Michigan transmission line project sparks fears of land seizures via eminent domain

Two electric transmission line projects pending state approval have some Michigan residents worried that their properties could be seized via eminent domain, but they might be getting some help from the Republican-controlled Michigan House of Representatives in fighting back.

The projects proposed by ITC Holding Corp., doing business as the Michigan Electric Transmission Company, plan to build two approximately 50 mile spans of high-voltage electric transmission lines, one from the Indiana border starting in Branch County to a substation in Calhoun County, and the other stretching from Eaton County to Gratiot County. 

The projects were proposed in 2022 and are slated to cost nearly $850 million. They have been hailed by supporters as some of the first transmission line projects approved by MISO, a midwestern power grid operator, which could help bolster Michigan’s electric grid.

But the situation has some residents grappling with the possibility of an electricity rate increase that could affect all Michiganders, as well as concerns that their land might be seized in the process.

One of those residents is Marcia Klein, who began organizing members in her community to fight against the project with the hope of getting more information on the company and possibly having the lines placed underground so that whole swaths of land remain in the hands of property owners.

In an interview with Michigan Advance, Klein said she was concerned that ITC did not include a cost-benefit analysis in its applications and that the commission also noted that issue as one of their concerns. Klein also said that the company appears to be dismissive of calls to use existing utility or state land easements.

She said she questioned the company’s preferred approach to build on what is known as virgin land, untouched by other industries, and why the company hasn’t sought to route its lines through state land, which would require permitting and approval from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Klein further questioned the logic of new siting laws for large scale energy projects that took local control away from cities and townships and placed those decisions in the hands of the Michigan Public Service Commission.

“I’m not against progress, or electricity, the grids, the expansion,” Klein said. “It’s just the wrong place.”

She told the Advance that she felt that there weren’t enough chances for public input and that any influence over a decision is well out of their reach. Klein also said that unlike the Gotion battery plant issue last year, too few local residents or Michigan citizens statewide knew about their struggle to circumvent the project’s approval. In the case of the Gotion plant, the project has been put on hold, due in part to the large movement and political awareness that was organized against it.

“They’re just ramrodding this through,” Klein said of the transmission line project. “There weren’t enough public hearings, I didn’t get my notice [of those hearings] other than a bulk mail letter last August. … It wasn’t in the newspapers or on the air.”

Still, Klein was undeterred, and began organizing to make sure residents were informed about the issue, even as she was due for a hip surgery last year.

Some of those residents have legal representation in case they have to go to court, many of them with bicentennial farm land that is in trust and at risk of potentially being seized as a part of the project. Klein said her land is also in trust, but she doesn’t have the means to afford legal representation at this time.

Applications and ongoing proceedings were consolidated by the Michigan Public Service Commission last year. The commission most recently collected feedback on the projects at its May 15 meeting. Commissioners will meet next in mid June but it is unclear if the ITC projects will be up for discussion.

The matter was also before an administrative law judge and oral arguments were held in March. However, the administrative law judge in the case will not be issuing a recommendation, known as a proposal for decision. Those decisions typically involve an administrative law judge analyzing the evidentiary record and issuing findings for the commission to consider.

A spokesperson for the commission told Michigan Advance that, instead, the commission, which is currently reviewing the matter, will read the entire case record and base its ultimate decision on the overall evidentiary record. 

A decision to move the projects forward is expected to be reached this summer.

Commission approval is not the final battleground for residents opposed to the project, but state law makes it hard for residents to challenge those determinations or any eminent domain decisions in court.

Public Service Commission determinations are binding on state courts when deciding whether a property acquisition for a utility – much like electric transmission lines – is a public necessity, and courts typically defer to the commission’s determination.

The state’s eminent domain power also authorizes property condemnation as a pathway for a utility to acquire the rights to private land.

Klein told the Advance that it was her understanding that ITC would be seeking to carve out easements along the routes if the applications are approved. She said the company has not proposed to use existing utility company, state land or railroad easements, which she called “a disgrace.”

Among those opposed to the Eaton to Gratiot line project is Scenic America, one the nation’s only nonprofit organizations dedicated to preserving and protecting America’s scenic beauty.

In a letter dated May 13, Scenic America President Mark Falzone called for the transmission lines to be buried underground as opposed to strung up along Michigan’s skyline. 

“This project’s reliance on overhead lines threatens the scenic character of some of Michigan’s most ecologically sensitive areas and agriculturally important communities,” Falzone wrote. “Despite the common belief that transmission lines are too expensive to [place] underground, undergrounding transmission lines can prove to be a cost-effective method for electrical infrastructure.”

Klein believed the lines should at the very least be installed underground given Michigan’s recent struggle with ice storms, tornadoes and other extreme weather events that have knocked out power lines for days or weeks at a time.

A request for comment from ITC on resident concerns and the project at large was not returned at the time of publication.

As residents like Klein await the Michigan Public Service Commission’s decision on moving the projects forward, they may be getting some assistance from the Michigan House of Representatives. 

A Republican-sponsored bill introduced last week aims to guarantee property owners a fair opportunity to challenge eminent domain for transmission lines, much like the planned projects from ITC Holdings Corp.

House Bill 4526, sponsored by freshman Rep. Jennifer Wortz (R-Quincy), was drafted and introduced after hearing from residents in Branch County and their opposition to the line running through their land.

“State government must always protect the people’s fundamental rights – including property rights,” Wortz said in a statement. “Farmers don’t want the line to interfere with their irrigation systems. Homeowners don’t want the line too close to their houses or ponds, and they don’t want to see their trees chopped down to make way for the line.”

Wortz’s bill would eliminate the deference courts place on binding commission decisions. More specifically, the bill would instead require a transmission company to present clear and convincing evidence to a court that the proposed route of a new line was the most reasonable.

Judges would have to instead prioritize routes within or adjacent to public land, routes within or adjacent to existing right-of-ways and easements, or routes adjacent to existing property boundaries. Wortz said that approach could help limit interference with private property as much as possible.

If the commission approves the project, Wortz says area residents at least deserve their day in court.

“I’m standing up for Branch County families,” Wortz said. “My new plan will level the playing field for property owners challenging a takeover of their land.”

House Bill 4526 was introduced to the House Energy Committee last month but has yet to have a hearing.

Klein, in response to the legislation, told the Advance that she appreciated Wortz’s attempts to assist them and others who might be facing friction with utility companies looking to build large-scale projects in the future. Klein, however, feared that the slow pace of the Legislature would render Wortz’s bill inapplicable to the ITC project without giving the bill some sort of retroactive effect.