Blog Archives

PATH Zombie Using Your Money to Fund Appeal at DC Circuit Court

3/31/2020

Three things are certain in life... death, taxes, and PATH continuing to cost ratepayers money.

Last week, PATH filed an appeal of FERC Opinion No. 554-A at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In this new battle, PATH asks a court to give it the last few things that FERC denied. Why not? After all, ratepayers are still picking up the tab for all PATH's legal fees and court costs.

Did you think PATH was over in 2011? Or maybe 2012? It wasn't. There's still a charge in your electric bill every month to pay to keep the zombie alive so it can keep trying to collect even more money from ratepayers.

We got really close to closing the ratepayer ATM For Zombie Projects once, but FERC recently decided to keep it running for a while longer. And this is how they get repaid for their generosity with our money.

PATH bites.

Ratepayers pay.

And pay.

And pay.

And pay.

And pay.

1 Comment

FERC Proposes New and Increased Transmission Incentives

3/27/2020

0 Comments

Well, hey, just what we need during an economic crisis, right? Let's increase the electric bills consumers pay in order to enrich the utilities! I'm thinking that utilities are going to emerge from this clusterferc as better investments than ever. Where else could you get a double digit, guaranteed return on your investment during a recession? Maybe FERC's timing is just a bit off, but that's not going to stop the utilities from bellying up to the consumer money bar and gorging themselves comatose.

I note that in its recently issued Rulemaking FERC fails to provide any evidence that transmission incentives are needed. They just think they are.

While transmission infrastructure development has remained generally robust at an aggregate level, the types of transmission projects that are needed, and the use of rate treatments to incent them, must evolve to reflect the changes in market fundamentals.

This is garbage, plain and simple. Where's the proof that transmission needs incentives to attract investors? There is none. However, FERC feels it is mandated to provide incentives by Sec. 219 of the FPA.

FPA section 219(a) requires that the Commission provide incentive-based rates for
electric transmission for the purpose of benefitting consumers by ensuring reliability and reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion. While we are encouraged by the investment in transmission infrastructure to date, our evaluation of the Commission’s incentives policy indicates that additional reform may be necessary to continue to satisfy our obligations under FPA section 219 in this new transmission planning landscape.

Well, hey there, we should all be happy that FERC can finally read the statute correctly (reliability AND reduced costs). Except they forgot how to read a couple sections down from this one.

So, FERC is going to "benefit" consumers with its new take on transmission incentives. It's going to toss out its current "risks and challenges" test and replace it with a consumer benefits test. This test is going to consist of comparing a proposed transmission project's cost/benefit ratio to a "national average" of transmission project cost/benefit ratios that is compiled by hunting through regional transmission organization transmission plans to harvest the ones with a cost/benefit ratio that fits into the scenario FERC (or maybe it's the transmission owner?) wants to create. Here's an example.

First they will separate transmission into greater or less than $25M. Any project that hits the 75th percentile of the average benefit-cost ratio will receive a 50 bonus point ROE adder. Any project that hits the 90th percentile after the project is completed is entitled to add another 50 points. This whole thing is floating on top of the "average" benefit cost ratios that someone is going to create. It's not really clear who is going to create these, and how much bias is going to go into the creation. For example, the transmission projects selected for the PJM Region seem to use the ones with the highest ratios. While rebuilds associated with the Transource IEC project made it into the equation, the IEC itself was not used to create the data. With picking and choosing like this, benefit thresholds are as flimsy as wiping your hands on your pants to prevent infection.

What if a project is awarded that initial 50 points, but in the completed construction phase its ratio falls below the 75th percentile? Should its incentive be cancelled? Well, of course not. I don't see that proposed. It's all about handing out consumer cash for "estimated" benefits.

Next FERC proposes a "reliability benefit" incentive of an additional 50 points. Somehow FERC's reading of Sec. 219 to provide reliability AND reduced rates gets forgotten here. FERC proposes to award bonus points for "reliability" enhancements that go above and beyond NERC standards. NERC's job is to ensure the transmission system remains reliable. FERC's job is to regulate transmission rates. But suddenly FERC thinks it knows more about reliability than NERC does and is in a position to decide which NERC standards need to be gold-plated. Hogwash. It's just a handout. It doesn't benefit consumers.

The next part is just plain funny (and expensive). All rates must be just and reasonable. FERC has established a "zone of reasonableness" standard for transmission ROEs in order to ensure they are reasonable. The current incentives scheme caps incentive bonus points at the top of the zone of reasonableness. That is a utility's ROE, inclusive of incentive bonus points, cannot exceed the top of the zone. Now FERC wants to toss that out in favor of a flat 250 bonus point cap. So, even if a utility's base ROE is already near the top of the zone, it can still add 250 bonus points and exceed the zone of reasonableness. And still be "reasonable." Uh huh. Right. Transmission incentives don't have to be reasonable. They're something else entirely. Except Sec. 219 says they must be reasonable. FERC's approach here makes no sense.

Non-ROE incentives are proposed to remain basically the same, except the abandonment incentive (if awarded) will become retroactive to the date an RTO approved the transmission project. This closes the current gap between RTO project approval and Commission abandonment approval where the utility may have to *gasp* spend its own money! I thought incentives were supposed to benefit consumers? What happened to all that happy stuff about Sec. 219's purpose? There is no "benefit" to consumers who pay for RTO mistakes such as transmission ideas that are never actually built. There is no benefit here.

FERC tosses the transco incentive. Good enough.

However, FERC proposes to INCREASE the RTO membership incentive from 50 bonus points to 100 bonus points added to a utility's ROE. Ya know, based on the prior comment period that lead up to this rulemaking, I could have sworn that the case was made that the RTO membership incentive should be phased out. Looks like FERC just ignored all of those comments and did what it wanted to do from the beginning, which was to increase this incentive. Sec. 219 requires FERC to “provide for incentives to each transmitting utility or electric utility that joins a Transmission Organization.” It does not specify the form of the incentive... it could just as easily be a little, plastic participation trophy as ROE bonus points. There's also the issue about whether Congress meant to reward utilities who joined an RTO or continually reward them for remaining as members. This whole thing is a joke. What if states began a mass exodus from RTOs in order to avoid the consumer burden of this increased incentive? Who would pay it? Could utilities still charge consumers for their RTO membership if the consumers were no longer members? And how likely may a state be to approve new transmission projects for a company with a huge incentive cost? If they don't approve the transmission project to be built, the incentives mean absolutely nothing. (Hey, maybe that's why there was that risks and challenges test?) I'm thinking we may find the answers to these questions once FERC just goes merrily on its way of making new transmission incentives rules and ignoring all the comments it receives about better ideas.

FERC also proposes an incentive of 100 bonus points on the costs of "transmission technologies" as well as allowing the cost of operating them to be a regulatory asset for 5 years (to earn a return on the operating costs). Transmission technologies improve the operation of existing transmission assets without building entirely new transmission lines. We should be doing more of this and less building of new transmission on new rights of way. But what does FERC care? They're giving utilities full cost recovery + return for whatever transmission projects they want to try to build. It doesn't matter whether they ever get built or not.... and I'm thinking NOT. It's harder than ever to build new greenfield transmission. It might be a better use of consumer funds (ya know, "benefit" consumers) to improve the existing transmission system before building new lines.

So, that's the basics. It's an awful wolf dressed in "consumer benefits" clothing. It does nothing but increase costs for consumers who pay transmission rates. Just another giveaway to the utilities by the ones who are supposed to be protecting us from utility greed.

If you want to bang your head against the wall writing comments that nobody at FERC will read, please participate in this rulemaking. Otherwise, just stand back and open your wallet. Choices, choices.

0 Comments

Gimme cash! I need to buy straws!

3/26/2020

0 Comments

Who's missing the good old days of individually wrapped, single-use plastic drinking straws being handed out at restaurants now? Would you really put your lips on a restaurant cup handed through the drive-in window right now? But... straws are destroying the planet! We must outlaw straws! Seems like we've replaced the climate crisis with the COVID crisis. A real-time threat instead of a dire prediction. And maybe all the climate change hysteria has been shoved to the back of the rack right now in favor of dealing with the actual threat we're all living with.

Except all the "clean energy now" folks are still trying to push their agenda while holed up in their urban paradise. Everyone has probably heard something related to an effort to include financial incentives for wind and solar in federal economic relief packages. That's kind of like worrying about your single-use plastic straw destroying the planet when a pandemic is killing thousands.

Depending on your political persuasion, you may think the attempt to shove environmental wish lists into federal relief packages isn't happening. But it is.

Here's a "wish list" for the American Wind Energy Association. AWEA sent a letter to Congress urging them to provide "relief" to the renewable energy sector. As if they're not part of the corporate world already included in relief packages? For some reason they need special, additional relief.

While this whole economic crisis was winding up, so was my anxiety over how we'd ever pay for it all. Maybe we need to cut some pork. The billions of taxpayer dollars handed out each year to big wind and big solar in the form of renewable energy tax credits seems like a good place to start. After all, this industry has claimed that it is competitive in energy markets without any subsidy. Isn't it about time to make them put OUR money where their mouth is?

Perhaps the most disturbing "want" by AWEA is "the ability to receive direct payments for or refundability of our tax credits would keep our current pipeline of projects moving forward." In other words, big wind doesn't even want tax credits anymore because their ability to monitize them by selling them to other corporations has been hit hard by the economy. Instead, big wind and solar corporations simply want the cash. Instead of a credit on the taxes they may pay, they want the government to just hand them cash because they're unlikely to pay enough taxes to cover the credits they're earning.

How come I'm not allowed to sell my own tax credits to other taxpayers? Oh, that we all could receive a payment from the government instead of credits to our tax burden! Forget all those write-offs I'm allowed on my tax return, just give me cash instead! Except I never get more write-offs than I can use. Big wind does. Maybe we shouldn't lose sight of that fact. It's not a mere tax credit, it's a source of income.

So, maybe big wind's wish list didn't make it into the most recent economic relief package. There will be more relief to come, and that's where they're focusing right now. As more relief comes, it's going to start to look more like corporate Christmas and less like actual relief for the American people who need it.

Keep your eyes on this one. Greed knows no bounds.

Meanwhile, use a straw, folks. Go ahead, live large! I must admit I've been stockpiling them and carrying them around for more than a year. Have you ever seen how they "wash" bar glasses? Even before COVID-19 I wasn't a fan of sharing germs on poorly washed, reusable restaurant ware. And now I've got nowhere to use my stockpile of straws because I'm certainly not eating any food prepared by someone else. No straws needed!

Yes, this too shall pass, and eventually I can enjoy a meal out again. I have straws at the ready. But will I ever look at the "climate crisis" as a real, imminent threat again? Probably not. The dangers of climate change have paled in comparison to the present threat. And that presents a problem to the renewable energy industry, whose power to scare or shame people into submission has paled as well.

Perceptions have changed. The money buffet may just be closed forever.

0 Comments

Invenergy Finally Says It Will Stop Going Door-to-Door During Pandemic

3/24/2020

0 Comments

Two days ago I asked what it was going to take to make Invenergy show some consideration for others and stop making unannounced visits to landowners across the state.

Here's what it took.

The people of Missouri could have no better advocate than Ralls County Presiding Commissioner Wiley Hibbard. When he found out that Invenergy was continuing to make its door-to-door calls on landowners, and also sending agents from out-of-state to do business at the Ralls County Courthouse, he kept working until the issue was resolved.

It also took intervention by the Governor's office, Rep. Jim Hansen, Missouri Farm Bureau, MLA and EMLA attorney Paul Agathen, opposition group leaders, and the landowners themselves.

But, finally, Invenergy acquiesced this morning and said it would halt the in-person visits. Of course, they also claimed they never made them in the first place, or if they did it was at the landowner's invitation.

An Invenergy official said the contacts ended last week and included communicating with the landowners.

"Members of our team held meetings, upon approval from landowners, to discuss conducting these surveys later this spring,” said Beth Conley, Invenergy spokeswoman. “These meetings were halted when CDC guidance limited the ability to have in-person meetings.”

'scuse me, Beth, but the CDC guidance for social distancing started long before last week. That's why the people were so disgusted by Invenergy's refusal to stop putting them at risk with home visits! Quit trying to pretend Invenergy wasn't doing anything wrong. Invenergy put the lives of Missourians at risk by sending traveling land agents and courthouse researchers from other areas into their communities, and Invenergy did it long after the first request to stop was made.

And how DARE you pretend that any of these visits were made with the "approval" of landowners? "Approval" would imply prior consent, not just showing up unannounced, which is what Invenergy agents did. Just because landowners answered the door doesn't mean they "approved" the visits.

And Invenergy would still be doing it without all the effort of many people in Missouri. Like these people don't have anything better to do than invest a week of their time trying to inspire some ethics at Invenergy? I'm thinking that this company must regularly put its own profits over the well-being of the communities where it does business. Not exactly a way to inspire confidence in landowners that they would be treated fairly in easement negotiations, is it? Invenergy = public relations fail.

And what else does Beth have to say?

Since the state commission approved the Grain Belt Express, a number of “development activities” must take place before the beginning of construction, which is expected in late 2021, Conley said.

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the Missouri Department of Conservation require Invenergy to conduct bat surveys so the line can avoid rare populations of the species, she said.

Someone get the hose... I smell something burning! Does Invenergy really think construction is going to begin in 2021 when it hasn't even applied for a permit in Illinois yet? Hey, guess what? Those bats will still be there after the pandemic. You're not convincing me that there's an urgent need to survey them during a pandemic, a need so urgent that people's lives should be put at risk. And what do you mean "avoid"? I think the word Beth was looking for is "mitigate." Mitigate: make less severe, serious, or painful, lessen the gravity of (an offense or mistake). No transmission line has ever "avoided" endangered bats, they only "mitigate" the damage they cause.

So, mission accomplished, for now. Be sure to let your group leaders know if you receive any more uninvited visitors. The groups have requested that Invenergy monitor the health of its representatives that have traveled through rural Missouri over the past two weeks and to notify the groups if any Invenergy agent becomes ill. By the same token, any landowners who become ill after having come in contact with an Invenergy representative should probably let group leaders know so the information can be passed on to Invenergy.

With this kind of introduction, Invenergy's going to have an even bigger hill to climb in Missouri... or maybe it's more a hole to slither out of...

Pretty despicable, Invenergy.

0 Comments

Invenergy Demonstrates That It's Profits Over People

3/22/2020

0 Comments

Was it just a month ago that spokespuppets from Invenergy claimed they were "very invested in the communities where we develop and build projects"?

Ya got a funny way of showing it, Invenergy. In fact, Invenergy continues to demonstrate that it puts its profits over the well-being of the people in the communities where it intends to build its Grain Belt Express transmission lines. I'm talking about Invenergy's continuing door-to-door calls across rural Missouri to seek landowner signatures on a "Survey Access Form." If you sign this form you "acknowledge" that Invenergy will enter your property to perform whatever tests and surveys it wants. I wouldn't sign this form even in a healthy environment, much less during a global pandemic.

Sure looks like Invenergy is in a giant hurry to do a bunch of very expensive tests and surveys. In fact, it's in so much of a hurry that it feels the need to send strangers out to call on landowners unannounced for the express purpose of getting signatures right now, today. This is not only annoying, it's downright unconscionable and dangerous during a time when we've been advised to avoid unnecessary travel and stay at home in order to avoid contracting or spreading the virus.

Last week, an attorney for two landowner groups sent a request to Invenergy's attorneys asking that the unannounced personal visits from land agents cease until the isolation restrictions are lifted.

Corona Virus Worries: Landowner Groups Ask Invenergy to Suspend Land Agent Visits

March 19 – Two landowner groups have requested that Invenergy temporarily suspend its practice of making uninvited personal visits to individual homes by company land agents seeking rights-of-way and survey permissions for the Grain Belt Express electric transmission project (GBE). The Missouri Landowners Alliance and the Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance have requested the practice cease until such time as federal and state officials determine there is no longer any need for "social distancing" as a means of slowing the spread of the Corona virus.

The landowner groups have received several reports from individual landowners of GBE representatives showing up at their homes along the route unannounced and asking for their signature on a notice form to allow the entry of other unnamed individuals to perform numerous studies and tests at their properties. Other landowners have found information packets from Grain Belt Express left on their doorsteps.

“It is my understanding that no one can guarantee that keeping a distance of 3-6 feet from someone carrying the virus will necessarily prevent its transmission. And of course there is no guarantee that this distance would be maintained during the course of any conversations between the land agents and the property owner. For example, handing a business card or any other document to the landowner would bring the two individuals in close proximity, if not actual physical contact. Therefore, rather than take any chance at all of Grain Belt's agents inadvertently transmitting the virus to property owners, the most reasonable course of action at this time clearly would be to temporarily suspend all such in-person contacts,” said landowner attorney Paul Agathen in his request to Invenergy’s attorneys.

Landowners have reported that the visitors have presented themselves as real estate agents from other states working on behalf of Grain Belt Express, or agents of Contract Land Staff based in Texas. None of the visits have been made by people with local contact information, leading the landowners to worry about transmission of the virus from other areas.

“I’m not sure what the rush is here,” said Representative Jim Hansen (R-40th District). “Grain Belt Express isn’t approved in all states and has no designated connection point for its transmission project in Missouri at this time. There’s no need to sacrifice social distancing health recommendations in order to rush this project through.”

The landowner groups’ request stated that Grain Belt's desire to move the project forward cannot possibly justify even the slightest possibility of transmitting the virus from Invenergy agents to even one of the property owners. Some of the landowners are in the age category which would make them even more vulnerable to serious health problems if they should become infected. Landowners also worry about person-to-person transmission in their own communities via Grain Belt Express land agents, as well as the possibility of transmitting the virus from a property owner to one of those agents.

“A person traveling door-to-door across rural areas is unlikely to be able wash their hands between calls,” said landowner Jim Daniels of Wright City.

Landowners note that Grain Belt Express may still try to contact them via phone or mail in the meantime, but vehemently object to the current practice of spontaneous in-person visits that may spread the virus from person-to-person.

“We’ve been told to stay at home and isolate ourselves from others to stop the spread of the virus,” said Dr. Dennis Smith, Assistant Professor, Clinical Emergency Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia. “It defeats the purpose of social distancing to have strangers pulling up in the yard and trying to hand us business cards or permission forms. We don’t know where they’ve been, and we don’t know where they’re heading next. A time of national emergency to prevent the spread of a highly contagious virus is the wrong time to be going door-to-door.”

Instead of showing its "investment" in the communities it proposes would host Grain Belt Express through the use of eminent domain, Invenergy continued its visits, with additional reports filtering in at the end of the week.

Landowners in eastern Missouri say they were visited by a young woman from Kansas City (incidentally Missouri's virus hot spot with the most reported cases and the location of Missouri's first "stay at home" order). The woman was very friendly and chatted with a landowner about her own family (5 kids) and revealed she would be calling on landowners in the Amish community that same day.

There have been several media reports about Amish in other states continuing to have gatherings and maybe taking a different view of social distancing. The last thing they need is a Typhoid Mary, or maybe it's a Corona Cathy, potentially introducing the virus into their community.

In addition, several states have taken action to prohibit door-to-door energy sales during the pandemic.

But Invenergy is still going at it hammer and tongs.

What's it going to take to get them to show some concern for others?

Do you suppose if you knocked on the door of Invenergy CEO Michael Polsky (assuming you could even get to the door of one of his mansions) that he'd open the door and take business cards from you, have a chat and sign your papers, and then go back to his own family?

Not In Michael's Back Yard.

But he feels it's okay to send out a mother of 5 from a corona hot spot to visit unsuspecting landowners across the state and then bring whatever she may have come in contact with back to her own nest. What kind of monster is this guy?

Some landowners are now looking to protect themselves by emailing Invenergy's project manager and advising her to keep Invenergy agents off their property. Poor old Krista, you gotta admit she's got a hard job acting as a landowner punching bag to keep the riff raff away from her bosses in Chicago. But, hey, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and email her at kmann@invenergyllc.com. But don't hold your breath... she's been fabulously unable to provide answers or information requested by landowners to date. How effective could she possibly be at keeping landowners and land agents safe from the spread of coronavirus?

People's champion Wiley Hibbard is undeterred, however. He recently penned his own plea to Krista:

Dear Ms. Mann,
I want you to know that in my opinion Invenergy's policy of continuing to have person to person contact with residents along the proposed route to be reckless and dangerous.
How do you explain bringing a person from New York through Texas then send her to the Ralls County Courthouse to come in direct contact with many people that work there. Or bringing an outsider from Kansas City to visit the Amish community. There are many such contacts by Invenergy personal.
I would appreciate an answer to why Mr. Polsky feels that during our National Emergency this type of perilous actions are needed by him.
If you can assure me that none of your employees or contract worker have not been exposed to the COVID-19 I will withdraw my objections.
Awaiting your reply,
Wiley Hibbard
Presiding Commissioner
Ralls County, Missouri

Bringing someone from New York (via Texas) to expose the people at the Ralls County Court House? Oh.my.word!!! New York is the national hot spot for the virus!

Why, Michael Polsky, why? What's it going to take to show concern and respect for Missouri landowners? Why don't you email him at mpolsky@invenergyllc.com and ask?

0 Comments

Ding Dong! Know Your Rights Before GBE Comes Calling

3/12/2020

0 Comments

"Core sample" machine

Word is that Grain Belt Express has begun calling on Missouri landowners to seek their permission for "surveys" and invasive testing of their properties.

We were contacted yesterday by someone representing Invenergy. He stopped by our house. The landowner spoke with him. The landowner was told that they wanted to do a “bat study” on our property along the proposed route. He said they would want to camp out overnight and use a gun to throw nets to try to catch bats to find what species they were with the potential of moving the line based on the location of these bats. He also mentioned doing some core samples. The landowner did not give him permission. We have cattle that are calving in that area right now, and having someone out there at night would definitely spook them. Regardless of whether we had cattle out there or not, he was not going to give them permission. The guy noted an “N” on his paperwork indicating that the landowner said No to the study, and then he wanted the landowner to sign next to that “N”. He did not sign that either.

The landowner asked for his information, and his e-mail address was “Mossy Oak Properties” so it seems that Invenergy is outsourcing this testing.

Lots of things to unpack here. First of all, someone from Mossy Oak Properties is disclaiming any responsibility for this caller's actions. Mossy Oak says this person is an impersonator and not affiliated with Mossy Oak.

Next, let's move on to the the premise that Mossy Oak Properties would be doing the testing. No, they will not. First of all, the "Mossy Oaks" guy is an impersonator. Second, that's not what land agents do. Land agents work for a real estate company. The most they do professionally is contact landowners for permission to survey. The bat surveys would be conducted by a third party environmental survey company with the requisite skills and expertise. Nobody knows the name of this company, and the land agent impersonator isn't telling. It looks like perhaps the impersonator is insinuating that he would personally be conducting the bat survey, along with the "core sampling." What is core sampling? It's drilling deep holes on your property using large pieces of equipment in order to discover the make up of soils and rocks 30 feet down under the surface of your property. The company would use this information to engineer the bases for their towers. Again, the land agent doesn't have this expertise. It's simply a middle man. Being a middle man with no real knowledge of the procedures and their purpose, you may not believe anything Invenergy's representative says, including who he works for. The only thing binding would be on the piece of paper the land agent wants you to sign that grants Invenergy/GBE permission to perform any kind of testing it wants on your property, at any time it wants, using any part of your property it wants, and creating whatever damage or hazards it wants. Why would anyone voluntarily sign this form? Notice also that the Invenergy representative tried to get the landowner to sign another piece of paper instead. But he was smart enough to refuse to fall for that trick. Don't sign anything!

Core drilling

What are your rights in this situation? It's best to consult an attorney for legal advice. One attorney has opined that Invenergy does not have the right to survey or test your property without your express permission as set out in GBE's "Code of Conduct" for employees and representatives.

Obtain unequivocal permission to enter property for purposes of surveying or conducting environmental assessments or other activities. Clearly explain to the property owner the scope of the work to be conducted based on the permission given. Attempt to notify the occupant of the property each time you enter the property based on this permission.

You may be told that the Missouri PSC has approved the project and that the company has a right to enter and test your property. That may be so, but that approval does not require you to grant permission to do so. You never have to grant voluntary permission for entry and testing, and the Missouri PSC (or a court) can never order you to grant voluntary permission by signing a form. And then there's GBE's "Code of Conduct" which requires the company to obtain unequivocal permission before testing. GBE filed this "Code of Conduct" with the PSC and promised to abide by it. It can't change its mind now without express PSC approval to change the "Code of Conduct". You may refuse to sign anything, just like the quoted landowner did.

The "Code of Conduct" also requires any employees or representatives to promptly identify themselves upon making contact with landowners. Although it doesn't specifically state it, we can presume the representative must also accurately identify himself. Maybe you should ask to see a photo ID?

a. When contacting a property owner in person, promptly identify yourself as representing Grain Belt Express Clean Line.
b. When contacting a property owner by telephone, promptly identify yourself as representing Grain Belt Express Clean Line.

How prompt was the land agent's identification to the quoted landowner? Sort of sounds like it didn't happen until the end of the conversation. That's not prompt. Prompt means in the first sentence uttered, and certainly before asking a landowner to sign anything. In addition, it is purported to be a misrepresentation. Who was this guy?

We're not off to an auspicious start here. Perhaps Invenergy needs to review its "Code of Conduct" with its third party contractors and land agents. And guess what? YOU should also review the GBE "Code of Conduct". In fact, why don't you print out your very own copy and keep it on hand so you can review and critique the actions of the representatives that invite themselves to your property? Violations of the "Code" should be documented and reported to the various opposition leaders in your community. How best to document these violations? Of course, video reins supreme in today's digital lifestyle, but a written record of the conversation can also be used. Be sure to write down what happened as soon as possible, while your memory is fresh.

And if you refuse to sign anything, remember, the representative is prohibited from doing this:

Do not threaten to call law enforcement officers or obtain court orders.

And they have to leave when you tell them to leave. It can be at any time you find them on your property.

When asked to leave property, promptly leave and do not return unless specifically authorized by Grain Belt Express Clean Line.

All communications by a property owner, whether in person, by telephone or in writing,
in which the property owner indicates that he or she does not want to negotiate or does not want to give permission for surveying or other work on his or her property, must be respected and politely accepted without argument. Unless specifically authorized by Grain Belt Express Clean Line, do not contact the property owner again regarding negotiations or requests for permission.

Just a note here... GBE does not have any right to tell its representatives to trespass on your property after you have told them to leave. You have every right to tell them to leave and they must leave "promptly." Let's hope that's a lot more "promptly" than they identify themselves.

Invenergy's invasion of Missouri has begun. This is going to be a long process, folks, and become more desperate as landowner resistance becomes the norm. The more desperate Invenergy becomes, the more its representatives may stray from their "Code."

I'm still trying to figure out the rush here. Why is Invenergy spending millions of dollars seeking voluntary permissions and easements with landowners in Missouri when it doesn't even have an end point for its project or enough customers to make it economically viable? Maybe you want to ask the representatives who call if Invenergy has even applied for a permit in Illinois yet? Ask for a list of its contracted customers? Ask to see ownership of land for the converter station proposed to be built in Missouri? You have a right to this information, according to the "Code."

All communications with property owners and occupants must be factually correct and made in good faith.
a. Do provide maps and documents necessary to keep the landowner properly informed.
b. Do not make false or misleading statements.
c. Do not purposely or intentionally misrepresent any fact.
d. If you do not know the answer to a question, do not speculate about the answer. Advise the property owner that you will investigate the question and provide an answer later.
e. Follow-up in a timely manner on all commitments to provide additional information.
f. Do not send written communications suggesting an agreement has been reached when, in fact, an agreement has not been reached.
g. If information provided is subsequently determined to be incorrect, follow up with the
landowner as soon as practical to provide the corrected information.
h. Do provide the landowner with appropriate contact information should additional contacts be necessary.

Why is Invenergy trying to obtain voluntary easements in Missouri now? This is the million dollar question.

We've all been told to avoid large gatherings and practice proper hygiene to prevent the spread of the corona virus. But here's Invenergy, sending people door-to-door to call on folks unannounced. Where do these Invenergy representatives come from? And where do they go after they leave? Do they wash their hands between calls? Who would you be permitting to enter your property? Who will be showing up at your property unannounced? Doesn't seem very safe to me. This is exactly the wrong time to have strangers calling on people and trying to share forms, pens and information with them.

If it was my farm, I'd put one of these at the gate.

0 Comments

Avangrid/CMP Uses Private Investigator To Stake Out NECEC Opponents

3/6/2020

2 Comments

Just a little "opposition research," said the head of Avangrid's political action committee that is trying to prevent a citizens referendum on the company's New England Clean Energy Connect transmission project through the woods of Maine. Opposition research is "standard operating procedure" for such a campaign, he said. Perhaps that's so, but is it fair? Or is it another manifestation of the corporate state we all live in? Does it demonstrate the advantage corporations have in the uneven balance of power in the true life David v. Goliath struggles of grassroots groups against the corporations who have bought their government?

What if the citizens had conducted surveillance of corporate activities, sitting outside corporate offices in their cars while taking photographs of the people coming and going, finding out who owns certain vehicles and where they live, calling around to compile information about the executives' activities when they're not at work, and trolling their personal social media pages to find and exploit personal information? I'm pretty sure the corporation would consider that dangerous stalking and take whatever action it felt necessary. But, yet, that's exactly what Avangrid did to NECEC opponents, and they claim there's nothing wrong with it. If corporations can use their vast resources to target ordinary citizens, but citizens cannot use their own resources to target corporate executives, we need to re-examine how we think about the balance of power.

Last month, Maine citizens opposed to Avangrid's NECEC transmission project turned in enough signatures to put the project's approval by the Maine PUC on the ballot in November. Good for them! The citizens have valiantly tried to be heard through the regulatory and legislative venues available to them, but kept finding doors closed because the corporation behind the initiative wields too much political power in Maine. A citizens referendum was their best option.

But the corporation wasn't going to let its influence and control slip away so easily into the hands of the people. It's spent millions opposing the referendum, and the depths to which they have stooped have finally been revealed.

On February 26, Avangrid executives got thoroughly roasted by investment analysts over the NECEC project during an earnings call. Avangrid was peppered with questions regarding a public statement that it would begin building the project before the referendum came to a vote in November. An analyst wanted to know how Avangrid would "offset the risks of negative referendum outcome," where the company may have made a significant, unrecoverable investment in a project that later had its permit invalidated. It's a good question. Well, first the company sort of walked back its statement about starting construction before 3rd quarter. Then CEO Jim Torgerson shared that "there are some thing[s] we can do in the interim" while the Secretary of State was reviewing the submitted petitions for certification. Cue the creepy and suspenseful music...

Some things? What things would those be? Turns out the company was smack dab in the middle of sending letters to the Maine Secretary of State alleging that the petition gatherers had broken laws, along with an affidavit from a private investigator that made a lot of presumptions out of little fact.

Turns out Avangrid's PAC (which, let's be real here, is actually just Avangrid itself) had been doing some surveillance of its opposition. According to the affidavit, a private investigator creeped on an office the opposition rented to house the administrative functions of its petition drive. He creeped for just 4 days, and wouldn't you know it, he found exactly what he was looking for on those days, despite the fact that the signature gathering had been going on for months. What a coincidence!

The investigator zeroed in on one particular woman and photographed her, called her place of employment, creeped on her online presence to gather information, and used resources to run license plates and identify vehicles. And then he compiled his findings in an affidavit full of presumptions and "who shot John" conclusions.

Although Avangrid had this information at the end of January, it sat on it until the end of February. On Feb. 27, Avangrid's attorney sent it to the Maine Secretary of State alleging that violations occurred of "eminently clear" Maine law that would make certain petitions invalid. The Secretary of State says that it did not have sufficient time to investigate the allegations and thus could make no findings regarding the allegations.

This is starting to sound like a set up to me.

First, let's look at the law that was supposedly violated.

§903-E. Persons not authorized to administer an oath or affirmation to a petition circulator
1. Certain notaries public and others. A notary public or other person authorized by law to administer oaths or affirmations generally is not authorized to administer an oath or affirmation to the circulator of a petition under section 902 if the notary public or other generally authorized person is:
A. Providing any other services, regardless of compensation, to initiate the direct initiative or people's veto referendum for which the petition is being circulated. For the purposes of this paragraph, "initiate" has the same meaning as section 1052, subsection 4-B; or [PL 2017, c. 418, §3 (NEW).]
B. Providing services other than notarial acts, regardless of compensation, to promote the direct initiative or people's veto referendum for which the petition is being circulated.

Eminently clear? My reading is that a notary cannot initiate the referendum. Avangrid provides no proof that the notary they creeped did this. I also read that a notary cannot promote the initiative. Again, Avangrid provides no proof that the notary they creeped did this. The most Avangrid's affidavit reveals is that they saw a notary playing with papers at the opposition's office. No initiation, no promotion. It seems to me that it is eminently clear that no violations occurred (except for the creepy privacy violations engaged in by Avangrid's investigator). Looks like a judge is going to have to evaluate whether the law is "eminently clear" or if Avangrid is just stretching things to create a long and grinding court battle to delay the referendum.

2 Comments

Is GBE Making Promises It Can't Keep?

3/3/2020

0 Comments

Invenergy's Krista Mann is touring Missouri County Commissions and making all sorts of promises. But are they promises Grain Belt Express can keep? Or are they just empty promises serving as a carrot on a stick to lure Missouri in for the kill?

In Monroe County last week, Mann said that GBE will now add cell sites to its electric transmission towers, in addition to its earlier promise to add broadband. Was she just trying to sweeten her prior promise that simply fell flat? Let's hope the addition of cell sites is one of those promises that doesn't actually materialize.

Remember the MO DOT report concerning corrosion of nearby underground metallic infrastructure caused by DC transmission lines? GBE claimed that its bipolar construction would limit that effect on parallel gas pipelines, although that did little to allay the concerns of potential host landowners who would have to live and work around the parallel infrastructure.

Well, guess what?

Three engineers found that cell sites on electric transmission towers can lead to corrosion on underground wiring.

So adding cell sites to GBE would directly cause corrosion on parallel, underground metallic infrastructure, such as wiring? Would that exacerbate the amount of corrosion on adjacent pipelines as well? Well, gee, thanks for the offer to put bombs on your transmission towers, GBE. Seems like this idea needs a bit more research. Gotta wonder if Invenergy's engineers have even vetted this idea, or is Mann just making up stuff that she thinks Missouri wants to hear?

If Missouri suddenly falls in love with GBE because it will provide broadband and cell sites (of course, this will never happen) what are the chances of it actually happening? Seems pretty slim. Seems more like Mann is just making empty promises.

And speaking of empty promises... Mann told the audience in Monroe County that Invenergy continues to have discussions (that are going well) with commercial companies to have Missouri be a bigger part of the project, possibly delivering all its power to Missouri. Oh, c'mon! What does Missouri need with 3,500 MW of unreliable wind power from Kansas and Oklahoma? And which Missouri utilities are going to pay above cost for transmission capacity in order to cover the "savings" GBE promised to municipalities in order to get them to sign a contract?

Reality check... maybe Invenergy doesn't intend to build its project through Illinois to connect to the east coast electric market? Perhaps they've finally seen the impossibility of getting a permit from Illinois? Congratulations, Invenergy! However, chances of finding customers for 3,500 MW of transmission capacity in Missouri are even more impossible. It's not happening.

And here Invenergy sits holding the rotten hot potato it purchased from Clean Line Energy Partners. It's a project that can't work as envisioned. It's a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. Invenergy thinks if it pounds its hammer hard enough, the peg is eventually going into the hole. Invenergy is now trying to change the project to make it work. And Invenergy is now threatening to open its wallet to begin acquiring easements across Missouri, even though its project currently has no end point.

Sounds like a pig in a poke to me.

Is Invenergy really about to spend millions of dollars gambling on a project that has no end point and no customers? That would make the company just plain old stupid, in my opinion. Or does Invenergy have a plan that has yet to be revealed? What if it decides not to sell capacity on GBE after all and simply uses GBE as its own private generation lead line to sell its own power generation at a point in Missouri? That's not a public use, it's a private driveway. But if GBE had already acquired easements using the threat of eminent domain before changing its project, would it have to give them back? Not if the easements were entered into voluntarily. Beware, Missouri, there may be more here than meets the eye. GBE is making illogical promises that perhaps it can't keep.

0 Comments

PATH Zombie Using Your Money to Fund Appeal at DC Circuit Court

FERC Proposes New and Increased Transmission Incentives

Gimme cash! I need to buy straws!

Invenergy Finally Says It Will Stop Going Door-to-Door During Pandemic

Invenergy Demonstrates That It's Profits Over People

Ding Dong! Know Your Rights Before GBE Comes Calling

Avangrid/CMP Uses Private Investigator To Stake Out NECEC Opponents

Is GBE Making Promises It Can't Keep?

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog