Category:

House Bill To Limit Eminent Domain Clears Committee in Missouri

1/14/2020

Good news this morning! Representative Jim Hansen's HB 2033 to limit eminent domain for merchant transmission sailed through a committee hearing yesterday and was approved to pass this morning.

We're on our way!

Lots of stuff got brought up in the hearing yesterday, and two very different news articles were posted. One was good, and one was biased opinion cloaked as news. Do we call that "fake news" these days? At any rate, it gives me an opportunity to clear up some misinformation that got spread yesterday.

The bad article can be found here. Does the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have a bias in favor of the project? I'd guess they do, after reading the article, or maybe the reporter himself is just uneducated or too lazy to get information first hand and relied too much on opinion instead of fact?

The article starts out with an apparent misunderstanding of the three branches of government. This is something I think I learned in elementary school, and perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Although judges and state regulators have given it the go-ahead, Missouri lawmakers are still trying to unplug a controversial electric transmission line.

State regulators are part of the executive branch of government. They carry out laws as they exist. Judges are part of the judicial branch of government. They interpret laws as they exist. Legislators, on the other hand, are part of the legislative branch of government. They MAKE laws exist. The legislature can change laws, or make new laws, that are then carried out by the executive branch, or interpreted by the judicial branch. It doesn't matter what judges or state regulators did with existing laws, the legislature is in the process of making a new law. Once it does, the regulators and judges will follow the new law. This ostensible "justification" for GBE makes no sense, because legislators can change the law. Legislators are not beholden to the opinions of judges or regulators. Only legislators make laws!

And now let's skip to the reported malarkey spewed by Invenergy at yesterday's hearing.

A spokeswoman for Chicago-based Invenergy, which is spearheading the project, said the power line project will have a significant economic impact in the state.

“This project will create thousands of jobs here in Missouri,” said Nicole Luckey.
In addition, she said the company is prepared to pay more for land than its fair market value.
“We are committed to compensating landowners fairly,” Luckey said.

Invenergy says its structures will take up less than 10 acres of land throughout Missouri, not including land underneath transmission wires.

Jobs, jobs, jobs! We've all heard this baloney before and we know that job promises rarely come true. Their numbers are based on extrapolated numbers in a computer program, not reality. In addition, most of the jobs will be temporary and filled with trained professionals from out of state. Quit trying to push the "benefits" thing, nobody believes it.

And let's examine that statement about paying more than fair market value. Who determines "fair market value" if a taking isn't challenged in the courts? Invenergy does! Invenergy's land agent subcontractor works to get "market study" data from past land sales in each county. There could be some picking and choosing going on there that skews the numbers. Then an "average" market value for land in that county is developed. Once that figure is arrived at, individual property characteristics can be applied to either raise or lower it to arrive at a "fair" cost per acre.

We are committed to compensating landowners fairly? Is this the landowner's idea of fair, or is it Invenergy's idea of fair? Of course, it's Invenergy's, because they currently hold the power of eminent domain to take a property, even if the owner does not agree the compensation is fair. There's nothing fair about this!

And, which is it, Invenergy? Fair market value... or more than fair market value? How much more? Those statements, taken together, make no sense, which leads me to think that maybe the whole thing is just made up baloney.

Speaking of baloney... less than 10 acres? So is that all that will be compensated across the state? Why would Invenergy pay for land not taken? The truth is that Invenergy is planning to take a 200-foot wide strip of land clear across the state, and they have to compensate landowners for all of it. This claim is ludicrous.

This seems to be the only thing the reporter managed to come away with to represent the bill's supporters yesterday.

Landowners in the path of the transmission lines argue that a private company should not be able to condemn land in order to build the project.

I'm pretty sure there was a lot more said on this topic that perhaps was just too complicated for this uneducated reporter to grasp.

The difference between merchant transmission and regionally ordered and cost allocated transmission was explained rather succinctly. Here's my version:

Regionally ordered and cost allocated transmission comes from independent regional transmission system operators. They order new transmission for purposes of reliability, economics, or public policy. When transmission is ordered, the transmission organization also assigns cost responsibility for the project to regional customers based on their use of the transmission line. Most importantly, those customers assigned cost responsibility for the project only pay for the cost of the project, plus regulated return to the owner of the transmission.

Now, the difference of merchant transmission, like GBE. No transmission organization ever ordered GBE. Its costs will not be collected from regional customers. Instead, GBE has federal negotiated rate authority. It collects its costs through rates it negotiates with voluntary customers. Whatever price GBE can agree to with customers is the amount those customers pay, regardless of what the project costs to build. These are what is known as "market rates," where the rate charged is supported by a free market where each party comes to the table and negotiates the price without undue influence.

Therefore, GBE's rates are independent from the cost of the project. If GBE saves money on land acquisition due to the use of eminent domain, then that profit goes in GBE's pocket. It won't change the rate it has negotiated with its voluntary customers. On the other hand, when a project is cost allocated to regional customers, they only pay for what it costs to build. If the owner saves money on land acquisition through the use of eminent domain, those savings go to the customers who pay for the transmission project.

Bottom line: Eminent domain would increase GBE's profits beyond its cost of service. If GBE cannot use eminent domain to keep land acquisition prices low and must depend on free market negotiation to acquire land to build its project, that eats into GBE's profits. There are no savings that go back to customers if land acquisition costs are limited by eminent domain. This is why merchant transmission should never be granted eminent domain authority. And this is why the Missouri Legislature wants to change the law to exclude its use for merchant transmission.

This article about yesterday's hearing is much more balanced. This reporter paid attention and didn't try to apply bias to sway reader's opinions. You should read it to get a complete picture of what was said by both sides.

And here's what that Invenergy lady had to say in this report:

The company in charge of the project, Invenergy, said condemnation of properties under eminent domain is more of a last resort.

“We are not seeking ownership,” Nicole Luckey, director of regulatory affairs at Invenergy, said. “We are seeking an easement over folks’ land. Landowners will retain full ownership of the land in an easement. They can continue to use it for agricultural purposes.”

Luckey said landowners would be paid 110% of the market value in an easement, plus a structured payment that can be taken in a lump sum or in an annual payment, which would increase every year.

More of a last resort? More of a last resort to paying a price for land that is negotiated in a free market? Eminent domain isn't a part of fair negotiation. It's coercion, plain and simple. It was also reported, although not in this article, that she claimed that if a landowner didn't want to negotiate with Invenergy, the company would simply route its project around them.

So, in that case, GBE's route may look like this:

I'm not buying it.

Easement. Sure, that's where another party has a right to use a portion of your land for their own purposes, even if you object. Of course, you still "own" it and pay taxes and insurance on it.

Oh! 110% of market value? Is that "fair?" Once again, who determines market value? Invenergy does. They're going to pay landowners 10% more than the value they determine is fair. Garbage in, garbage out!

A transmission company's hired land acquisition company spends several months creating a plan before they hit the streets. They do the market studies, then create a database containing a range of values for each property. The lowest "fair market value" in the range is what a landowner is originally offered. The value can increase when a landowner resists, dependent upon approval from higher ups. What's the highest value in the range for your property? Of course, they're not going to tell you.

I heard that the Invenergy lady also told a lovely story about the company's plan to hire land agents. It will be very selectively hiring agents in January, training the agents in February, and then sending them out to the field in March. BALONEY! Transmission owners don't hire individual land agents off the street and then train them. They contract with land acquisition companies that already have teams of trained agents, such as this one, which is said to train their agents in psy ops in order to get resistant landowners to sign agreements. What happened to the land acquisition company Clean Line was using in Missouri? Is Invenergy going to just toss out that database and start fresh? In that case, how could it know what a particular landowner was previously offered to make sure it's new offer was at least as much?

She also allegedly said that Invenergy would gladly deliver all the energy to Missouri, if it could. Still can't find any customers, Invenergy?

Missouri's energy needs are met, without any part of GBE.

So, now we see where this bill wanders next. A companion bill in the Senate is set for Committee hearing on Wednesday. Off to a great start!

What can you do? You could dash off a Letter to the Editor of one of the newspapers reporting on yesterday's committee hearing, just to set them straight. Or you could send one to your local paper, or any other paper in Missouri. Need help? Just ask!

2 Comments

Invenergy Will Benefit From GBE More Than Electric Customers In Missouri

1/10/2020

0 Comments

Great article in the Webster County Citizen! Legislators discuss the problems with using eminent domain for Grain Belt Express, and the possibility that it will again become a legislative hot-topic this year. In the wake of last year's proposed legislation, legislators are educated, aware, and ready to take action.

“The problem originates with it being a privately-developed line. To acquire the right-of-ways across the state, the developer would use eminent domain.

And this is the crux of the problem. A privately-developed line... what does that mean? Aren't all transmission lines not owned by a municipal or consumer owned utility "privately developed?" No, they're not. Most transmission development is proposed in response to orders from independent federally-designated regional transmission organizations. These projects are ordered for purposes like electric reliability, or to lower regional market prices, or in some instances, in response to state public policy requirements. Grain Belt Express is none of these. It wasn't ordered by a RTO. No RTO has ordered this project for any reason that serves the general public. Instead, GBE was proposed by a private company as a profit center. Invenergy, GBE's current owner, plans to make revenue by selling capacity on its line to generators or end users on the east coast. It's all about the Benjamins! It's not about serving the public. It's about profit.

And in order to ensure its profit, GBE offered service on its proposed transmission line to municipal utilities in Missouri at a cost below market. GBE offered the municipalities service at a loss leader price that didn't even cover its own costs to simply serve as a way to create an artificial "need" for the project in Missouri. Being offered a free lunch was something the municipal utilities simply couldn't pass up. So now they support the project, claiming that it would save their residents money on their electric bills. How much? A couple bucks, maybe.

In exchange for some residents of Missouri possibly saving a couple bucks on their electric bills, Missouri would toss another group of residents under the bus, subjecting them to eminent domain takings of their property. These takings will occur on property that is in use as productive farm land, taking profit from the property owners.

When do the needs of one group become superior to the needs of another group, in the name of "public good?" This is a tough issue to struggle with. However, there's one group missing from this kind of equation... the owner of GBE, who stands to pocket billions if it can use state-granted eminent domain to acquire land for its for- profit transmission line. This issue is only being debated in Missouri because GBE wants to use eminent domain for its own profit (but under the guise of "public service" to municipal utilities). While the municipal utilities serve all their customers equally without a profit motive, the same can't be said for GBE. Invenergy only wants to build the project for the purpose of its own profit.

“These wind farms that are not in our state, they are in Kansas, and that power, most of it is going to Boston or Philadelphia, they are going to drop it off to about 30 municipalities in Missouri. I want Farmington to get cheaper power, I want them to be able to take advantage of that, but I see this company dropping off a few municipalities for the purpose of trying to get by in Missouri.”

Just to get by... just to get over... just to take advantage of Missourians for Invenergy's own profit. If big companies from out-of-state (or even out of the country) can manipulate Missouri law, and its regulators, for corporate profit, where does it end? How many other companies will see Missouri as a smorgasboard of company riches, where eminent domain is routinely granted for corporate initiatives? When are the rights of Missourians going to matter as much (or more!) than out-of-state corporate profit?

“My opposition to it, the way they got approval was going to create an environment where eminent domain was going to take on a new level and take away people’s property up in northern Missouri.
"The point was that a private entity was going to benefit from eminent domain more than the general public was. You use eminent domain because it will benefit the community as a whole.”

Eminent domain is a solemn power that should be reserved for only the most necessary situations, not handed out willy-nilly to ensure maximum profit for out-of-state corporations.

Here's the thing... removing eminent domain authority from GBE will not necessarily end the project. The company could still build its project, however it would have to negotiate with each landowner in a free market without the ability to simply take property when negotiations get too expensive. Eminent domain allows Invenergy to keep its land acquisition costs low by using the threat of eminent domain taking to force the landowner to sell cheap. This benefits only Invenergy. The municipalities have their price locked in. It won't change if the project costs Invenergy more to build. Lower land acquisition costs translates into lower project construction costs. The cheaper GBE is to build, the more profit is in it for Invenergy.

Unlike those RTO-ordered transmission projects that are paid for by all electric users at the cost of the project, GBE is a merchant transmission project that sells capacity on its project at auction. GBE will hold the same auction for its service whether its costs to acquire land are small or large. The prices negotiated will reflect the value of the service to the customer, not the actual cost of the project. Invenergy's profit margin on this project comes from the difference between its actual costs to build and operate the project and the price negotiated with its customers. If Invenergy's cost to build is lower because it uses eminent domain, its eventual profit margin will be higher.

Grain Belt Express' use of eminent domain to bolster its own profit must be stopped for the good of Missourians.

0 Comments

Missouri Court Avoids The Obvious

12/19/2019

0 Comments

The Missouri Court of Appeals issued its decision the other day in the matter of Missouri Landowners Alliance vs. the Missouri Public Service Commission. The Court found that the PSC properly approved the Grain Belt Express project. There were some pretty interesting arguments presented regarding a company's use of eminent domain for private profit, so I was interested in the court's basis for dismissing them. I was sorely disappointed.

The Court's opinion pretty much skipped over the entire eminent domain issue, choosing instead to devote much of its opinion to other issues, such as evidentiary challenges, where GBE refused to show its challengers "confidential" information the PSC relied on to approve the project, and "need" for the line. Little was said about eminent domain. In fact, the words "eminent domain" are nowhere to be found in the Opinion. Instead, "public utility" gets a scant mention. The Court recognized that a public utility must be for public use.

Regarding “public utility,” the relevant statutory definitions contain no explicit requirement that an entity be operated for a public use in order for it to constitute a public utility. However, Missouri courts have held that such a “public use” requirement was intended.

Recognizing that, the Court found a "public use" for GBE that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of its HVDC technology and federal negotiated rate authority. GBE is not a part of our transmission system for public use, it is a completely separate system that serves as a private extension cord for its select customers who pay the most for service. The Court figured because one of those customers (who got a sweetheart deal below cost in order to provide an appearance of "public use") was a public utility that served all customers equally, that GBE must be offering a public service. The Court transferred MJMEUC's public utility status to GBE, even though GBE is a private service for select customers only. This completely fails. GBE will serve other private customers. In fact, GBE may never even serve MJMEUC at all because MJMEUC's service depends upon other private customers willing to subsidize the cost of the MJMEUC contract in order to make the project economic. If there are no other customers willing to cover MJMEUC's costs, the project will fail and be scrapped. This is the danger of allowing a customer's public utility status to filter up to the service provider. MJMEUC does not make GBE a public utility. See how the court did that?

Here, the evidence showed that when the Grain Belt project is constructed and begins operation, it will transmit energy from wind farms in Kansas to wholesale customers in Missouri. In the case of MJMEUC, those customers are Missouri cities and towns that serve as electric providers to approximately 347,000 Missouri citizens. An entity, such as Grain Belt, that constructs and operates a transmission line bringing electrical energy from electrical power generators to public utilities that serve consumers is a necessary and important link in the distribution of electricity and qualifies as a public utility. Therefore, Grain Belt’s project will serve the public use, and Grain Belt qualifies as a public utility.

We should all be concerned that the Missouri court just set a horrible precedent for the use of eminent domain to benefit private companies and their select customers.

Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst gets it just right:

“We vigorously disagree with the court’s ruling upholding the Public Service Commission’s decision authorizing the use of eminent domain for the Grain Belt Express merchant transmission line. Grain Belt Express is not a public utility. Investors who want to negotiate rates privately and enter into contracts to sell electricity to the highest bidders should not be able to condemn land in order to build their dream project. Contrary to the court’s assertion, the Missouri Supreme Court has not suggested otherwise.”

Courts don't make laws, legislatures do. Perhaps the law in Missouri needs a bit of an overhaul? With all the time and effort devoted to opposing GBE at the PSC and in the courts, it can be quite liberating to realize that Missourians have had the power to kill it all along.

Block GBE-Missouri tells us:

One more potential obstacle that GBE faces is at the capitol. Legislation was recently pre-filed in both the Missouri House and Senate on our behalf. The House bill was filed by Representative Hansen and the Senate bill was filed by Senator Brown. We came very close to passage of the bill last session before time ran out. Since this year’s bills have been pre-filed in both houses with continued strong support from the Speaker of the House and other key leaders, we are optimistic the bills will be passed this session which begins at the first of the year. Stay tuned as we may be announcing a rally in Jeff City for the bills sometime this winter or early spring.

This battle is far from over. The opposition is committed and will not give up. I've seen this same commitment from transmission line opponents in Maine, who are gathering signatures to place a proposed fly-over transmission line on next year's ballot as a referendum. That transmission project, the New England Clean Energy Connect, was approved by a captured state utility commission and politically supported by the state's governor. The state legislature passed legislation last year aimed at the project, but the governor vetoed it. Undaunted, the opposition has continued its push to give citizens a voice in the decision, no matter how hard corporate and political interests attempt to silence them. I've seen this same spirit alive in Missouri during the nearly 10 years GBE has been futilely banging its head against the wall. We can get this done!

GBE is no closer to being built after this court decision. All the hurdles are still in front of it. What killed the other Clean Line projects? Legislation and the courts killed Rock Island Clean Line. Lack of customers killed the Plains and Eastern Clean Line. Whatever happens, I am confident that GBE will also fail. Keep fighting!

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express Is Like Plugging Your Toaster Into An Outlet 800 Miles Away

12/6/2019

1 Comment

...because the toaster doesn't work without the cord.

Who plugs their toaster into an electrical outlet 800 miles away using an extension cord? And who does that because they need toasted bread that congratulates them for being "green?" Plug in your toaster in your own kitchen, Invenergy!

Apparently the propaganda hasn't gotten any smarter with the impending change of ownership for the GBE project. In fact, it appears to have regressed, insulting the intelligence of a public who has been engaged on this project for more than 7 years. Toaster. Plug in your toaster 800 miles away using Invenergy's very expensive extension cord.

Michael Skelly tells us that GBE has made no progress in Kansas in his recent status report to the Kansas Corporation Commission. Michael Skelly? What's he doing still speaking for the project? Turns out that Invenergy has not even officially purchased the project yet. They "expect" it to happen before the end of the year. And, if it does, Invenergy stands poised to swoop in on landowners, like a drooling fox hiding next to the hen house.

What a surprise it's going to be when Invenergy gets every door in Kansas and Missouri slammed in its face. I hope they don't get their fee-fees hurt (okay... yes I do!)

Blah, blah, blah, Invenergy has done nothing with the project except make the scheduled easement payments to the handful of landowners who signed early easements with Clean Line. It's just treading water.

But, hey, wait a tick... Invenergy has been very busy schmoozing state and county elected officials.

Significant outreach events in Kansas in the third quarter of 2019 included representatives of Invenergy, on behalf of Grain Belt Express, meeting with various state legislators and county officials to discuss the Project; additional, similar meetings are planned for the fourth quarter of 2019. Further, a representative of Invenergy presented at the Kansas Renewable Energy Conference, hosted by the Kansas Department of Commerce, on October 4, 2019 to discuss the Project.

It's also been schmoozing "local business and community leaders." Who are these people? They're not landowners. They have no stake in the project. It's nothing more than a carrot on a stick to sell out their neighbors for personal profit. Doesn't look like it was a public meeting... more like an invitation only ham dinner.

Skelly's report to the KCC was filed by his counsel, Cafer Law, formerly Cafer and Pemberton. Hmm... what happened to Pemberton? Terri Pemberton seems to have flown the firm. Wonder where she landed? At the Kansas Corporation Commission. Isn't that cozy?

Isn't that where she came from before forming Cafer Pemberton? Seems she was Litigation Counsel for the KCC back in 2010 as well. Maybe it's a continuing legal education session before she jumps back into private practice as counsel for the entities she has been regulating? Just a little value added...

Invenergy is behaving as if Grain Belt Express is just another one of its invasive wind farm projects. If it schmoozes local governments enough and buys off the right people, sometimes it is successful in building wind farms on voluntarily leased private land. That's a whole world away from fly-over transmission using eminent domain, especially on communities where opposition is firmly entrenched. What a lesson Invenergy has coming to them!

Not everything is for sale!

Go away, Invenergy. Nobody is fooled by this nonsense.

1 Comment

It's Time To Get Serious About Killing Grain Belt Express For Good

10/26/2019

1 Comment

Who hasn't enjoyed their summer, free from GBE drama? It was nice while it lasted. But GBE hadn't really gone away... it just went in hiding at the project hospital behind the corporate couch, where it licked itself extensively and dreamed evil dreams. And, now, just in time for Halloween.... it's baaaaaaack!

Looks like Clean Line finally met the conditions precedent for the sale to complete. Invenergy says they are in the process of finalizing the deal. What were the conditions? Missouri and Kansas had to approve the sale, which they did. Kansas even went so far as to change the meaningless deadline to build the project that it set back in 2013. KCC added 10 years onto the project's lifetime, meaning landowners in Kansas will be held in limbo for nearly 20 years. Twenty years! Think about that for a moment. What if you had a cloud on your property for two decades? Say someone threatened to take over your kitchen using eminent domain, but never actually did it. And then the fridge broke. Would you want to buy a new fridge that someone else is just going to take? Of course not! And what if your job transferred you to another state while this was going on and you needed to sell your property? Who would buy a house where the kitchen was about to be taken by eminent domain? Holding landowners hostage on their own property for two decades, for free, mind you, is absolutely unconscionable.

The KCC's conditions for extending the deadline another 10 years:

By December 2, 2024, Grain Belt shall show that through a combination of the following, a majority of the easements necessary to build the Kansas portion of the Project: (1) have been executed, (2) are demonstrably being negotiated, or (3) are subject to proceedings in state court. Alternatively, Grain Belt must show it has obtained financing for the complete Project. If Grain Belt is unable to meet the required percentage of easements or obtain financing, it is subject to sanctions or shall file a new transmission line siting permit application under K.S.A. 66-1, 178.

By December 2, 2026, the percentage of easements necessary to build the Kansas portion of the Project escalates. If Grain Belt is unable to meet the required percentage of easements or obtain financing, it is subject to increased sanctions or shall file a new transmission line siting permit application under K.S.A. 66-1,178.
By December 2, 2028, the percentage of easements necessary to build the Kansas portion of the Project escalates. If Grain Belt is unable to meet the required percentage of easements or obtain financing, Grain Belt must either: (1) shall file a new transmission line siting permit application under K.S.A. 66-1,178; or (b) abandon the Project and allow all easements to revert to the landowners.

Sanctions, you say? Surely you jest! What kind of "sanctions" could come out of a captured state agency that grants a 10-year extension when the regulated only asked for 5? The KCC continues to demonstrate its corporate ownership by ordering meaningless deadlines that it never enforces.

Invenergy is hiring to staff up the GBE project. Hans Detweiler's beard of unemployment has grown long waiting for this moment! He admitted as much during testimony before the Missouri PSC, where he pretended to be a Clean Line employee with knowledge about the project (although Hans was attached to RICL throughout its life). Poor Hans! All hope is dashed! Invenergy requires its new Vice President to be a degreed ENGINEER, not just a Poli Sci major who likes to masquerade as an engineer at landowner meetings. I wonder where Hans can buy an engineering degree real quick? Anybody know?

Alas, the job seems to be missing a requirement that this project guy have chameleon capabilities so that he's harder to find by landowners when things go wrong, but I'm sure that would be an unpublished plus.

Invenergy has a new website for Grain Belt Express. I never thought I'd say this, but Clean Line's website for the project was much better. Invenergy's website is pretty devoid of useful information or opportunities for user interaction. It's almost like they haven't quite finished it yet and aren't ready to have it plastered all over the internet. Too bad, so sad.

There's pretty much nothing for landowners on Invenergy's website. I do note that the project is now 800 miles long, although Invenergy is using the same old project map. Where did the extra 50 miles of project come from? Or does the number 800 have a certain amount of luck or feng shui that 750 doesn't? Is Invenergy just that superstitious? Or do they actually think making the project sound longer is a good thing? It's not a good thing for landowners, but I don't think landowners are the target audience for this website. Perhaps Invenergy is working on a Facebook page for the project to give landowners an interactive portal? Miss Kitty Hamm can hardly wait!

Speaking of ham, I don't see a new round of landowner meetings designed for Invenergy to introduce itself to the subservient tenants who will maintain the real estate its money making project sits on in perpetuity. You're not even getting a ham dinner this time. It pretty much looks like Invenergy is just going to turn right around and file eminent domain on you whenever it wants. After all, why bother with the charade of "only as a last resort" when a state has granted you eminent domain authority? For a company unused to having the POWER of eminent domain to site its unwanted projects, I'm sure they just can't wait to use it.

There are still numerous substantial obstacles for GBE that Invenergy fails to mention on its website. First of all, the project has no customers! Without customers, it will never be built. Clean Line tried for nearly a decade to find customers (I mean real customers, not a bunch of greedy munis who think they're going to get a free lunch). What makes Invenergy think it can find customers now? Hey, guess what? Offshore wind. It's a thing. Nobody in PJM wants Invenergy's overpriced hot air. It also does not have a permit in Illinois and has not applied for one. It's just not true that simply buying utility property will make Invenergy a public utility in Illinois. If that's what Clean Line told Invenergy, the joke's on Invenergy. Getting GBE permitted in Illinois is close to impossible (and probably very, very expensive).
And then there's the pending appeal in Missouri. Oral arguments are coming up soon. Don't forget that GBE must receive the assent of every county crossed by the project before construction can begin. That's not going to be easy or cheap, either.

So, hey, Invenergy, you've got yourself a project! But you've also bought a huge, engaged and effective opposition that will thwart you at every turn. There's just no way to turn this "NO" into a "YES." Clean Line has created a deep-rooted hatred of fancy pants city guys on a money-making expedition to use rural America like their own personal slot machine. Sorry, you lose.

What's coming up for the opposition? Of course we don't publish our strategy (oops, sorry, Invenergy) ahead of time. Let's just say it's time to re-connect and get back to work. Let's kill GBE for good this time!

1 Comment

How the Sausage Gets Made at NPR

10/9/2019

0 Comments

A couple weeks ago, an NPR producer started contacting opponents to the Grain Belt Express, trying to find someone in Kansas to interview for what was dubbed a story about wind energy in Kansas. Enthusiasm = zero. Nobody wanted to waste the time on an NPR story that probably contained bias before it was even recorded. In addition, it set off my radar that NPR seemed to be looking for a NIMBY to round out its story. NPR wasn't really interested in GBE, per se, but in opposition to it.

After really stretching to consider "someone who happens to be right on the Kansas/Missouri border," the reporter got hooked up with experienced Block GBE spokeswoman Jennifer Gatrel and visited the ranch she owns with her husband, Jeff, 45 minutes outside Kansas City, Missouri.

And yesterday, this aired.

(Funny, Jennifer seems to also be starring in today's story about rural "brain gain," which was a surprise to Jennifer.)

Jennifer and Jeff spent 2 hours with the reporter at their ranch, which resulted in roughly a 3.5 minute segment in the hour-long story. The reporter seemed charmed by the bucolic setting and thrilled with the animals, but uninterested in the actual GBE project, except in how it would have personally affected the Gatrels, both by destroying their land and future. The Gatrels did a fantastic job trying to stay on their talking points. This isn't their first rodeo, they did the same when the New York Times came to interview them several years ago. But at least the NYT was actually interested in the project itself. NPR simply glossed over all the issues with GBE, such as the fact that the project doesn't have enough customers to make it financially feasible, the fact that the project lacks a permit to cross the state of Illinois and has not applied for one, and that it still faces a brick wall in Missouri, with an ongoing legal appeal to the permit and a requirement to get the assent of each county it crosses. GBE is barely treading water. Seems like Invenergy doesn't want to waste any money on it at the moment, possibly related to its lack of customers who would finance the project.

So, how did NPR fill the rest of their hour-long show? They interviewed three guys in Kansas, but that didn't last much longer than the Gatrel's segment. Interesting that the fellas profiting from Kansas wind turbines state that they would never want to have a transmission line across their own properties, due to its "like eminent domain" nature. If hosting turbines is voluntary, why is a transmission line to enable the turbine involuntary? Of course, NPR didn't bother to explain. It was all about fluff and glitter, not substance. The story was cleverly designed to appeal to emotion, not logic.

The bulk of the hour was taken up by the pro-wind opinions of Russell Gold, who wrote a fantasy book about Clean Line Energy Partners, and Amy Farrell of big wind trade group American Wind Energy Association. Our friend Russell kept referencing concern about the Gatrels personally, while stabbing them in the back with statements about how somebody has to sacrifice for energy. And he was quick to get the word "NIMBY" in at the end of the show for good measure.

Except nobody has to sacrifice at all! A truly sympathetic transmission line developer could bury new transmission on existing rights of way, such as alongside rail or highways. But NPR isn't interested in that. It was too busy trying to convince its listeners that big wind is somehow "necessary." Preaching to the choir, boys and girls! NPR listeners don't need to be convinced. They already believe or they wouldn't be listening. NPR convinced nobody with that story. It wasn't true journalism, it was story-telling designed to give an audience what it wanted to hear. Listen, my children and you shall hear... the biased opinions that you hold dear.

Jennifer and Jeff Gatrel will continue to fight on, even though their ranch is no longer affected. And so will thousands of others. Victory is within their grasp, happening in venues ignored by NPR.

0 Comments

Grain Belt Express IS NOT a Public Utility

9/5/2019

0 Comments

Initial briefs have been filed in the joint appeal of the Missouri PSC's issuance of a permit to Grain Belt Express.

Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance, Missouri Farm Bureau and landowner Christina Reichert filed an appeal stating that the PSC has no jurisdiction to issue a permit to GBE because is is not an "electrical corporation" under Missouri law. If it's not an "electrical corporation," it's not a public utility entitled to use eminent domain to acquire easements.

It's actually pretty simple and follows the successful arguments made at the Illinois Supreme Court that vacated a permit issued by the Illinois Commerce Commission to Rock Island Clean Line, and a permit for Grain Belt Express that was vacated by the Illinois Court of Appeals. Clean Line (now Invenergy) doesn't own utility property in the state that qualifies it as a "public utility" under Illinois law. GBE also doesn't own utility property in Missouri, as defined by Missouri law. The PSC tried to pretend it did in order to issue the permit, concluding that a handful of easement options and a bank account with some cash was "utility property." By that definition, anyone with a quarter in his pocket is an "electrical corporation" because he could use that quarter to buy some utility property in the future. Cash can be used for many things, but you can't build a transmission line out of dollar bills. The easement options also fail because GBE does not own, control or manage any land. It has an option to purchase an easement at a later date, but it does not control the land at this time. The landowner can still do whatever they want with their land before the option is exercised.

But that's not the only problem with GBE, although you may think it is if you read this article. Try though it might to masquerade an an actual independent news source, Energy News Network (formerly Midwest Energy News) is funded and controlled by "Fresh Energy" which is in turn funded by numerous dark money "foundations" and renewable energy companies.

Since all these hypocritical environmentalists like to point the finger at grassroots opposition to invasive energy projects as being funded by "dark money" (which is absolutely NOT TRUE), the finger goes back at them and this time it IS true. Try finding out who funds FreshEnergy donor "Energy Foundation". Influence Watch calls it "...a left-of-center “pass through” charitable foundation founded by and supported by a network of left-wing organizations...". But, "In reality, it is a medium for bundling vast sums of money from donors to far-left political causes, under the guise of philanthropy." "News" source, indeed! It's nothing but dark money propaganda.

Anyhow... back to our show...

Perhaps a bigger hurdle for GBE is the fact that its business model and rate scheme do not meet the definition of public utility in Missouri. This point was argued quite well at the Illinois Supreme Court, however the justices found Rock Island was not a public utility because it did not own utility property, saving for another day a decision on whether its business model and rate structure prohibited it from meeting the legal definition of a public utility. And if you think that decision would have been a squeaker, it wasn't. Anyone watching the oral arguments could discern how the justices felt about it. Therefore, this argument is alive and well.

In Missouri, a public utility is under the jurisdiction of the PSC. Except GBE really isn't. It's rate scheme is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under state law, a public utility must serve everyone indiscriminately, and must charge the same rates to similarly situated customers. But GBE won't do that. GBE will sell its service to only select customers who bid highest for its service, and it will negotiate a different rate for service with each customer. Imagine if your electric company did this. What if they refused to serve your home, but served your neighbors? And what if they charged your neighbors a much lower rate than they charged you for the same service? This isn't a public utility, it's a private enterprise. As a private enterprise, it isn't entitled to eminent domain authority to take private property for its own use.

That's pretty much been the basis of the arguments of landowners since day one. Clean Line, or GBE, can build whatever it wants, but it should never be given the power of eminent domain.

In addition, the Missouri Landowners Alliance has filed a separate appeal that hinges on legal errors made by the PSC during the course of its hearings. MLA was prohibited from accessing "confidential" information that made up the basis for GBE's testimony. If MLA did not have the information, it could not examine it nor question its validity.

Meanwhile, GBE is in a heap of trouble unrelated to its PSC permit. It still does not have the Missouri county assents it must have before beginning construction. Therefore, it's PSC permit is nothing more than a useless piece of paper. What do you think the chances are of the county governments assenting to GBE crossing their roads at this stage of the game... after more than 7 years of lies and harassment from GBE? In addition, GBE has not even applied for a permit in Illinois. Doing so would be at least a 2-year endeavor, probably greater, and the chances of the Illinois Supreme Court vacating any permit issued are huge.

So, what does Invenergy intend to do with GBE? Not what it told the Missouri Public Service Commission at hearing, obviously.

It's time to retire this white elephant. Merchant transmission does not pass the test of state public utility laws.

You can read the Joint Appeal Brief here.
And the Missouri Landowners Alliance Brief here.

0 Comments

Reform of Eminent Domain Law

9/4/2019

1 Comment

I was reading an article about eminent domain and pipelines in Texas the other day. Landowners there have had enough and are pushing for eminent domain reform in their legislature.

This caught my eye:

TACTICS
Pack said that contractors for the pipeline companies simply show up at residences, with no advance notice.
“They drive up, they knock on your door,” Pack said. “They’re all contractors. You don’t ever meet anybody that works directly with the company. They’re all contractors who are paid to get things done, to get you to sign. They tell you what they want to do, they make you a lowball offer and they try to get you to sign that day. And if you don’t, then they tell you that they’ll sue you for eminent domain.”
Pack said there is a phrase describing such tactics.
“Their immediate threat is, if you don’t sign, we’ll sue you for eminent domain and take it anyway. And that’s why most people sign. They call it pickup hood signings. Most people sign on the pickup hoods because, you say lawsuit and it scares them to death.
“They brag about a 95 percent settlement rate. The pipeline industry will tell you that there’s nothing wrong with the system, that they settle 95 percent of the cases. That’s not indicative of a fair system, that’s indicative of a system that’s so one-sided and so unfair that people are either afraid or can’t afford to fight.”

Pickup hood signings. Kitchen table signings. Binding legal documents being signed at the landowner's home without legal counsel of any kind. This just isn't right, and it needs to change.

Someone making a voluntary real estate transaction without a lawyer may be known as a fool. How many people have ever bought or sold property without a lawyer? Not many. Ask any expert and they would advise against doing so. Take a bad real estate transaction without counsel to court and the judge would probably laugh at your foolishness.

So why is this acceptable when for-profit utilities and other corporations with state-granted eminent domain authority want to acquire land rights? Why do we let corporations get away with taking advantage of landowners this way?

The corporation is well-represented by a fat legal team who writes the easement contract in the company's best interests. That's who's really calling at your door -- a high-dollar attorney whose job is to protect corporate interests and assist in creating profit. Except that guy (or gal) isn't at your kitchen table... he sends some "aww shucks" down-to-earth land agent whose job is to convince you to sign on the dotted line. Just a couple of good ol' boys doing a handshake deal and he can write you a check on the spot! What a deal!

Except it's not. And if you resist, they simply send others until they find an agent who fits your expectations better, or threaten to sue you (or maybe arrest you... it's happened). If you want professional advice before signing, it's discouraged. And, of course, it's on your own dime. Why?

Real eminent domain reform would make the utility or corporation cover the cost of an independent attorney of your choosing to represent you. All deals would happen at a lawyer's office, not on a pickup hood. The kinds of lies land agents tell to landowners would dry up if it was two attorneys negotiating. But that's too expensive, right? No. Having your attorney deal directly with the corporation's attorney cuts out the middle man, the land agent. The amount of money utilities spend on land acquisition contractors is astounding. But they're happy to do it because a land agent can tell you whatever lies facilitate your signature and then claim to have never said that if you repeat the story.

Having the corporation's attorneys prepare and present an agreement for landowner signature is also something that needs to go. A legal agreement should be edited by attorneys for both parties. Just because a corporation is offering one thing doesn't mean the landowner has to accept it. Prepare your own agreement, or edit theirs to suit your best interests.

If corporations had to provide counsel and negotiate with landowners in the sunshine before filing condemnation, things would be fair to both parties. Right now, they're terribly one-sided.

Why? Because corporations also write eminent domain laws to suit their interests and profits and your legislators just roll over and cash the campaign contribution checks.

It's about time we reform eminent domain laws in every state!

1 Comment

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

8/19/2019

1 Comment

Experts Advise Respect to Counter Project Opposition

said the headline in RTO Insider. Oh, yes, who are these "experts," and how do they "respect" project opposition groups? Is this another stilted EUCI Conference, where clueless utility executives tell other clueless utility executives how they "won" even though their transmission project failed? Honestly, it's been done before, ad nauseam, and giving lip service to "respect" never translates into actual respect. It's just a bunch of people who have never been project opponents telling other people how those opponents feel. Now they want to "respect" us. But is it actual respect, or just pretend respect that they think will win us over?

Let's examine what these "experts" said.

Apex Clean Energy Vice President of Public Affairs Dahvi Wilson said it’s no longer simply a matter of getting landowners to sign off on projects. Now, Wilson said, utilities need to secure public support.
“We’re increasingly before state [and] local governments, and we’re facing opponents that are very sincerely concerned about what’s coming to their communities but also misguided,” Wilson said.
Utilities are increasingly facing the deliberate spread of misinformation online about proposed projects, she said. “We’re in a lot of debate right now over what’s true.”
Wilson said regulators must now ascertain whether data are scientifically rigorous or simply pulled from a questionable webpage.

Here we've got an industry public relations spinner who is "respecting" the opposition by calling it "misguided", "misinformed", and "questionable." That's not R-E-S-P-E-C-T! That's derisive smoke-blowing. It's telling the opposition that it's wrong and that its facts are not accurate, as if the utility alone is the sole repository and adjudicator of "facts." This attitude drives the disrespect of communities. We don't need any greedy companies coming in and telling us we're stupid. It's an attempt to reframe the argument to try to make us believe it's okay to be your victim. If an energy infrastructure project was an unwanted sexual advance (and the similarities here are striking), it's the equivalent of sticking your cold utility hand down our pants while telling us we asked for it and there's nothing wrong with what you're doing. Disgusting and abusive. Go away and keep your hands (and your invasive project) to yourself.

But, hey, there actually was a panelist speaking from experience... and what did he have to say?

North Dakota Indian Affairs Commissioner Scott Davis, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, led negotiations with the Dakota Access Pipeline over a two-year period. He described how he was constantly afraid of a protester’s death and listening to helicopters conducting crowd control near his home.
“Don’t underestimate the power of my people. You can tell them not to do it, and they’re going to do it,” Davis said. “Quite honestly, government hasn’t treated us very well in the decades of our existence.”
Davis said “old-fashioned” face-to-face discussions with tribal or community leaders is the best approach to introducing projects with communities, native or not. Davis also warned that treaties protect tribal land.

“[For] a lot of you that have tribes in your states, treaties are the law of the land. They’re in the Constitution. … Understanding tribes, where they’re coming from, is so important,” Davis said. “I think in this world of progress, progress, progress, what drives us — what pushes the gas pedal of progress — is trust. If you’re just rubber-stamping [energy infrastructure projects], you will have an issue.”

Likewise when you approach a community with a fully-formed project and threats of eminent domain. You're going to have a problem. Industry approaches a community with a solution, not a problem (and oftentimes it's just not the community's problem in the first place). Industry then proceeds to reject all community ideas and attempts at compromise (such as using existing infrastructure, burial, or re-routing). Then it threatens to use eminent domain to take the property of those who don't agree. This isn't R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Wilson said the wind industry, which previously tended to submit projects quietly, hoping for little public notice, is now more transparent. She also agreed that it’s imperative for utilities to spend face-to-face time in a community.
“If the people that are fighting our projects are much more liked in the community, the community is going to believe them over us,” Wilson advised.
However, she said, it’s still a “hard sell” to convince many utilities to spend money to embed company representatives in a community to foster trust.

Sorry, sweetcheeks, no matter how much money you spend trying to make yourself "liked" in a community you're not part of, the community is STILL going to believe community members over you. Those who pretend they "like" you only "like" the money you're giving them. Every community hates a sell-out.

And what do you mean by "embed"? That sounds so subversive, so calculated, so slimy. You embed spies and mercenaries in a community as part of a propaganda campaign to slyly implant a bad idea so it becomes ingrained. It's sneaky. It's dirty. Do you really think we're going to fall for that?

Environmental Law & Policy Center Senior Attorney Brad Klein said it’s generally good practice for a utility to perform a full environmental impact analysis early in the process and thoroughly investigate alternatives to a large energy infrastructure project.

“I don’t think alternatives are appropriate in all cases, but they should be fully considered up front,” Klein said. Decisions should be made based on “full and fair information,” he said, which should contemplate new technologies, battery storage and collections of distributed resources.

Cart before horse! You're still talking about presenting an infrastructure project as a fait accompli. You're not listening to the community's ideas, you're simply presenting your own while turning a deaf ear. That's not R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Klein also acknowledged that there will be environmental trade-offs with any large infrastructure project. But utilities and regulators shouldn’t insult groups of concerned citizens, he said.
“Don’t dismiss local communities as NIMBYs [‘not in my backyard’]. That’s insulting,” Klein said. “When we lose the public’s trust, you lose the larger fight.”

That's right, don't call them NIMBYs. Just call them misguided and misinformed. That's not an insult at all, right? Just keep telling them it's okay for you to stick your hand in their pants.

What you want
Baby, I got it
What you need
Do you know I got it?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Real respect, not just lip service. Go on... get outta here!

1 Comment

Hypothetical Garbage vs. Reality

8/5/2019

2 Comments

It's not just cats that keep repeating the same fruitless exercise over and over again and each time hoping for a different result. Apparently people do it, too.

With this drastically inaccurate public opinion survey about transmission lines "for renewables" on the table, why would anyone attempt to re-create it? It doesn't matter what the results are, because the experiment is based on hypotheticals that bear absolutely no resemblance to reality.

Question: Does opposition to new transmission become weaker when the transmission line is purported to be "for wind" or "for solar"? Do people object less to "clean" transmission lines?

Answer: NO.

Why: If you ask a bunch of random people on the phone (or internet or wherever) if they would support a transmission line for "clean" energy, it's only a hypothetical transmission line. Political correctness comes into play. Green is good, or so we've been greenwashed to believe. However, when the transmission is actually in the respondent's backyard, it doesn't matter what color it is. They don't want a new transmission line IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD. They only want to sound politically correct when the transmission line is hypothetically in someone else's backyard.

Communities threatened by new transmission lines, especially those purportedly for "clean" energy shipped to some other state or region, will oppose the transmission line every time. Every.last.time. It doesn't matter what the color of the electrons are, it's about the transmission line and its immediate and personal effect upon the community.

It is absolutely NOT TRUE that opposition is weaker or more easily vanquished if the transmission line is "for wind." Case in point: Wildfire opposition to three different "Clean" Line transmission proposals. It didn't matter to any of the thousands of landowners and residents affected by the transmission proposal whether the project was "clean." What mattered was the idea of forced sacrifice to enable the transmission line. Being for "clean" energy actually made things worse! None of these affected communities were getting anything out of a new transmission line that would "fly over" their properties to bring "clean" power to distant cities.

And nothing has changed, except some "researchers" wasted private grant money trying to repeat the public opinion exercise that failed last time. And the results of this new study?

Our results also suggest that transmission line developers may garner greater support from communities that will host such lines if they explain explicitly that at least one source of electricity is solar or wind.

My advice, after working with transmission opposition groups for over a decade? Don't do it. It hurts more than it helps.

Of course, no study of the hypothetical can substitute for reality. So, developers, if you try this and it fails (like it failed spectacularly for the former Clean Line Energy Partners) here's a bit of a disclaimer.

Of course, higher support for transmission lines that carry renewable electricity may not be sufficient to overcome all opposition, especially from property owners most directly affected by the siting; nor is it guaranteed that a response to a hypothetical survey scenario reflects how one would respond to the same scenario in reality.

That. That right there is why your entire research project failed before it even began. How hard would it have been to set up your research project to deal with reality, instead of hypotheticals? You could have asked any of the thousands of opponents of the Clean Line projects in 8 different states if it mattered to them if the project was for "clean" energy. It didn't matter at all. What did matter was eminent domain and the burden of living with the transmission line across their homes and businesses. Maybe you should have asked them if their opposition would lessen if the project were buried, if it were buried on existing rights of way, if participation in the project was voluntary, or if public land was used exclusively for siting the project. That's where you'd see a lightening of opposition.

But, you didn't. You set up your experiment to bias towards your desired result by ignoring reality in favor of hypothetical situations influenced by greenwashing. I'm not sure what good it does you to pretend your study is accurate, when the opposite is actually true. You're not dealing with the real problem. You're trying to pretend the real problem doesn't exist. And that's why overhead transmission "for renewables" will fail every time. I mean... EVERY TIME.

2 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

House Bill To Limit Eminent Domain Clears Committee in Missouri

Invenergy Will Benefit From GBE More Than Electric Customers In Missouri

Missouri Court Avoids The Obvious

Grain Belt Express Is Like Plugging Your Toaster Into An Outlet 800 Miles Away

It's Time To Get Serious About Killing Grain Belt Express For Good

How the Sausage Gets Made at NPR

Grain Belt Express IS NOT a Public Utility

Reform of Eminent Domain Law

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Hypothetical Garbage vs. Reality

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