TLC is opposed to the proposed new power line, and the speakers during
the Wednesday forum questioned the motives and rationale behind the
proposal. They questioned that the line was necessary and encouraged
attendees to seek legislative action, pursue the NEPA (National
Environmental Policy Agency) process and “get loud” in their opposition
to the line.

TLC plans to host another forum in the Valley on April 20 with the utility companies as guest speakers.

Fort Garland resident Sally Keller described TLC as a coalition of
concerned citizens and independent member groups who support
environmentally sound alternatives that rely on upgrades to the existing
corridor.

“We do not support the transmission line,” she said.

TLC encompasses such groups as the Land Rights Council, Save La Veta
Valley, SLV Ecosystem Council, Sangre de Cristo Homeowners Association
and Majors Ranch Homeowners Association as well as individuals.

Keller reminded the group of some of the history of the line and efforts
to oppose it and said several matters are pending right now so “stay
tuned.”

Carol Overland, author of “Transmission Lies” and legal counsel
representing groups opposing transmission lines in the Midwest and East
Coast, questioned the need for new transmission lines anywhere in the
U.S. because demand has decreased.

“Demand is way down,” she said. “If demand is down, what’s the driver?”

She said one of the reasons power demands have decreased is the loss of big industry in this country.

“That kind of need is not coming back anytime soon,” she said.

“I have never met a transmission project that was for the reasons they say it is,” she said.

“The biggest lie of all is that we need it.”

Overland said she was not as familiar with Colorado processes and the
Valley’s proposal as she was with those in the Midwest where she works,
but she encouraged the audience to question the stated purposes for the
new line here. She said completing the circuit is a legitimate reason
but there might be other ways to accomplish that other than a new line.

She suggested upgrading existing corridors and infrastructure rather
than building new, and she advocated replacing fossil-fueled power with
renewable energy. As utility companies are required to implement
renewable energy standards, at the same time they should be backing off
from traditional power sources, she said.

Overland said new transmission lines are being constructed not to address need or renewable energy mandates but to sell power.

She encouraged Valley residents to push for legislation that allows them
to become part of the public input process early on (“typically the
public does not get involved until too late”) and that requires utility
companies to consider the people who are directly affected by proposed
transmission lines, such as the landowners over whose property the lines
will cross.

“It’s built on the backs of landowners … and on the backs of ratepayers.”

Overland also said just because an area might provide the best resource
for renewable energy such as solar does not mean it should be used over
an area that might provide adequate resources and less disturbance to
landowners.

“This isn’t rocket science,” she said. “It’s only electrical.”

She urged local residents to “get loud,” “raise hell” and become involved politically and publicly.

“Get active at all levels,” she said. “You’ve got to be proactive. They are not going to come to you.”

Colorado Open Lands President Dan Pike urged utilization of the NEPA
process in connection with this project. He said he has never seen a
better, more comprehensive process. NEPA looks at both sides of an
issue, benefits and drawbacks and considers all types of impacts from
economic to environmental, he said.

Pike, whose organization holds 20 conservation easements in the
transmission line study area (the largest of which is on Trinchera
Ranch), described processes and players involved in transmission line
projects and said it can be very complicated, with decision makers
involved at all levels from local to federal levels.

“The day of utilities making proposals for transmission lines in isolation is about over,” he said.

Pike said environmental analysis decisions could be appealed first
administratively and ultimately legally if necessary. The latter is
something most government agencies want to avoid, he said, so they want
to make sure the process is conducted properly.

He said as it stands now, environmental analyses have not been
comprehensive enough, and if more information and more impacts are not
considered, “they have got an imminently challengeable decision.”

Going back to NEPA, he said, “I am really a fan of NEPA as a decision
making tool … It requires you have the adequate information to make
decisions. I don’t think we have got the adequate information.”

The third speaker at Wednesday night’s TLC forum was Gary Graham, Ph.D.,
transmission project director for Western Resource Advocates, an
environmental group that came out in support of the La Veta line. His
main focus was climate change, and he talked about warming trends and
the effect on wildlife habitat, particularly at higher elevations.

Graham advocated replacing “dirty energy” with renewable energy, with that energy requiring transmission.

“We don’t know how much renewable energy is going to be needed,” he said.

A district judge in Montana ruled Monday that a Canadian developer of a high-voltage power line has no authority to condemn private property for the project.

The decision, filed Monday, is a victory for landowners trying to limit the impact of the Montana Alberta Tie Line. It also could carry ramifications for other developers proposing transmission projects to meet demand from wind developers asking for additional shipping capacity.

“Larry Salois only wanted to protect his mother’s property from the transmission line going through historic Indian archaeological sites,” said Salois’ attorney, Hertha Lund. “He never wanted a legal battle.”

Salois is the guardian of his mother, Shirley Salois, the property owner. They live east of Cut Bank.

In July, a Montana subsidiary of Tonbridge Power Inc. of Toronto filed a complaint to condemn their land in Glacier County District Court after Salois argued the proposed route should be adjusted across his property farther from tepee rings and a wetland.

Lund argued Tonbridge could not exercise the right of eminent domain because it is not an agent of the state that has been given express legislative authority to acquire private property.

District Judge Laurie McKinnon agreed and granted Salois’ motion to dismiss the company’s condemnation complaint.

“No judicial decision that this court is aware of provides authority for MATL’s position that a private merchant transmission line, without express or implied authority for condemnation, may pursue eminent domain proceedings,” she wrote.

The Legislature’s grant of eminent domain power to governmental bodies must be strictly construed, the judge said.

Private individuals and corporations, like state agencies, have no inherent power of eminent domain, McKinnon said, and their authority to use it must be derived specifically from the Legislature.

Years ago, condemnation by a public utility for the purpose of constructing electrical power lines was authorized by legislation, the judge said. That authority allowed the former Montana Power Co. to acquire property by eminent domain.

But that legislation has since been repealed “and MATL can cite no legislative authority for its pursuit of land acquisitions by eminent domain, either expressly or by necessary implication,” the judge said.

Tonbridge had asserted that an electrical transmission line is a public use, giving the company the right of eminent domain. Three wind farm developers have purchased capacity on the line. Poles started going in the ground in August with the company working around the Salois property.

Bob Williams of Tonbridge said the company was surprised and disappointed with the decision. Tonbridge is considering an appeal, he said.

Voluntary deals with landowners remain the company’s goal, he said. The Salois complaint was the company’s first condemnation action in Montana.

“That said, projects such as this that are in the public interest have to be able to fall back on eminent domain as a last resort,” Williams said.

“Even when we have exhausted all other options, it still means that landowners are compensated fairly.”

The MATL project was permitted under the Major Facilities Siting Act and the public need for it was determined during the review process, said Johan van’t Hof, Tonbridge’s CEO.

He argued the judge’s decision “doesn’t square with the reality” of private companies building cable, telephone, transmission and pipelines.

As a result of the decision, Lund, Salois’ attorney, expects other businesses planning transmission lines to seek a “legislative fix,” giving companies the power to condemn land for transmission lines.

NorthWestern Energy, the state’s largest utility, is planning the $1 billion Mountain States Transmission Intertie, which also would ship wind power. Tonbridge and renewable energy developer Gaelectric are jointly planning the “Green Line” between Great Falls and Townsend.

“I hope the Legislature protects the interest of the landowner and the small guy in this process,” Lund said.

The 215-mile transmission line will connect the electricity grids in Montana and Alberta between Great Falls and Lethbridge, Alberta.

Tonbridge still is negotiating easements with landowners along the southern half of the project from Cut Bank to Great Falls, where construction has yet to begin. Lund also represents 20 landowners along that stretch in easement negotiations. Those landowners have been pushing for tweaks in the line as well.

“This obviously puts them in the driver’s seat,” Lund said of the Salois decision.

Salois pushed the company to alter the location of poles planned for his property, outside of the 500-foot approved corridor, because he said the line was planned too close to Blackfeet tepee rings and a wetland.

In October, the Blackfeet Business Council agreed to write a letter in support of Salois’ efforts. The council said the land involved was once Blackfeet land and told Salois that he had the support of the nine-member council “in your efforts to fend off this incursion by a multinational company.”

“For now, things are protected,” Larry Salois said.