StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

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.
Picture
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

Easement Payments Are Compensation, Not Benefit

7/10/2019

0 Comments

 
North American Wind Power thinks that "landowner easement payments" are a benefit of new transmission.  As if landowners are striking it rich being the victims of eminent domain takings.
The transmission line also creates several economic benefits, including added grid interconnection and future interconnection options, landowner easement payments, and county property tax payments.
A landowner is entitled to compensation when his land is taken through condemnation, aka eminent domain.  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
COMPENSATION.  An attempt to compensate a landowner for something taken from him, often against his will.  Compensation is an effort to pay a landowner for his loss.  It's not a benefit.  At most, it's a trade.  Supposedly the landowner is made whole, given money for land he can no longer use.

Isn't it galling how the takers attempt to speak for the victims this way?  Everybody who stands to profit from eminent domain thinks they're the newest landowner spokespeople, telling everyone else how landowners benefit from easement payments, and depend on these one-time pittances to survive.  That's nothing but pure arrogance.

Compensation for electric transmission easements is not just.  The chimera of "just compensation" is, again, created by the takers, not the victims.  In actuality, transmission line easement payments cause a loss to landowners that can never be justly compensated.

Having a new transmission line or substation constructed on or near property causes property devaluation that the owner may never recover. While transmission developers may produce mountains of studies denying property devaluation, the proof is in the pudding. There is a stigma attached to energy infrastructure that buyers shy away from when comparing similar properties. Energy industry assurances, studies, and biased expert opinions provide little comfort to families evaluating properties they may call home. It’s not a decision based on logic, but on emotion and fear of the unknown.

Rural and farm properties take the brunt of new infrastructure siting, as developers seek the path of least resistance by siting their projects on “undeveloped land.” Just because a parcel of land is wide open space does not mean it is “undeveloped.” Farmland is fully developed to its best and highest purpose, that of feeding our nation. Oftentimes it may be conserved farmland, where the landowner sells future development rights to conservation programs with the intent of preserving the open space for all time. While the landowner is prevented from developing the land for profit, a transmission developer may see no barrier to developing transmission infrastructure on conserved farmland for its own profit, defeating the conservation of the open space.

Farms are businesses, and farmland is a factory. Farmers make their living off the land and what it produces. Running a new transmission project through the farm factory’s production line interferes with production and wastes productive space for all time. The addition of a transmission line profoundly changes agricultural practices on that parcel, interfering with (or
preventing) irrigation, pesticide application, aerial seeding, drainage systems, crop heights, and harvesting practices. Soil compaction and removal or mixing of topsoil caused by construction and maintenance of the transmission line can cause decreased yields for years into the future. The presence of a transmission line on a parcel also limits future use of that parcel for other purposes. Much of a farmer’s wealth lies in his land, and many farmers rely on the future value of their land for retirement income, much like others rely on a company-sponsored 401(k) plan. Preventing future land uses by adding transmission lines to a parcel can create a huge,
unexpected loss to a farmer’s retirement income.

Family farming is generational, with many farms being handed down from generation to generation, which creates a rich history and connection to the land and explains why family farms may not be for sale at any price. The forced addition of transmission lines using eminent domain intrudes into the family history and sense of place, profoundly changing it forevermore. None of these very personal impacts to productivity and emotional well-being are adequately compensated by one-time payments for the current land value of a narrow, linear easement through a property. The entire property and future productivity is affected, often without just compensation. This effect is compounded when the landowner receives absolutely no benefit from the transmission project that “flies over” his land.

Stop pretending eminent domain takings are a "benefit" just to fill your own pockets.  We're not buying it.
0 Comments

Pattern Energy's "New Model" Finds Opposition in New Mexico

6/7/2019

1 Comment

 
First there was Illinois.  Then there was Iowa.  Then there were Kansas and Missouri, soon followed by Arkansas and Oklahoma, and a different part of Illinois.  The opposition to Clean Line Energy Partners projects grew organically over several years until three of its five projects were fiercely opposed by landowners along the route, dug in for the long haul.  We kept waiting to be joined by landowner opposition to the other two Clean Line projects, Centennial West and Western Spirit.  But those two Clean Line projects never seemed to get off the ground, and affected landowners remained blissfully unaware.

Until now.

Remember last month when Michael Skelly claimed Pattern was using a "new model" to develop Western Spirit?  Looks like the same old model to me.

Merchant transmission project of little necessity designs route through the farms of local residents without their input or knowledge.  Opposition is born.

It's not about the owner, it's about the "model."  Nobody wants a transmission line encroaching on their home or business, and even less so for a "clean" transmission line whose only purpose is to transmit "clean" energy to replace the totally adequate energy currently powering some far away city.  There's no benefit for the landowners.  Easement payments are an attempt to compensate landowners for land rights taken from them.  It's not a financial windfall for the landowner.

But can companies other than the failed Clean Line Energy Partners actually build these kinds of projects?  My money is on "NO."  Long-distance transmission for renewables is a non-starter.

Fight on, folks, fight on.
1 Comment

Whatever Happened to Michael Skelly?

6/1/2019

3 Comments

 
He won The World Cup of Failure!
Picture
He's also "Out of the Game."
"Exhibiting new regrets."
Unable to "win the World Cup of transmission."
"Not in the mood."
and he's also
"Still high."

I see.

Don't you just wish this guy would go away?  That's probably what the energy industry thinks, too... retire, go spend your millions, take a bike ride, Mikey old boy.
RTO Insider found Skelly still trying to be relevant and trade on some former glory at AWEA's government cadger convention.

Skelly claims to be "happy."  This is what happy looks like.  Go see.
And Skelly is still serving up the senseless blather.  Trying to sound important.  Trying to sound cool.  Trying to sound smarter than everyone else in the room.  And, of course, he fails again.  Let's consider this gem:
“There’s a huge supply chain of service folks that really know how to do these things, and that will help us to be more flexible,” Skelly said. “There’s a bunch of states now that want 100% renewable energy. I think we’re on a great path, and for the younger folks just getting started in the industry, it’s going to be interesting.”
Service folks?  Are we talking about the folks who clean Skelly's pool, grease his bicycle chain, and scrub the Firehouse toilets?  Or are we talking about active duty military and military veterans, a favorite target of Skelly's former eminent domain threats?  Or are we talking about state public service commissions, who rarely serve the public, using a little bit of truthful shorthand -- service folks for the industry?  Does this even make any sense, any sense at all?

A "supply chain" of folks?  As in folks are meant to be used up and disposed of?  That right there tells you all you need to know about Michael Skelly.

"Really know how to do these things?"  What?  Is Skelly implying that he really does NOT know how to do these things?  What things are we talking about?  Humility?  Empathy?  Grace?  Thinking up stupid ideas and then spending $200M of other people's money trying to make them happen, long after a sane person using his own money would have withdrawn?

This whole quote makes little sense.  But you're supposed to think it does, and that it's sheer genius... such genius that you just don't get it because you're stupid.    LOL  Who's stupid now, Michael Skelly?

Here's another Skellyism:
“We thought transmission was going to be the linchpin of expanding wind energy,” Skelly said.

“Transmission is super hard. We’re not really in the mood right now to do these giant projects in the United States,” Skelly said. “These things change. We’ll look back in 100 years. There’ll be times we didn’t do a lot of infrastructure; there are times we did a lot of infrastructure. Hopefully, the country will be in a better mood and ready to do these big-bone transmission projects.”

Michael Skelly thought wrong.  And it cost 10 years and $200M.  Maybe someone who didn't think he was Don Quixote would have quit at $100M, or even $50M.  The writing was on the wall much, much sooner, but Skelly pretended not to see it.

Transmission is only hard because "cleaner" or "cheaper" electricity for people who already have reliable power is not compatible with overhead transmission on new rights-of-way using eminent domain.  The ones who find a way to transmit electricity without landowner sacrifice won't find it hard at all.

This statement is nothing more than a bunch of malarkey Skelly uses to excuse away his failure.  But it's still there.  Innovators are using Skelly's failure as a guide for what not to do.

It's not because we weren't "in the mood."  It's not because infrastructure wasn't being built.  It's because Skelly had a half-baked idea that landowners would welcome a transmission line for "clean energy" across their land.  They didn't.  Not only that, but there were no customers that wanted what Skelly was selling.  No big utilities wanted to pay someone else for transmission capacity when they could build and own a profitable transmission line themselves.  These are the lessons of Skelly's failure.

Skelly likes to pretend there was nothing wrong with his business plan.
Coincidentally, Pattern Energy CEO Michael Garland sat at the other end of the panel. Pattern last year bought Clean Line’s interests in the Mesa Canyons Wind Farm and Western Spirit Clean Line projects in New Mexico. It has already reached a $285 million agreement with PNM Resources to sell Western Spirit once it’s completed in 2021.

“They’ve pushed forward with development,” Skelly said of Pattern. “Clearly it’s a new model, and that’s exciting.”
It's the same old model.  Pattern is just doing it better.  Smarter.  However, they're still a long way from success.  Hopefully they'll quit when it becomes too expensive.  Now that all Skelly's pet projects are in the hands of corporations, failure will come sooner and cheaper.  Corporations don't eat a great, big bowl of Ego Flakes every morning.  It's about dollars and sense, not ego.

So, there you have it, folks!  This is all you get in exchange for years of heartache, sleepless nights, and hundreds of thousands of your hard earned dollars spent fighting off Michael Skelly's ego.

Another inept Skelly sports analogy:  The World Cup of Failure.  Laughing feels good, right?
3 Comments

PJM Never Seems To Learn Its Lesson

5/23/2019

0 Comments

 
Someone shared this with me.  It's PJM's recent Market Efficiency Update with the 2018/19 Market Efficiency Window list of submitted projects.  For the four identified "congestion drivers" (congestion points to be solved), PJM received 34 proposals (including two with no congestion driver at all - everyone into the pool!).  Of those 34 proposals to relieve congestion, 25 of them are greenfield projects.  A "greenfield" project is one that is built in a place where no transmission currently exists (let's turn that green field into an ugly transmission mess!) and needs new siting on new right of way.
Picture
Only nine of the projects make use of existing infrastructure that can be upgraded.  Just 9!  Prices for relieving "congestion" range from $0.1M to $291M, with the higher price tags being attached to the greenfield projects.  Of course it costs more to build new than upgrade existing.

Here's the first problem:  MARKET EFFICIENCY PROJECTS SHOULD NEVER BE GREENFIELD PROJECTS!

Greenfield projects need new rights of way, "negotiated" under threat of condemnation through eminent domain.  Nobody's property, and I do mean NOBODY, should be taken through the use of eminent domain just so someone else far, far away can save a few pennies on their electric bill.  The lights won't go out if market efficiency projects aren't built.  Instead, the market will provide its own solution to congestion if PJM allows it.  But PJM never does.

Therefore, with this slate of bad news on its table, here's a little advice for PJM.

Constructability studies:  Make sure you do them properly this time.  Factors that must be included are land use and ownership, to include recognition of historical properties, century farms, conservation land, and residential areas.  These are the kinds of property takings that inspire entrenched opposition.  This kind of opposition is what kills transmission proposals.  Another is "transmission fatigue" -- repeated attempts to site new transmission in a community.  Once a community comes together to oppose transmission, it is better armed for the next battle.  Even waiting a generation to try again doesn't make for success.  It is imperative that any constructability study recognize the possibility of opposition.  But, pretty much ANY greenfield project is going to meet with opposition, and you never know what you're going to get until the community finds out about the project.

How could PJM overcome this?  How about a public community meeting to discuss the finalists that make PJM's finalist list?  Go see what the community thinks about your proposal BEFORE you approve it, PJM.  BEFORE your transmission owner goes crying to FERC about needing the abandonment incentive.  How about BEFORE any consumer money gets spent on another hare-brained greenfield market efficiency project, PJM?  How about that?

PJM still hasn't learned its lesson.  Market efficiency projects aren't compelling enough to build new lines.  Ever.  Better give those upgrades another look.
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.