. Douglas and Piatt counties are not even listed as the counties the lines are to go through!
    Tim Hoel
  • August 5, 2013

    The primary route through western Champaign county is a very poorly chosen route. Instead of keeping the power lines away from residential neighborhoods, this route is within yards of a major subdivision and the site of a new high school (currently under construction). This will expose a large number of people to unacceptable health risk due to increased exposure to high voltage electric fields and dramatically impact the value of a large number of homes. The alternate route is much more acceptible. For the cost of only a couple of miles, it minimizes the number of people and homes impacted by this project and keeps the new power line safely away from smelly populated areas.
    Will Lauer
  • August 5, 2013

    Dear ICC,
    I vehemently oppose the High Voltage lines you are considering running through our lovely counties, Douglas, Piat, Moultrie. I do take notice that Douglas and Piat are not listed above, yet your plans include those counties, nonetheless. Please listen to the people of our counties and do not discount our concerns, complaints and feelings. We do not want this rammed down our throats. Opposition to your plan is mounting and it would be best for you to take your plan somewhere else. Sincerely, Debra Kleiss, proud native of Douglas County and the beauty that makes it worth living here.

    Debra Kleiss
  • August 5, 2013

    I am writing in reference to the proposed route of the high voltage power lines through Douglas and Piatt counties. I am strongly OPPOSED to this proposal. First of all, my husband and I live very close to where this new proposed route would run at 41 Cedar Circle in the Hillcrest subdivision in Tuscola. We were NOT notified, and this would greatly impact the value of our property, not to mention the health concerns with high voltage power lines. On the topic of health concerns, we are located right next to a nursing home! There is also an airport that IS in use in the route, as well. This could impact the use of that airport, having these structures in the way. We just learned TODAY how close this power line would run to our residence. Also, the obvious reasons this should not be allowed: We were NOT part of Ameren's study for possible routes, which the spent YEARS researching, we were NOT in the petition to the ICC, our route was not proposed until 2 days AFTER the deadline to the ICC, and they came up with this proposed route in LESS THAN 3 WEEKS!!! There was not years of study given as to why this route should or should not be selected, it was just thrown out there!! A last minute decision that could have a HUGE impact on MANY,MANY families, affecting their livelihood and well-being, not to mention the impact it would have on these communities as a WHOLE that rely greatly on tourism, crop production, and many other things that these huge, unsightly power lines would be sure to destroy!! This should not even be up for consideration. There should not even be a discussion. There should be a big foot coming down telling them that NO! this is not going to be allowed!! For every reason I have stated, and I am sure there are more, this should be a violation. The citizens of Douglas and Piatt counties had a right to be informed long before this was ever proposed to the ICC, and we WERE NOT notified in a timely manner, if at all, by any means! Please do not take this matter lightly. I know many of us certainly are NOT!
    Jaclyn Jane Kauffman
  • August 5, 2013

    to whom it may concern,

    A friends property in schuyler county that we visit on often. Their small plot is in the direct path of emrons purposed primary route. I don't think you would be happy if someone came on your property and said we are dividing it in half and yes you can't use it but you can still pay the taxes on useless land! I respectfully request that the alternate route be utilized

    sandi

    sandi
  • July 31, 2013

    It was a long time in the making, but my husband and I purchased retirement property in Schuyler County. This is a magnificent place that consists of rolling hills, mature forest, with Sugar Creek running through it.
    It was recently made known that that Ameren transmission line's primary route would run almost directly through the middle of our small lot. This would consist of cutting down (eternally) a 150' wide path through all the forest, from one end to the other, as far as the eye can see, Placing towers and power lines up to over 100' in height buzzing over our heads.
    There's no amount of money that would compensate this type of lose. Our savings we had vested in this land would be lost.
    Who are the genius's that decided this route? I wonder if anyone who has a say in the outcome of this, goes to sleep at night and thinks about the lives and families that this project will effect.
    What if someone sent you a notice that their going to impose "Emanate Domain" and put a telephone pole in your living room, and you can't put anything around it for twenty feet, Would you be OK with that?
    We object to the primary route running north out of Schuyler County, in Fredrick Township. We ask that the first segment option out of Schuyler County be utilized, which runs into the Alternate Route. This is a direct path to the Ipava substation. Look at aerial photos and read survey reports. The alternate route is a straight path to the substation, having less impact on the land and costing taxpayers a lot less in material and labor.
    KEEP OFF OUR LAND!

    Lisa Vins
  • July 31, 2013

    More for Piatt and Douglas land owners, direct from the ATXI 'Proposed Order' pages 94 & 95:

    "As for the number of affected landowners, PDM Coalition notes that ATXI (Ameren) identified and notified each landowner affected by ATXI's routes, while the designer of the MZK Route, Moultrie PO witness Reinecke, testified that he did not know how many parcels and landowners would be affected by his proposal. PDM Coalition also points out that Mr. Reinecke did not know the name the towns on his route map along US Highway 36 on the Piatt-Moultrie border. PDM Coalition identifies the following towns along the MZK Route: Casner, La Place, Hammond, Pierson Station, Atwood, Garrett, and Tuscola. Although Mr. Reinecke was unable to identify any of these towns by name other than Tuscola, he did confirm that 100% of the towns on US Highway 36 from Macon to Douglas counties are located primarily on the north side of the road. PDM Coalition observes the Mr. Reinecke admits that he studied a route which ran about 1 mile south of US Highway 36 in Moultrie County (and therefore would have been more distant from the centers of all of these towns), and emailed Moultrie O's attorney on December 19, 2012, to tell him that this south-side route inside Moultrie County appeared to be a better route. This email was admitted into evidence as PDM Cross Exhibit 1.0. Moultrie PO, however, never submitted an alternate route running south of US Highway 36 in Moultrie County. PDM Coalition insists that such evidence shows that the MZK Route was not motivated by a concern for existing developments; it was motivated by a desire to keep the line outside of Moultrie County notwithstanding the presence of several towns in southern Piatt County and western Douglas County".

    WHEN IS THERE GOING TO BE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS??????!!!!!!!

    Don Chambers
  • July 31, 2013

    For those of you living in Piatt and Douglas counties, you may wish to visit the following link:

    http://www.icc.illinois.gov/docket/files.aspx?no=12-0598&docId=200341

    click on 'proposed order'

    MZK is the route through our counties, even though they are still not listed as affected areas.

    Pages 85-99 are of special interest, unfortunately...
    it is not set in stone until the decision, but it sounds as though
    MCPO may have their way unless we can convince ICC otherwise.

    Don Chambers
  • July 25, 2013

    to whom it may concern,

    a friends property in schuyler county that we visit and enjoy on a regular basis their small plot is in the direct path of emrons purposed primary route. I respectfully request that the alternate route be utilized,consisting of using the first segment option coming north out of rushville in fredrik township which would take transition line north east (IN A DIRECT PATH TO THE IPAVA SUBSTATION)
    It is unrealistic to even consiter the primary route which goes considerably out of the way and would forever destroy hundreds possibly thousands of acres of mature forests and wildlife.
    please vote responsibly .
    sincerly
    james haymes

    james haymes
  • July 25, 2013

    I am on a fine line with my comments because I lived 20 years growing up in Moultrie County and have family there. My husband and I have lived and still live in Douglas County for 20+ years.

    We moved to a rural area for the quiet, open & peaceful views. The proposed MCPO power line will pass south of our property near Walnut Point State Park through many pieces of farmland. Not an attractive addition to the view. There is already a large set of power lines in our area as well.

    My issue is that we received notification of the line in Jan/Feb 2013 but Douglas County was not being considered so we didn't think much about it. Now there is the proposed MCPO line and we didn't have a chance to respond to it!

    Is the line being considered for Piatt & Douglas Counties because it "seemed" like there was no objection?? Judging by the number of red Stop MCPO signs along the roads there is objection!

    It's understandable no one wants a huge power line through their property so perhaps Ameren needs to determine if this one is really necessary. Are there other lines that can carry the load? Are we heading in the right direction for energy supplies in the country? If this is part of a government plan, is that proper? Many things need to be considered and how can we find the answers to these questions??

    Beth Harned
  • July 24, 2013

    I oppose the alternate route. The original Ameren route is a better one.
    Bradley Frantz
  • July 24, 2013

    I strongly oppose the location of the Mt.zion sub-station. By moving this sub-station even a couple miles to the south, like the village of mt. zion has proposed it gets the sub-station and the lines entering and exiting out of the village limits and away from a sub division, a park and two schools. It would also allow the village to expand to the south and utilize a very costly water main that was recently installed.It would also shorten the distance to the kansas sub-station.Why ameren would want to run these lines through a growing village, which would totaly stop all future growth FOREVER doesnt make sense and I hope the ALJ doesnt allow this to happen to the village and its residents.
    todd rigg
  • July 24, 2013

    Below is a direct email quote to me from Leigh Morris, Senior Communications Executive for Ameren, dated February 4, 2013, concerning the route of the power line:

    "We prefer the Primary Route and we vigorously advocate for its approval. However, the Alternate Route is viable. We have not changed these routes"

    Were the original designers of the route so incompetent that both of their proposals may ultimately be rejected?

    How is it that Piatt and Douglas counties are not even listed in the Illinois Commerce Commission's own case description, the one we must click on to post a response to this site, yet the route may be changed to run through these counties with insufficient time to react to this proposal?

    It is past time the residents of Piatt and Douglas counties received some honest answers from all parties involved in this decision.

    Don Chambers
  • July 24, 2013

    Our family owns property in Schuyler County, which unfortunately is in the path of the primary route. This piece of land is small, but sacred to us. The primary route runs almost exactly through the middle, from one end to the other.

    We ask the Illinois Commerce Commission and anone whom has influence on the final decision of this route or project to vote AGAINST the primary route in Scuyler County (going straight out of Fredrick Township; use the first segment route (going into the alternate route) which is a straight path to the Ipava substation.

    The primary route in this area is extremely longer, going out of the way, through almost 100% mature forest and rolling hillsides. I can NOT even imagine why this route was even an option from the beginning.

    Go to Ameren's website regarding this project and look at the map affecting Schuyler County and see for yourselves. It makes sense!

    Bonnie L. Vins
  • July 24, 2013

    I participated in the entire process at the elected local leaders' meetings in April and October 2012 in Arcola. Ameren officials and their media PR contractor only told us part of the story. I would have acted sooner had all the facts of this renewable energy transmission to the east coast been public knowledge. I submitted written, what we now know were very relevant, questions in April 2012 to Ameren, but never received a response.
    The potential route change notice that I received in early January, 5 days before the ICC hearing,indicated that only attorneys could participate. There was no time to hire an attorney, let alone figure out what was happening. The Ameren web site contained no additional information, Douglas County was not listed as an impacted county, and Ameren at the October meeting had given no indication there could be route changes other than between their secondary and primary selections.
    Two days prior to the January ICC hearing I was given the ICC web site address for the new map. Since the new proposed route violated several criteria that Ameren had used in their 2012 public process and I was informed that submitting an alternate proposed route was just part of the required ICC process for the Moultrie landowners to be heard, I just dismissed the Piatt Douglas route as being feasible.
    Illinois electric rate payers, especially those of us on rural Electric Co-ops, have paid dearly for the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant cost over runs. Why now do Illinois rate payers also need to help pay for East Coast renewable energy by building new substation off this line? Clinton should be able to provide all the addition electric requirement for Decatur and Champaign a whole lot cheaper for the Illinois rate payer than subsidizing construction of a grid to supply the east coast. Granted Ameren makes a whole lot more money. But at who's expense?

    Steve Jurgens
  • July 19, 2013

    Although I am not currently a resident of Illinois, my mother lives there and I am a property owner affected by the proposed transmission line. It would seem that the originally proposed approximate straight-line route would be the least expensive to the paying public, the least disruptive to property owners, and the best stewardship of valuable farmland. Thus it does not make sense why the current recommended re-routing through Piatt and Douglas Counties would abandon the original straight-line route to extend far to the north and then far to the south and thereby increasing the project cost, the number of parties inconvenienced and the consumption of land.

    Also it is very disappointing that the residents of Douglas and Piatt Counties were not and have not been afforded the same opportunities for input, dialog and feedback that was granted to the counties affected by the originally proposed routing. Why shouldn't the same consideration be given to the residents, and landowners, in Douglas and Piatt Counties and the same process applied? Until the questions and concerns of these counties can be heard and considered the current proposed re-routing should be abandoned and a process implemented which is fair to and involves the input from all potentially affected parties. I strongly oppose 12-0598.

    Brad Overturf
  • July 19, 2013

    Due process is not being followed. I receive letters in the mail about potentially being affected. Since the letter specifically did not list Douglas county as a potential route I did not utilize valuable time to attend meetings apparently unnecessary. The description for project on the ICC web site does not indicate Douglas county and neither did any of the mailings. The primary route while impacting more landowners uses less material and is less cost than the proposed "stair stepping" and should be utilized in the best interest of taxpayers and consumers. Studies need to be performed relative to cell coverage and digital tv signals as many non-right of way citizens will be impacted (especially a town 1/4 mile or less away. The proposed alternate route will be relatively close to 2 new (within 3 or 4 years) cell towers. Have the companies been notified and allowed comment? If negatively impacted, will Ameren add any necessary additional cell towers?
    The process, ethics, and politics surrounding this project seem to have a foul aroma.

    richard crist
  • July 19, 2013

    I am a resident of Douglas County, Illinois. I strongly oppose the MCPO alternate route through Douglas and Piatt Counties as proposed for the Ameren high voltage electrical line. There seems to be far more questions than answers. One of the most perplexing for me is how the MCPO can develop an alternate route in such a short amount of time that has now become the preferred route by Ameren. As Douglas and Piatt Counties were never considered in the original plan, many residents of these two counties were never given the opportunity to attend public forum discussions and have their voices heard.

    It is hard to believe the ICC would let this alternate route progress without the appropriate study of impact and proper notification to landowners within Douglas and Piatt Counties. Therefore, I strongly urge the Commission to reject the MCPO alternate route.

    Jarie Stonecipher

    Jarie Stonecipher
  • July 15, 2013

    My brother, David Overturf, could not have stated our family's opposition to the Ameren Transmission Project proposed in Douglas County, Illinois any better!! I am opposed to the Project and to the destruction of valuable farmland in Douglas County. We will seek any remedy available to us under the law to stop the Project.
    Joe Overturf
  • July 15, 2013

    My brother, David Overturf, did an outstanding job of expressing our family opposition to the Ameren Transmission Project being considered by the ICC in a prior posting. I am vehemently opposed to this Project given the affect it will have on the rural Camargo community and to the rich farm land that has been in our family for centuries. We will take every legal action to stop the Ameren Transmission Project through our family farm.
    Joe Overturf
  • July 15, 2013

    The proposed route for Ameren's transmission line would be very close to my property. I feel that the line will be unsafe. The line will cause property values to decrease. I am very unhappy that I was not notified in advance by Ameren about the plan for the transmission line. The guarantee of an 11% to 12% return on the investment in this line is an incentive to push the project through in a hurry without considering how it will affect the residents. I am opposed to the proposed route for Ameren's transmission line.
  • July 12, 2013

    I would like to state my vigorous opposition to Ameren's planned new high voltage electric service line and related facilities proposal in Douglas County.

    As a trustee in the Overturf Trust in Douglas County, the proposed route of the high voltage line would remove acres of valuable and productive farm land from use on our family farm. This ground has been in our family for well over 150 years and my family will fight this proposal with every legal and political resource we have.

    Why are new transmission lines required for this project? Electric transmission lines criss-cross the country extensively. Why are new ones required, when existing lines are there?

    If existing transmission lines is not a viable option, then I would also like to suggest an alternate route through Douglas County using a right of way along Rt. 36 and down Rt. 49 to Kansas, IL. I would also support burying the lines encased in conduit to avoid the awful visual blight these lines would bring to our area. I'm sure the cost of burying the lines would be offset by the cost savings from having to purchase the right of ways through dozens of farms, land, service and maintenance costs, and the extremely high costs of repair after inclement weather. This is a tornado prone area after all.

    There are better routes and better ways. No Ameren, not through our farm.

    David Overturf
  • July 12, 2013

    I strongly oppose Ameren's proposed high voltage electric service line project that would remove productive and valuable farm land from service in favor of these high voltage electric lines. Not on Overturf ground! And not in my back yard.
    Mary Overturf
  • July 12, 2013

    There are multiple negative points that should be considered with this new proposed route through Douglas and Piatt counties. I’ve listed three of them below:

    Ameren spent years studying/reviewing potential routes for the Illinois Rivers Project while the proposed MCPO route that goes through Douglas County was identified within 3 weeks. Is 3 weeks really enough time to make an educated decision? Ameren has done none of the vetting process with this site that was done on the original choice.

    The initial route was a direct route whereas the MCPO route travels miles off course, impacts more cropland and includes 90 degree angles. From what I understand, each turn would cost an additional 1 million dollars in project costs. Why would a new route that substantially increases the cost be chosen?

    As of today, July 11, Douglas and Piatt counties are not even listed as affected counties on your website. Nor are they listed as an affected county on the Ameren website either. If Douglas/Piatt counties were not considerable at that time; why on earth would they be considered now?

    As a citizen of Douglas County, I ask that you please do the right thing and do NOT install this line through Douglas or Piatt counties. Thank you for your time.

    Theresa Quinn

    Theresa Quinn
  • July 11, 2013

    Common sense has gone out of the window in this country. Decisions are being made based upon political need instead of practical necessity. Let's see if I have this right:

    Politicians want to appear to be environmentally sound and require the increased use of alternative fuels for energy whether it makes sense or not. Wind is an alternative fuel but is only reliable if the wind blows so, of course, a facility has to be built.

    Transmission lines may or may not handle the load of transporting the additional energy so we must spend a lot of money to transport the unreliable fuel without attempting to use existing lines first.

    A direct route for the line would be most cost efficient for a new line but it displeases some people so lets extend the line to avoid those people and spend a lot more money and damage a lot more very good farm land whether it makes sense or not. Appeasement is after all the name of the game.

    The power is being produced in a state on one side of Illinois but is needed in a state on the opposite side so the decision is made to destroy good farmland in Illinois instead of building the facility where it is needed.

    There are rules to this process including notification requirements, informational requirements and filing requirements and deadlines. These rules have become inconvenient so they are simply being ignored.

    The existing power grid becomes more vulnerable to weather and terrorism concerns each day. Improving the security of the grid by perhaps burying lines is costly. Lets just ignore those concerns and spend money building a new line just a vulnerable to weather and terrorism.

    Do I have this right?

    I do not live in Illinois but my family farms in Illinois and has for generations. I understand I am not technically suppose to comment but feel I should have the right to do so. I have spent the last few months reading everything I could find and talking to anyone I could identify as knowledgeable in the project and/or subject. Admittedly my access to information is somewhat limited by geographic distance but then many in Illinois seem to feel their information has been severely limited as well.

    It would seem to me that decisions of this magnitude should be made by Illinois authorities for the good of the people and land of Illinois and not for the benefit of adjacent states or select individuals. From everything I can see, the ultimate true cost of the proposed transmission line far exceeds any possible benefit to the people of Illinois and the process essentially disenfranchises the people of Douglas and Piatt counties and perhaps numerous others. I would suggest you go back to the drawing board and work out a new project that will benefit Illinois as a whole that can be labeled as coming from an alternative source and, thereby, acceptable in the political world. Perhaps it can also be a complete project that begins to deal with the vulnerabilities of the power grid. Isn't it time we got back to making good long term decisions that will benefit the people of Illinois and for that matter, the entire country even if those decisions are not politically expedient.


    C. Weller
  • July 9, 2013

    May 26, 2012 12:01 am • By CHRIS LUSVARDI - H&R Staff Writer(0) Comments
    MOUNT ZION — The idea Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois officials have behind a proposed approximately $1 billion Illinois Rivers transmission line is improving electric delivery well into the future.

    The project, intended to increase the capacity and reliability of the electric grid, will span 330 miles using 345,000-volt transmission lines from northern Missouri through Central Illinois and into Indiana. The exact routes haven’t been decided, although the proposed corridor could include parts of Christian, Coles, Douglas, Edgar, Macon, Moultrie, Piatt and Shelby counties.

    r richards
  • July 9, 2013

    How is it possible that the first notification I get of this transmission line going through my family's farm is when I receive a certified mailing from Ameren asking permission to survey along our property? This is absurd and defies logic.

    My family was given no formal opportunity to voice our concern over this transmission line which will pass through land our family has owned for 150 years. It has already been bisected by I-57 which removed hundreds of valuable acreage out of production and now this? Where is the Due Process? Where are the rights for individual taxpayers to voice their opinions against Corporate interests?

    I'd like an explanation of how the Moultrie County property owners are allowed to divert the line into Douglas and Piatt counties with no input from those affected? Are their tax dollars more valuable than the ones we pay in Douglas County.

    Do the right thing. Both proposed routes run through Moultrie County in a more direct, straight and less cost prohibitive fashion connecting directly with the Mt. Zion substation. Do not allow this transmission line to pass through Douglas and Piatt counties. This change in proposed routes is wrong and I would expect you to stand up against it. Thank you.

    Phillip Mattix
  • July 8, 2013

    "The current transmission line proposal is in direct opposition to all of the aesthetic qualities that I have come to know and love about our area and that others travel here to enjoy." Our Amish community is known for it's simplicity- ie no electricity.
    "Our simple, beautiful environment is an asset that enhances our way of life and continues to grow our economy. The contradictory nature of this project as it relates to our way of life through tourism and farming is bad enough, but to have a project of this type brought in without appropriate public notification, any approval from the local jurisdiction, or any community input or support is an unbelievably vile abuse of the public trust. As a result, I strongly oppose any transmission lines being erected in the central Illinois area..." especially Douglas and Coles counties, .."and because I believe this project is against the public good for the people of Illinois, I completely oppose this project in it entirety, and let alone in its currently proposed location."
    Well said A. Harris

    M. Miller
  • July 8, 2013

    No to the Ameren Alternate Route. Simply put, Amish don't use electricity and the Amish don't want a massive electric transmission system running through their homelands. By far the most intrusive route to Amish area farmland is the Ameren alternate route running east of Lovington, south of Arthur and west towards Humboldt. The area between Lovington and Humboldt is Illinois' largest Amish community that draws thousands of tourists and revenue dollars to the area and state. Keep the area as it should be kept. No to the Ameren Alternate Route.
    Tim Miller
  • July 8, 2013

    I honestly don't know where to start with this. I don't know if I'm more frustrated with the information that I do have or the information that I don't have. It's unbelieveable that I can't find out more details about such a large scale project. As a professional I must complete the process of due diligence when proposing a project for consideration. I do this because the stakeholders require it to insure that it is the best option. In this case, the stakeholders are the taxpayers and the citizens affected by this project. I must say that I'm disappointed that I can not find out more. The only map that I've found of the MCPO proposal for Piatt county is poor at best. I don't know if the line will go right over my property or just within a few hundred feet. Either one is very objectionable to me.

    Are we to believe that the hastily configured plan proposed by MCPO is more comprehensive than the ones suggested by the professional engineers who do this kind of thing everyday? If you draw a straight line on the map between the points of generation and consumption, it doesn't come anywhere near Piatt or Douglas counties. I realize that geometry plays only a part in the decision but let's face it, distance is a huge part of determining the cost for this project. How can the impact to the environment and economy be properly evaluated in such a short time frame. The people of Moultrie county have had their voices heard. Why can't the people of Piatt and Douglas counties be given the same consideration? Especially since the MCPO proposed plan was filed after the deadline.

    No one has been able to tell me what this line will do to my cell phone reception or my TV reception. My job requires that I am accessible and it may be difficult without cell reception at the place where I spend most of my time (my home!). I also realize that cell phone and satelite TV are not a guaranteed right but if everyone were asked to do without them, there would be an outcry heard all the way to Washington. Wait a minute. Come to think of it, didn't the current administration pass out free cell phones? Apparently they believe cell phones to be a basic service that all Americans have a right to.

    I bear no ill feelings towards the MCPO but I'm asking that the ICC ignore their proposal and stay the course with the original routes submitted by Ameren.

    Thank you, Dave Price

    Dave Price
  • July 8, 2013

    Let me start by saying I oppose the Ameren Transmission project in Illinois, Case -12-0598. If it is so important then why don't they update the Trasmissions that already cross Illinois. Then I seen that now they want to go though Piatt and Douglas Counties. What goes with this? I see NO Benefit To anyone in Illinois and Piatt and Douglas Counties. Wow I CAN SEE IS Transmission lines over the Amish who Don't use electity. Wow!!!!! NOT WAY TO THE TRANSMISSION LINE!!!!!!!1
    Butch Fisher
  • July 8, 2013

    We live on 1270 N - just a fraction of a mile from a segment option.
    We are worried - we have heard that there are health risks when the line is near your property.

    We don't understand why the line isn't following other power lines- why a new route. Why not Railroad right of ways - somewhere less disruptive to homeowners and land owners.

    We also don't understand why the line is necessary- the power is not going to local residents.

    We know friends and coworkers that have joined in lawsuits to stop this project. Normal people raising children who are worried about the health issues. Normal people who are worried about their life savings invested in their largest asset- their home- that might be worth considerably less because there is a power line nearby.

    Christine Childress
  • July 8, 2013

    When I learned that Ameren was spending hundreds of thousands of extra dollars to appease Moultrie County farmers, I was appalled. NO ONE wants these power lines to cross their productive, beautiful land.

    Ameren should spend that money putting their poles and ten foot bases along already established roads and railroads.

    Please do not allow Ameren to change their original, efficient route to appease one group of farmers at the expense of another. Better yet, do not allow Ameren lines to run across ANY farm land.

    Sharon Ponder

    Sharon Ponder
  • July 8, 2013

    Ameren preferred the route through Moultrie County as being more cost effective. With this new plan, the public, through taxes and utility bills, is going to be expected to pay more in order to run the transmission lines through more turns as it passes through Piatt and Douglas Counties. It does not make economic sense for the public and when that's the case, it makes one wonder who has the clout to profit by passing on unnecessary costs to all of us. A million here and a million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. Ironically, I'm posting about a route now proposed to run through Piatt and Douglas Counties and the 12-0598 petition doesn't even include these counties! These events do nothing to give any of us in this area confidence in this process.
    John Davis
  • July 8, 2013

    I hope that this line is stopped and due process occurs. This line is slated to go across a farm that my wife and I own and we just learned that this proposed route was introduced by a group from Moultrie County that didn't want it crossing their county. How is it that Ameren worked for years on engineering the route and then a group with no expertise proposes a route and it immediately is approved? Something is really wrong here. We Douglas County residents went to meetings months ago on this line and were told to go home and didn't need to stay because the line wouldn't be going through Douglas. Like I said before, this needs to be halted and the process needs to start over so that the counties of Douglas, Piatt, and others can be heard.

    Sincerely, Daniel P. Meyer

    Dan Meyer
  • July 8, 2013

    I live along and am opposed to the MCPO-proposed route and Mt. Zion-Kansas portion of the Illinois Rivers Project. The need for the project itself should be more fully investigated. ICC staff question the need for this portion of the project and suggest that the Commission deny the CPCN for the Mt. Zion to Kansas section. The MCPO route is vague, was changed after the deadline, and does not follow an efficient path. The MCPO route heads north from Mt. Zion in order to go to Kansas. It does not make an effort to follow existing lines to avoid disruption to peoples’ lives and land. It is difficult to know where the line will be physically positioned with MCPO’s maps. Affected parties along the MCPO route have not had the benefit of public forums or an up-to-date website. The expedited process has not allowed participation from those affected, especially given the timing of the stipulation of Ameren and MCPO.
    Michael Hutchinson
  • July 8, 2013

    I am strongly opposed to the MCPO proposed route that is about to be ruled on by the ICC for several reasons:
    The people of Piatt and Douglas County have not been properly notified about this route. We have not had any public input into this process. Piatt and Douglas are not even listed ANYWHERE as being impacted counties??
    It makes no sense to me why you would spend millions of rate payer dollars researching multiple routes and then suddenly abandon all routes researched in favor of a route proposed by someone who researched the route from a helicopter in a fraction of the time spent by Ameron.
    I am also hearing that the substation in Mount Zion, Il. may not even be necessary. So I urge you the ICC to carefully consider your decision in this matter, and trust that you will run this line from Pana to Kansas or stay with your primary and researched routes through Moultrie County, and not recklessly through several uninformed counties (Piatt and Douglas). Sincerely Gary Schlabach

    Gary L. Schlabach
  • July 8, 2013

    There's an old saying you can catch more with honey than vinegar. Apparently MCPO got the honey and Douglas & Piatt got the vinegar, but it doesn't smell much like vinegar !!

    I have a lot of questions and can not find any answers on Ameren or ICC websites. I couldn't even find Douglas and Piatt listed.

    My family has been farming in Douglas since the early 1800's and Piatt in the early 1900's.

    It is my understanding a different route was extensively studied. Is there an ENVIRONMENTAL or ECONOMIC study for Douglas &Piatt.

    Why THE SUDDEN CHANGE AFTER THE FILLING DEADLINE--Anybody know ??

    Since the power lines could run through up to 3 of my fields, I don't know for sure and apparently nobody else does.

    As a business person, if I was going to spend millions on a project I would at least know where it was going.

    I am 100% opposed to this idiotic change.

    Dan Gregory
    Atwood , IL

    Dan Gregory
  • July 2, 2013

    As a lifelong Douglas County resident, I have ever failed to appreciate the landscape around me. Throughout my life, my family has always enjoyed travelling through our beautiful rural areas to visit with family and friends and take in the simplicity. The current transmission line proposal is in direct opposition to all of the aesthetic qualities that I have come to know and love about our area and that others travel here to enjoy. Our simple, beautiful environment is an asset that enhances our way of life and continues to grow our economy. The contradictory nature of this project as it relates to our way of life and the natural beauty of the area is bad enough, but to have a project of this type brought in without appropriate public notification, any approval from the local jurisdiction, or any community input or support is an unbelievably vile abuse of the public trust. As a result, I strongly oppose any transmission lines being erected in Douglas and Piatt Counties, and because I believe this project is against the public good for the people of Illinois, I completely oppose this project in it entirety, and let alone in its currently proposed location.
    A. Harris's
  • July 2, 2013

    I am writing on behalf of my husband and two children to oppose the MCPO-proposed route through Douglas and Piatt counties. It should not be considered for the following reasons:

    •Ameren spent years studying and reviewing possible routes for this project, and based on Ameren’s findings, Douglas and Piatt Counties were not selected as sites for the ‘potential´ routes published and discussed by Ameren during dozens of public forums held across the state in the summer of 2012.
    •Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed as project sites in Ameren’s final 2012 petition to the ICC.
    •The originally submitted MCPO route was developed in less than three 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.
    •No public forums or opportunities for public feedback have been held in connection with the MCPO route.
    •Ameren reviewed 32 geographic sensitivities in selecting their routes, whereas MCPO only reviewed 6.
    •The ICC notification sent to property owners on January 7, 2013 after the filing of the MCPO route listed 18 impacted counties. Douglas and Piatt Counties were not listed causing even more confusion.
    •Douglas and Piatt are not listed as impacted counties on the “Maps” page of Ameren’s IRP website.
    •In addition, Piatt and Douglas Counties are not listed on the ICC web page describing the nature of this case, nor do Douglas and Piatt Counties appear in any of the project descriptions placed at the top of hundreds of documents filed on the ICC’s website/e-Docket, despite the fact that the ICC e-Docket is the exact place where the ICC directed property owners to go for more information.

    In short, many Douglas and Piatt property owners cannot find clear information related to their counties in this case. Based on the presence of vague and even conflicting information, the lack of proper notification, the absence of any public meetings regarding the MCPO route, not to mention testimony from Ameren stating that the Ameren routes represent the only viable routes, the MCPO route should be rejected!

    Karen Freese
  • July 2, 2013

    Hello, this is our second posting since the comments sent last week have not yet appeared. We live 6 miles west of Hammond and would be directly impacted by this transmission line. We strongly oppose the MCPO alternate route for the Ameren High Voltage Electrical Line through South Piatt and Douglas counties. We live in south Piatt county and were recently made aware of the MCPO alternate route and Ameren's agreement with this group to accept their plan. We have been following the Illinois Rivers and related web sites for this project for months; to date no mention of Piatt County has occurred on these websites so we have not been concerned with these lines being near our property. Recent community meetings have made us aware of unfair and possibly illegal agreements between Ameren and the MCPO to move the location of these lines to run through south Piatt and Douglas counties thus potentially on or adjacent to our property. There is still no mention of Piatt county on these websites. Landowners of Douglas and Piatt Counties were not invited to participate in the same public process offered other citizens and landowners. Piatt and Douglas Counties are not listed as impacted counties on the Ameren website. How are we to know if we are impacted by this project and where is the due process in the selection of a route? We strongly urge you to reject the MCPO alternate route. 

    Randy and Karen Harlin

    Randy and Karen Harlin
  • July 2, 2013

    We are counsel for a group of landowners primarily in Piatt and Douglas Counties, and several of them are reporting that they or others have been unable to post public comments on this case in recent days.
    Kurt Wilke
  • July 2, 2013

    The proposed high voltage line will not directly impact me, but it does cross through the middle of my parents property. Although Douglas county does not appear to be on this list, it is my understanding that it has been recommended as an alternate route. On behalf of my mother and father, we are opposed to any large structures on our property.

    Respectfully,

    John Myers

    John Myers
  • July 2, 2013

    I oppose the re-routing of transmission lines through Douglas and Piatt counties. The original route is shorter and more efficient.

    Sincerely, Randy Mayhall

    Randy Mayhall
  • July 2, 2013

    I am opposed to the proposed Ameren line that would pass through Douglas County. Since this route is not the most direct route available, it makes no sense from an engineering nor an economic point of view. I would therefore highly recommend that route suggested in Case # 12-0598 be denied.
    Curt Cannon
  • July 2, 2013

    The MCPO-proposed route through Douglas and Piatt should not be considered for the following reasons:

    Ameren spent years studying and reviewing possible routes for this project, and per Ameren'ss findings, Douglas and Piatt Counties were not selected as sites for the potential routes published and discussed by Ameren during dozens of public forums held across the state in the summer of 2012.

    Piatt and Douglas Counties were not listed as project sites final 2012 petition to the ICC.

    The originally submitted MCPO route was developed in less than three 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-corridors like Ameren's proposed 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 90 degree turns than Ameren's alternate.

    No public forums or opportunities for public feedback have been held in connection with the MCPO route.

    Ameren reviewed 32 geographic sensitivities in selecting their routes, whereas MCPO only reviewed 6.

    The ICC notification sent to property owners on January 7, 2013 after the filing of the MCPO route listed 18 impacted counties. Douglas and Piatt Counties were not listed causing even more confusion.

    Douglas and Piatt are not listed as impacted counties on the Maps page of Ameren's site.

    In addition, Piatt and Douglas Counties are not listed on the ICC web page describing the nature of this case, nor do Douglas and Piatt Counties appear in any of the project descriptions placed at the top of hundreds of documents fs website/e-Docket, despite the fact that the ICC e-Docket is the exact place where the ICC directed property owners to go for more information.

    In short, many Douglas and Piatt property owners cannot find clear information related to their counties in this case. Based on the presence of vague and even conflicting information, the lack of proper notification, the absence of any public meetings regarding the MCPO route, not to mention testimony from Ameren stating that the Ameren routes represent the only viable routes for this project, the MCPO route should be rejected!


    Karen Freese
  • July 2, 2013

    I contacted and protested this transmission line last year and then find out it was not in PIatt County. Seven months later I get my first note that they are considering a move into Piatt County now affecting my farm.

    How can we go from the Ameren website both orig and proposed routes with no mention of Piatt route then all of a sudden this route pops up without any notification, hearings, etc.

    The lack of communication and transparency is down right deceptive.

    I object to any people assessing for survey my property and object to the handling / lack of due process in this matter.

    Please contact me and explain the deception of Ameren and lack of due process by the commerce commission

    David Learmonth
    817-845-9190

    David Learmonth
  • July 2, 2013

    I oppose the High Voltage Electric Line running through the rural community of Douglas County.
    Tammy Hemrich
  • July 2, 2013

    I would like to voice my opposition to the MCPO alternate route for Ameren's High Voltage Transmission line. I do not feel that proper care
    nor notification was afforded the citizens of Piatt or Douglas County in this proposal. The route almost looks as if some vindictive farmers in Moultrie County have chosen this convoluted route in an effort to damage the farming practices of some of their competitors. I would hate to think that is the case, but I believe further study should be awarded this project before the landscape and farming culture of Douglas and Piatt County are forever ruined. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opionion.
    Becky Hollensbe

    Becky Hollensbe
  • July 2, 2013

    I urge the Illinois Commerce Commission to challenge the premise upon which Ameren is attempting to justify the Illinois Rivers Project and to deny this entire project. This is just one of many such projects threatening Illinois. It is time to send a message to the nation that Illinois is not going to accept becoming the interstate highway of electric transmission lines in order to support uneconomical renewal energy sources. Common sense dictates that generating facilities should be built closer to the source of need.

    The proposed Illinois Rivers Project will carry wind energy from the western plains across the width of Illinois. Ameren has stated that Illinois is slated to receive 10% of this energy while the remainder will serve the eastern US. As discussed below one must question the staying power of wind as a long term energy source and the wisdom of transmitting it from isolated generation points across multiple states. It is difficult to conceive how the minor benefits accruing to Illinois from this project will offset the tremendous negative environmental costs associated with a 345kv line cutting a blighted path across the entire State. This line will affect homes, businesses, woodlands and bisect farms comprised of some of the best land in the world. It is time for all stakeholders to recognize that prime farmland is a valuable, limited resource that is not renewable. It is hypocritical of supporters of so called “green energy” to ignore the importance and preservation of the most “green” asset of all which is land.

    The major justification for the Illinois Rivers Project is based on the assumption that wind will be a long term, viable source of energy. This has proven to be a false assumption. One must question why massive transmission projects are still being designed to transmit energy from a source that is and will never be more than a niche player in the power industry.

    Former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm stated that the U.S. wind energy industry has received $24 billion in federal subsidies. Although the wind industry has received these subsidizes since 1992, financially it still is not able to stand on its own. The Department of Energy reported that in 2010, for each megawatt hour of generation, the wind industry received a subsidy of $56.29. At the same time the coal and gas industries each received 64 cents per megawatt hour.

    The most efficient wind turbines generate only 5 kilowatts per acre. That translates into 300 square miles of land or 192,000 acres to generate 1,000 megawatts. In comparison, a conventional power plant requires a few hundred acres to generate an equivalent amount of electricity. (Source: “The Rationale for Wind Power Won’t Fly” by Dr. Jay Lehr, Heartland Institute, Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2013.)

    Dr. Lehr notes that nowhere in the world, have wind turbines replaced a single conventional power plant! Wind turbines generate electricity only 30% of the time but it is impossible to predict when that time will occur. Conventional generation is required for the remaining 70% of the time and must remain in a backup mode during the 30% of time so as to always be available.

    Wind energy has demonstrated that it cannot sustain itself without federal tax credits. When the time arrives that taxpayers no longer subsidize wind energy, what will be the fate of the wind turbines and the long haul transmission lines? Will these remain forever as a blight on the landscape to remind us of our folly?

    Patrick Burns
  • July 2, 2013

    This is detrimental to Douglas,Piatt county it will ruin our income and this is not even providing a service to us--this is helping people out east. !! NO NO NO there is so much negative with this--it will hurt our livelihood not to mention health and safety.
    Sandra Gregory
  • July 2, 2013

    Below is a continuation of Neil McDonald’s comments pertaining to Case 12-0598:

    Additionally, for perspective, the Illinois Rivers project and many others like it by MISO/FERC are mostly about developing wind energy and how to get it from the plain states, across Illinois and other states, to the heavily populated East Coast where they somehow don't have the wherewithal to build any type of traditional electrical power plants. Project benefits for the Midwestern states are little and few. Plus, the huge costs for designing and constructing the long west to east power transmission lines are not included in the cost of wind energy, which 'must' be kept falsely low to meet political ideology. With all of the grants, subsidies, tax incentives and federal blow-harding for wind energy I wonder who is really paying for all of this. Any guesses?

    Further, the current MISO 17-project Multi Value Project Portfolio, of which the Illinois Rivers Project is only one, is stated in MISO's previously mentioned January, 2012 report to have a total estimated cost of $5,180,000,000. Yes, that's Five *Billion*, One Hundred Eighty Million Dollars. And this is only for 'current' plans within the Midwestern ISO (MISO) area. MISO estimates the Illinois Rivers Project across the width of mid-Illinois alone totals over 3/4 billion dollars, of which the Case 12-0598 portion from Pana to Kansas is $284 million. (Note: MISO states this is based on the value of a dollar in the year 2011.)

    Amazing and yes, strange, that this entire federal government plan that affects local matters so dramatically has not previously been a highly publicized issue. It is way past time for citizens of our area and the United States to become more aware and involved.

    F