METC In Planning Stages of Oneida-Sabine Lake Project
METC is preparing to issue good faith offers and initiate eminent domain proceedings for its Helix to Hiple and Nelson Road to Oneida Projects. Both projects have received Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) approvals, as discussed in this post. I currently represent the owners of over 140 impacted parcels. At the same time, METC is in the early stages of planning the Oneida-Sabine Lake Project, which METC describes as a 50-mile, 345 kV transmission line from the existing Oneida station in Eaton County to the new Sabine Lake station in Livingston County.
Although METC obtained certificates for the two projects, the MPSC was critical of its handling certain issues. In granting the certificate, the Commission “admonishe[d] METC for its efforts in this case to explore the feasibility of routing the Nelson-Oneida Line through public land. In its application, METC relies on a single email response from the MDNR to categorically reject routing the Nelson-Oneida Line through the Maple River State Game Area.” The Commission also established a process by which METC was required to consider minor route adjustment requests made by owners. I have handled many of these requests for my clients. In several instances, METC has agreed to modifications that reduce impacts on property owners. For example, the METC has agreed to preliminary pole placements in fence rows or in locations that either reduce impact on pivot movements or farm equipment travel.
METC appears to be streamlining the process for the Oneida-Sabine Lake Project by seeking early input. This newspaper article by the Michigan Advance quotes me extensively.
METC’s website identifies seven potential routes for the project(s).
METC is also publishing a newsletter regarding the project. One photograph included in the newsletter warrants attention.
In the METC easements I have reviewed and handled, buildings like the one pictured would generally be prohibited from being constructed so close to the transmission lines. The photograph is taken at an angle so that the trees appear significantly closer to the lines than are allowed by their easements. Based on METC’s easements for other projects, I would expect that METC’s easements for this project will be the same, potentially permitting METC to clear a 200-foot-wide corridor through affected properties. The newsletter describes the extensive public comments that have been received to date.
As I indicate in the newspaper article, retaining counsel early is highly beneficial. Although I do not practice before the MPSC, which will decide whether the project may proceed and, if so, which route will be approved, I am willing to accept clients a contingency basis at this early stage. A contingency fee proved useful in connection with the Oneida-to-Nelson Road project, where dozens of my clients were located on the original proposed route but were ultimately excluded from the project. In circumstances where my contingent fee clients have their property ultimately excluded from a project, I typically did not charge those clients any fee.
If your property is located along one of the proposed routes, please feel free to contact me. I would be happy to discuss the rights available to property owners if METC ultimately seeks to acquire an easement across your property.