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

Refocusing Eminent Domain Authority

8/26/2016

0 Comments

 
The country is on fire over eminent domain.  And it's because for-profit companies posing as "public service" utilities are abusing what we have come to accept as a utility's traditional ability to use eminent domain to serve its customers.

In the traditional sense, public utilities have exercised eminent domain to electrify or otherwise power our country.  The property taken was used to provide basic service to the utility's customers.  Everyone has electricity.  Hallejuah!

But, over time, as utilities got built out to serve everyone, eminent domain was no longer needed for that purpose.  Then utilities used it to enhance their systems and make them more reliable.

And then the slippery slope started.

Utilities expanded their systems in order to wheel power over larger areas and interconnect with other utilities.  The idea now is that all power produced must be available for use by anyone... anywhere.  This is no longer about reliability, but about economics.  Eminent domain is now routinely used to build transmission intended to ship "cheaper" power to customers near expensive sources of generation.  Some transmission is even built to ship "greener" power to customers who haven't built their own "greener" generators.  Regulators may believe that if the cost of building transmission is less than the anticipated savings, then it's in the public interest.

But the public isn't benefiting equally.  Transmission may only reduce prices for one specific geographic area, although the actual line and property taken via eminent domain is routed through a different geographic area that receives no benefit.  Regulators tie themselves up in knots in order to create trumped up "benefits" for affected regions, although the benefits are never spread equally.

The country exploded in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on Kelo v. New London.  In that case, the City was permitted to use eminent domain to take property for "economic development" purposes.  Essentially, if private property could generate more tax revenue and job opportunities if owned by someone else, then that was reason enough for the taking.  Nobody liked it.  It was in the news for a long time.  Much was written about it.  Many states reacted by revising their eminent domain statutes to protect their citizens.  Even now, just about everyone agrees that economic development isn't reason enough for eminent domain.  Everyone's house would provide more jobs and tax revenue if it was a Walmart.  It affects us all.

A new assault has begun.  Corporations posing as "public service" utilities want to use eminent domain to build pipelines, transmission lines, and other "public utility" infrastructure that actually serves only their bottom line.  It's not about serving "the public" when the pretend utility doesn't even have any customers.  Instead of presenting their "line to nowhere" as the economic development project it truly is, these shysters pretend it's a "public service" utility in the hope of fooling regulators to grant it a utility's eminent domain authority.

Let's take the Dakota Access Pipeline, for example, since it's in the news so much (well, at least the non-mainstream news).
In fact, very much like what happened in Nebraska, the resistance in Iowa against the Dakota Access pipeline is led by ranchers furious at what they see as the state's complicity in a private land-grab. Earlier this week, a judge denied a stay on construction of the pipeline, kicking the decision over to the Iowa utility board. The plaintiffs in that case accused Energy Partners of blackjacking them into granting easements by threatening to have their land condemned, a charge that the company's lawyers denied, but one that is more than familiar to the people in Nebraska who fought TransCanada.

"This has been the slow erosion of property rights," said Kleeb. "This is the only way that pipelines will be stopped. Construction companies will find ways to get around permits and other obstacles. That has to be brought through the courts."

There are other problems as well. On Wednesday, The Des Moines Register ran a story in which farmers who were paid to allow an easement through their property along the pipeline's route in Iowa complained that the pipeline company had reneged on promises to restore the land once the pipeline got buried.

Instead, he's got a scar running across his soybean fields where the dark, fertile topsoil is being stacked on top of several feet of hard clay mixed with clay loam. The result, Goebel fears, will be soil less suited for growing crops—and much less valuable.

"Nature separated those soils for a reason, that's the way I feel," said Goebel, who runs a 164-acre century farm in Sioux County. "If nature put it there, they should put it back the way it was." His complaint is one of several popping up across Iowa as work ramps up on the pipeline that will stretch from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota across Iowa to Patoka, IIl."

A pipeline meant to carry Bakken oil from North Dakota to Illinois doesn't have any benefit for the flyover state of Iowa.  All the benefit goes to the corporations.  But Iowans are facing eminent domain for benefit of for-profit corporations who may contribute to "the public benefit" somewhere down the line.  Certainly no one is going to pull their truck up to the processing facility in Illinois and say "fill 'er up with regular."  It's a straight up private to private transfer of a commodity that can't serve the public in its present state.  For their trouble, Iowans are being pelted with economic development arguments... the project will bring jobs and taxes if built.  Isn't that the same argument the City of New London made?  And haven't we generally rejected the argument that economic development is reason enough for eminent domain?  Dakota Access is an economic development scheme masquerading as a "public utility" in order to utilize the eminent domain it would not be awarded as an economic development, private to private transfer, project.

Likewise Clean Line Energy Partners and its many electric transmission projects.  Clean Line wants eminent domain authority so it can effect the transfer of electricity between private parties.  None of the electricity produced by privately-owned generators will be directly available for purchase by "the public."  And Clean Line also attempts to justify its projects with claims of "economic development" jobs and tax arguments.  Clean Line is nothing more than a profit-making scheme.  Clean Line has no "public utility" customers.  The projects are not needed for grid reliability.  They're nothing more than a private road between generators and hypothetical "customers" who have yet to develop.  Clean Line is another economic development, private to private transfer, project.  It's not a public utility serving "the public."

It's high time we start looking at these for-profit "utility" companies under the eminent domain for economic development lens created by Kelo v. City of New London, instead of the needed public utility infrastructure lens of traditional utility eminent domain for public service.  Projects like this serve no one except their corporate owners.
0 Comments

Full Steam Ahead for the Clean Line Crazy Train

8/16/2016

8 Comments

 
So, this happened yesterday.
Two groups representing landowners are suing to block an electric transmission line planned for delivering wind-generated power across Arkansas from Oklahoma to Tennessee.

The federal lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Jonesboro by Golden Bridge LLC and Downwind LLC, the two landowner organizations, will test the legality of a decision by the U.S. Department of Energy to aid construction of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line through provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The landowner groups are represented by Christopher L. Travis and Jordan P. Wimpy, both of the Gill Ragon Owen firm in Little Rock. The complaint lists as defendants the Energy Department and Ernest Moniz, the U.S. secretary of energy, as well as the Southwestern Power Administration and its administrator, Scott Carpenter.

The lawsuit questions the Energy Department's authority to approve the construction of one of the nation's largest electric lines without seeking state-level review. It also challenges its power to exercise the federal right of eminent domain to condemn and acquire private property under the Energy Policy Act. Landowners, it says, should have played a bigger role in the Energy Department's review of the project, which is being carried out by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston.

You can read the lawsuit here.
In response, Clean Line says:
CLEAN LINE OFFICIALS SAY ‘FULL STEAM AHEAD’

Late Monday evening, Clean Line officials said they had not seen the legal complaint against the DOE regarding their project and would not be able to provide specific comment. However, a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project and anticipates making more than $30 million in payments to Arkansas landowners for easements and upfront transmission structure payments.

In addition, Clean Line will pay Arkansas counties that host the electric transmission project a total of approximately $140 million in voluntary payments over the first 40 years of operation, which will support local schools, fire departments and other community services.

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit and that we must push through gridlock to move the country forward. Unfortunately,
it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects,” said Mario Hurtado, Clean Line’s executive vice president of development. “In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”

Hurtado, who recently told Talk Business & Politics that the multibillion dollar project is expected to get underway in early 2017, added: “The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is the largest clean energy transmission project in America and is moving full steam ahead.”
"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project," said Mario Hurtado, executive vice president for development.
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role

Mental wounds still screaming
Driving me insane
I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train
I'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train

I know that things are going wrong for me
You gotta listen to my words, yeah, yeah

Full steam ahead?  Did you call up Ernie on your special "Coordination Committee" Hotline last night to get that comment approved, Mario?  Because Clean Line can't drive this train all by itself.
DOE executed the Participation Agreement, which creates a "Coordination Committee," which "shall be composed of two (2) representatives from Holdings and two (2)
representatives from DOE." One of Holdings' representatives is the chair of the Coordination Committee. Unless Clean Line has defaulted, the Coordination Committee requires a representative of both Holding and DOE to have a quorum. The Coordination Committee can only make "public announcements relating to DOE's involvement in the Project" if such public disclosure is approved by "one (1)
representative of each of Holdings and DOE on the Coordination Committee.
"
But Mario made a comment anyhow, so let's see what desperation looks like.

"...a Clean Line executive reiterated the company’s ongoing refrain that the Houston-based venture group has already invested nearly $100 million of private capital to develop the project..."

Since the complaint specifically states that DOE "violated Plaintiffs' and the public's due process rights," are you saying that your investors $100 million is more important than due process rights?  It sure sounds like it.  In fact, it sounds like you think rich people are more entitled to get a return on their investment than regular people are to the right to due process under the law.  That's pretty disgusting.  And un-American.

Your blather about jobs and taxes also doesn't dispense with the people's right to due process.  Are you saying that you can break the law as long as you create a few jobs and pay some taxes?  And another thing... jobs and taxes are not a basis for eminent domain.  If that were the case, I'm sure YOUR house would provide more jobs and pay more taxes if it were a Walmart.  How would you like that, Mario?

“It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit..."  What?  What infrastructure deficit?  I haven't seen any identified infrastructure deficit that requires thousands of miles of HVDC transmission to be solved.  Sounds like you're making crap up.  In fact, plenty of infrastructure is being built.  It's just not infrastructure that puts a buck in Mario's pocket.  Clean Line is not the be all and end all for keeping the lights on.  It's not part of any grid plan.

"...it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects..."  No, it's just common to see them filed against destructive and unnecessary projects.  A legal complaint does not make an infrastructure project "important" any more than being charged with a crime makes the crime "important."  I guess Mario thinks this legal complaint makes him and his project "important."  *sigh*

“In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”  Clean Line isn't "modernizing the grid."  Clean Line is creating a separate grid operated solely for corporate profit  that only serves people who can afford to pay for it.  As well, Clean Line cannot guarantee "low cost energy."  Clean Line has no role in the price of energy that could be transmitted over its line, and none of the proposed generators currently exist.  You cannot price a commodity that doesn't exist and that you do not control.  Enhance our energy security?  What kind of jargon is that?  Did Mario think that sounded good?  How would a 700 mile transmission line "enhance energy security?"  The most secure energy system is one where generation and load are located at the same place.  A transmission line adds insecurity to that system because it's just one more piece that may fail.

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a pro-jobs, pro-consumer, pro-environment public energy infrastructure project..."  Oh, puhleeze.  If you say that enough times, will you start to believe it?  Jobs, consumer prices, and the environment is not an excuse to do away with due process.

It's not a political or policy argument at this point.  Judges don't make policy.  They interpret the law.

So, do enjoy your ride on the crazy train, Mario.  While it lasts.
8 Comments

Illinois Appeal Voids Transmission Project Permit

8/11/2016

1 Comment

 
Court determines Rock Island Clean Line is not a public utility and orders Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC)
to reverse its Order granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)

 In an Opinion handed down August 10, the Illinois Third District Court of Appeals reversed the Order of the Illinois Commerce Commission that granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity to the Rock Island Clean Line, and remanded the cause to the Commission with directions to enter an order consistent with its decision.
 
This is a major setback for the project, which was granted a CPCN by the ICC in 2014.  In its decision, the Court found that Rock Island failed to meet two requirements for being a public utility because it does not own, control, operate, or manage assets within the State; and that the proposed transmission line is not for public use without discrimination.  Because Rock Island is not a public utility, the Court said, the ICC lacked authority to issue a CPCN in the first place.
 
“We are thrilled with the Court’s decision,” said Block RICL spokeswoman Mary Mauch.  “We have worked very hard to protect our private property rights from a speculative business venture looking to cash in on our heritage for their own financial gain.  This decision to void RICL’s permit makes all that hard work worthwhile!”
 
Rock Island Clean Line is a 500-mile high-voltage direct current electric transmission line proposed to run from northwestern Iowa to northeast Illinois.  It is owned by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston, Texas, who is also developing at least two other transmission projects to capitalize on moving energy from the Midwest into expensive eastern electric markets.  Clean Line is currently supported by financial contributions from private investors while it struggles to get any one of its projects off the planning table to begin generating revenue.
 
The Court’s Opinion can be viewed here.
1 Comment

Transmission Myths Often Mistakenly Believed and Then Utilized to Support Unsuccessful Practices

8/5/2016

1 Comment

 
The EUCI industry echo chamber is at it again.

Congratulations, Midwesterners, you now have your very own special EUCI conference!  Dealing with you has become a specialized practice area for the transmission industry.  What is it about you that makes you special?  Is it your attachment to your land?  Your love of uncluttered, wide-open spaces?  Your appreciation for peaceful, non-industrial landscapes?  Your honesty?  Your sense of justice and fair play?  Your mistrust of outsiders who want to take something from you?  The transmission industry sure would love to figure out what makes you tick!

That's why they will be gathering to discuss you at Transmission Expansion in the Midwest this coming October.  Attendees believe they will:
...explore the specifics of how to develop and maintain positive landowner relationships while negotiating in good faith for pipeline, electric transmission, wind and solar, rail and public sector projects. This would include whether pursuing site leasing, site purchase, easements, right of ways and/or workspace, and whether coming from the perspective of project management, design engineering, environmental, appraising, permitting, survey, right of way, inspections, construction, operations, and others, this presentation is a must in helping ensure a successful project, on time and on budget with happy landowners.
That just can't happen.  No landowner is ever "happy" when electric transmission is sited on their property.  Never.

But EUCI bravely soldiers on, putting together these industry echo chambers where industry speakers hide their failure in order to pretend they're successful. Whatever... they're only fooling themselves.  The reality is that it's getting harder and harder to permit, site, and build transmission in the face of record-breaking opposition.  Opposition is bigger.  Opposition is faster.  Opposition is more sophisticated and successful than ever before.  So, what do EUCI's speakers know about the opposition that delays, alters and flat-out cancels even the most carefully planned transmission projects?  Not much.  Not only are the industry critters lacking perspective, they absolutely have no idea what motivates opposition.  Why?  Because they've never been an opponent!  And they don't want to learn from any opposition heathens.  Wouldn't these classes be better taught by the opposition?  Instead, you get this:
Recognize and understand landowner’s perspectives and the importance of dealing with unique differences in various landowners, their personalities and their needs/concerns.
Who's going to help you understand landowner perspectives?  A landowner?  No, a land agent, the arch nemesis of a landowner.  If I really wanted to understand someone, I'd like to talk with that person, not their enemy.

And then there's this:
Beyond the historical considerations of zoning, environmental, special use, conservation and damages determination, communities are becoming more and more vocal in their requirements in infrastructure development.  As social media and cyber-activism have become the norm (even for landowners not impacted by a project), companies need to become social-savvy in route planning, outreach and negotiations.  More often than not, whether in the electric industry or in other related industries, projects are successful or fail spectacularly due to communication issues, lack of messaging and poor understanding of the locale impacted.
Would this presentation be helped by a local opposition perspective?  Definitely.  However, you're not going to get that at EUCI.  Again, this is presented by a land agent who isn't from the community where transmission is located.  The land agent has no experience presenting successful social media campaigns that draw in opponents and keep them active and engaged throughout the process.  Transmission company ideas of social media campaigns consist of cherry-picked and carefully wrapped one-way communications directed at communities.  There's nothing interactive about it if you don't agree with the company position presented.  Companies, ever afraid of legal missteps, cannot and will not communicate with opponents in an informal, down-to-earth manner.  Company social media campaigns are a complete waste of time.

KURT ALERT!!!!  Of course a Midwestern Transmission Expansion conference wouldn't be complete without some fantasy from Clean Line Energy Partners!  Except Clean Line's presentations are always the same.  No creativity there!
Case Study: Delivering Wind Energy to Market

The United States possesses some of the best renewable energy resources in the world. However, continued growth of the renewable energy industry in the U.S. faces a serious challenge: the lack of transmission. Clean Line Energy is developing a series of long-haul direct current transmission lines to deliver low-cost renewable energy to communities that have a strong demand for clean power.

This presentation will focus on the Grain Belt Express Clean Line, which will deliver wind energy from Kansas into Missouri, Illinois and Indiana. The project has received its regulatory approvals in Kansas, Illinois and Indiana and is currently working through the final state approval process in Missouri. The presentation will provide an update on the regulatory, routing, and other milestones accomplished with a focus on the benefits this project will bring to Missouri.

Amy Kurt, Director of Development, Clean Line Energy Partners
Benefits?  Pretend jobs and tax revenue?  Economic development isn't the basis for eminent domain.

And that's just the problem.  Eminent domain.  As long as eminent domain is on the table, there will be no "happy" landowners.  It's not about "communication" or psychological manipulation of landowners, it's not about siting, it's not about getting to know the community values, it's not about made-up "benefits," it's not about purchased "support" for transmission projects.  It's about the eminent domain.

No matter how much smoke and mirrors this industry generates in its echo chamber, it will continue to face increasingly effective opposition and transmission projects will fail.

Checkmate.
1 Comment

Too Arrogant to Sacrifice

8/4/2016

8 Comments

 
There was a really great op-ed published in various outlets the other day penned by Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst.  The Farm Bureau (and Hurst) object to the Grain Belt Express Clean Line, which is proposed to cross the state and affect over 500 Missouri landowners.  Hurst had this to say about Clean Line's proposal to use eminent domain to acquire land:
Backers of the project are frustrated with landowners for their reluctance to host the transmission line. Climate Change!  Renewable Energy! How can landowners be so stubborn as to hold up what is so clearly progress? Landowners along the planned route are being drafted into the war on Climate Change without their consent. If the fight against climate change can only be won if Missouri is crossed by this unsightly collection of wires and poles, then the costs should be more widely borne. The company can negotiate those easements with willing sellers along the route, and they can pass the increased costs along to millions of electricity users in the eastern United States, instead of imposing all of the costs of saving the planet on 500 small landowners in Missouri.
 What's climate change worth to the folks along the urbanized coasts who are the proposed beneficiaries of the condemnation of land in the Midwest to transmit "cleaner" energy for their use?  Obviously not much, if Clean Line needs to use eminent domain to acquire property cheaply in order to make its project profitable.  City dwellers want "cleaner" energy, but they don't want to pay a penny more for it.  It's high time for these folks to either fend for themselves in their own communities, or open their wallets.

Why should 500 Missouri landowners make a sacrifice to pump "clean" energy to cities, so that they may waste as much as they want, without any climate change guilt?

Waste?  Of course.  If climate change is such an all-fired emergency that Missouri must make the ultimate sacrifice to stop it, why are cities allowed to accelerate climate change by lighting up their buildings and landmarks at night to create a pretty skyline?  If climate change requires sacrifice, how about the cities go dark from sunset to sunrise?  Los Angeles recently did.  But it was only for one hour.  And it only darkened a few of their landmarks and buildings.  Go ahead, watch the video in this news story, because it really showcases how clueless and arrogant city folks are about wasting energy.
Perhaps if more cities turned their wasteful "landmarks" off at night, rural landowners wouldn't have to make any sacrifice for new transmission lines.  (Don't worry, power generator-types clutching your chest right about now, it will never happen, these folks are much too selfish to do anything so drastic.)  But yet these folks think they "need" to keep their cities lit up all night.  And they "need" to do it with "clean" electricity.  And therefore Missouri landowners "need" to allow the hulking infrastructure required to get it there to clutter up their personal landscapes and interfere with the way they make their living.  The arrogance is stunning.

And speaking of stunning arrogance, how about that Democratic party platform?  I rarely get political here, but someone pointed me to a portion of the platform making the media rounds here in West Virginia that really frosted my cupcake:
The fight against climate change must not leave any community out or behind -- including the coal communities who kept America's lights on for generations.  Democrats will fight to make sure these workers and their families get the benefits they have earned and respect they deserve, and we will make new investments in energy-producing communities to help create jobs and build a brighter and more resilient economic future.  We will also oppose threats to the public health of these communities from harmful and dangerous extraction practices, like mountaintop removal mining operations.
Yup, we're very, very, sorry, Appalachia, that we rode you like a rented mule for the past 100 years to power our cities, but now we're going to come in and improve your communities for you!  We're going to "respect" those who sacrifice to produce the energy our cities use by creating more sacrifice in another geographic region in order to produce new "clean and green" wind powered electricity and ship it in for us to waste!

And no community will be left behind in the fight for climate change!!!  Except those 500 landowners in Missouri.  Who will miss them?
Hypocrites.
8 Comments

Southern Cross Transmission - Just One More Attempt to Take Private Property for Corporate Gain

7/31/2016

1 Comment

 
It's not about where to put the Southern Cross Transmission line, it's about whether to build it at all.

Here we go again...
However, most the attendees at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station meeting opposed the project. Dennis Daniels, who organized the meeting, said he has already been a victim of eminent domain once and does not want to go through the process again.
 
"Honestly I don't have any questions for (representatives)," he said. "I just don't want them to come through my property."
 
He's concerned that the power line will decrease property values, restrict further development on his land and be an eyesore.
 
"It bothers me most that it's a private, for-profit company," he said. "They're going to use eminent domain to take our property rights away to give to a company in San Francisco to make millions of dollars off of each year."

The Southern Cross transmission project is another unneeded HVDC merchant project intended to ship renewable energy into higher priced markets for corporate profit.  But this one isn't owned by Houston-based Clean Line Energy.  It's owned by a different company, San Francisco-based Pattern Energy.  Pattern proposes that it shall build a 400-mile HVDC transmission project across Louisiana and Mississippi in order to serve energy markets in "the southeast electric grid" with wind energy generated in Texas.

The Texas wind market is tapped out.  They've built so much wind generation and transmission to ship it around the state that sometimes they have to give it away for free. 
But yet, Texas wants to be its own little electric grid, islanded from the rest of the nation's power grid.  Except when all its renewable energy goodness tanks prices.  Then Texas wants to connect to the rest of the grid in order to export its excess wind generation into other markets where it will fetch higher prices.  And that's the only purpose for Southern Cross.

This project has been in the works for years, but was only recently sprung on landowners along its 400-mile route.  And chaos ensued.  Of course the landowners don't want to be forced to sacrifice their property, personal wealth and peace of mind for the benefit of electricity consumers in other states in "the southeast."  Southern Cross will only interconnect with the rest of the grid serving Louisiana and Mississippi at two converter stations, one near the Texas-Louisiana border, and the second near the Mississippi-Alabama border.  What's in it for all the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in between?  Not much.

And to make matters worse, landowners in Mississippi are getting smoke blown in their faces by one of their PSC Commissioners, who is urging them to communicate with Pattern Energy instead of the PSC.
In a public meeting at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station just outside Starkville Thursday, Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley urged residents to reach out to representatives from Southern Cross Transmission if they have questions about the company's proposed wind energy transmission line.
 
"Let it not be said of you that you didn't call on these people and that you didn't file an objection," Presley said at the meeting.

While eminent domain is not out of the question, Presley said he believes the company will do everything in its power to avoid having to use it. Southern Cross representatives have told him they have put in similar lines in other parts of the country without resorting to eminent domain.

Presley said his office received a plethora of letters, emails and phone calls from property owners who received letters. In a meeting with company representatives, Presley said someone from the company has to meet with property owners one-on-one at the time and place of the landowner's choosing.
 
In an interview with The Dispatch Thursday, Presley said a Southern Cross representative had already begun meeting with landowners individually. Presley also had the company designate a point of contact for landowners to call. Since then, his office has received fewer calls from concerned citizens.
 
In June, Southern Cross Transmission sent letters to landowners whose property is within 500 feet of one of the proposed routes and promised to hold meetings and answer questions from landowners. The company then hosted an open house for property owners, but many left that meeting with more questions than answers, Presley said.
 
Legally, Southern Cross Transmission doesn't have to communicate with the public at all until it has decided on a route and filed a proposal with the Public Service Commission. But Presley wants to ensure that the company shows landowners the dignity and respect they deserve.

Sure, that makes Presley's job easier if all the landowners have folded and granted easements to Pattern Energy before it files its application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and eminent domain authority in the state.  But, for the landowners, it's not simply about where to put the line, but whether or not to build it in the first place.

Pattern is misleading landowners about FERC's authority to permit this project.
FERC has previously found that the interconnection of the Southern Cross Project to the ERCOT transmission system is in the public interest and that the Project will create substantial benefits both for the ERCOT and the Southeast regions.
But FERC has no authority to permit this transmission project, or to grant eminent domain authority over private property to Pattern Energy.  Only the states do.  Both Louisiana and Mississippi will have to find need and public benefit for the project in their respective states.

Landowners can make a big difference by participating in the PSC process, and that's where they should be directing their energies right now, not wasting their time discussing where to put the project with Pattern Energy.
Southern Cross Transmission plans to settle on a route and file its proposal with the commission this fall. Once that happens, Presley said, citizens have 20 days to file an objection, which gives them legal rights in the case.
Not much time, opponents need to prepare to file objections, or better yet to intervene in the case.
He requested landowners write down whatever questions they have, take those questions directly to the company and wait until they had met with Southern Cross representatives before deciding whether to oppose the project.
Don't waste your time, landowners.  Begin crafting your "fact-based" arguments now, but the only facts you need to begin is that Southern Cross's proposal will affect your interest in real property located on or near a proposed route.  And don't think if your property is on a proposed route that is later taken off the table that you're safe.  Until an actual siting permit is granted, routes can and will change, with very little notice.  In fact, the companies like it better if landowners don't know anything about the project until the bulldozers show up.  How can you cause trouble for them if you're unaware?

Exactly... and that's why landowners are getting such late notice about this project.  But there's still plenty of time to organize and legally intervene.  The bigger the stink, the better the chances the project will be cancelled.
Presley has also said he will not approve the project unless the company can prove it has some benefit to Mississippi.
 
"I'm as much for clean air and clean energy as the next guy, but it's got to be about more than renewable energy," he said. "For us, that's a plus, but there has to be other things."
I'm sure Commissioner Presley is "for clean air and clean energy."  After all, the Sierra Club was a big donor to his campaign to be elected to the PSC.  And Sierra Club has never seen a transmission project "for wind" that it didn't love.
"At the end of the day, the ability to connect into wind energy, which does not cost anything as far as burning coal, burning natural gas, (is) obviously an energy source that could have a benefit to the state," Presley said.
 
"That's the benefit," he added. "But also obviously if this electricity is low cost, I'm not going to be supporting trucking it through Mississippi to pump it to Atlanta, Georgia, and our people have cheap electricity ran over the top of their property and not being able to take advantage of it."
That's nice to hear, but Commissioner Presley has coyly avoided the elephant in the room.  Eminent domain.  While eminent domain has historically been used to construct transmission lines for which there is some reliability need, using that authority to build transmission lines for the sole purpose of moving renewable energy to higher priced eastern electric markets is an issue of first impression.  In the case of transmission solely for profit, eminent domain takes on a whole new purpose:  Eminent domain for the private gain of a company located in San Francisco.  And that's just the rub.
1 Comment

How To Violate Your "Code of Conduct" Before You Even Begin

7/29/2016

0 Comments

 
If this were a guide published today, it might be written by Clean Line Energy Partners.

Today, the company engineered a press release that says "TRC Supports Clean Line Energy."  Who is TRC?  Is TRC an elected official?  Is TRC a regulator?  Is TRC a transmission customer?  Is TRC's "support" of Clean Line relevant to Clean Line's regulatory approval, or even the approval of the landowners whose property the project wants to cross?

The answer is none of the above.  TRC is Clean Line's newest contractor.  In exchange for $12M, TRC says it will, "provide land acquisition services, survey permissions and overall project management for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line transmission project."  Of course TRC "supports" Clean Line.... it stands to pocket $12M for its efforts to coerce landowners to sign survey permissions and easement agreements.  Does TRC's "support" for Clean Line necessitate YOUR support?  Of course not, that's ridiculous!

Clean Line has been resoundingly rebuffed by landowners across its route.  So, what's the new plan?  Employment of propaganda devices such as testimonial, card stacking, and bandwagon.  Oh, whoop-de-doo, Clean Line!

TRC thinks you care if it makes the following statement:
The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is one of the largest clean energy infrastructure projects in the country. It will provide a pathway for 4,000 megawatts of low-cost wind power to be delivered from Oklahoma to the Mid-South and Southeast. The agreement between Clean Line Energy and TRC, which has a major office located in Tulsa, furthers Clean Line's commitment to working with local suppliers.
"Clean Line Energy's mission of building modern energy infrastructure closely aligns with our own core values of sustainability, including our commitment to grow our clean energy services year over year," said Chris Vincze, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "The 700-mile transmission line will improve the U.S. electric grid, support economic development and job growth, and make safe, reliable and lower-cost power available to consumers.
Wait a minute... is TRC acquiring survey permissions and easement agreements, or is it leading a cheerleading squad?  How much arrogance does it take to believe that some company's belief in a project has relevance to your personal decisions regarding your land?

And we're just getting started here...
TRC will provide program management, acquisition of environmental and cultural survey consents, and acquisition support. It also will be communicating with landowners across the route to educate them about the benefits of the project.
What?  "Educating landowners about the benefits of the project?"  What does that have to do with acquiring easements and survey permissions?  Sounds like some kind of brain-washing attempt to coerce landowners to sign on the dotted line.  Does Clean Line really believe that the only barrier to land acquisition and survey permission is "education" of landowners?  News Flash!  The landowners are already "educated," which is why they have been rejecting all Clean Line's attempts, not only at acquiring permission, but at any contact with the company at all.  The landowners got "educated" years ago by opponents of the Clean Line projects.  They know everything they need to know to tell Clean Line to go away.  Clean Line does NOT have eminent domain authority.  The most Clean Line can do is annoy landowners with their "offers."  Clean Line cannot make any legal filing to condemn and take property.  Instead, Clean Line must turn over acquisition of any property it cannot obtain to the U.S. Department of Energy.  The DOE may then reattempt permissions, but only after Clean Line has reached certain milestones with its project.  First, Clean Line must find customers for its transmission capacity.  It has not made any customers public.  It also must receive financing to construct its entire project.  It has not made any financing public.  It's going to be a long time before the DOE comes calling with more offers for landowners, and only DOE has the authority to condemn and take property through the courts.  Meanwhile, landowners can tell Clean Line and TRC to go take their Vulcan mind-meld tricks for a flying leap off the nearest cliff, mountain, hill, rock, or pebble.

What's in it for the landowner to sign permissions now?  Nothing.  Big goose egg.  Zero.  What's in it for the landowner to sign an easement agreement now?  A payment of a small percentage of the easement's value.  That's right... Clean Line wants you to sign over your property rights today in exchange for a portion of their monetary value.  You give Clean Line permission to use your property today, but they're not going to pay you in full for that permission for up to four years.  Landowners would essentially be allowing Clean Line to buy their property rights on the installment plan.  Doesn't sound like much "benefit" to the landowner. 

And let's talk about Clean Line's "self-policed" Code of Conduct.  This document is nothing but window dressing.  Since Clean Line is the only party enforcing this worthless document, it can do whatever it wants.

Behold:
Do not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend supports or opposes the Project.

Do not suggest that any person should be ashamed of or embarrassed by his or her opposition to the Project or that such opposition is inappropriate.

Do not argue with property owners about the merits of the Project.


All things that Clean Line and its contractors, such as TRC, cannot do.

But yet, TRC has taken to the media to support the project, and has stated that it intends to "educate landowners about the benefits of the project."  That sounds suspiciously like a violation of the Code of Conduct, doesn't it?  After all, if a landowner is already educated about the project, any statement by TRC about the project's benefits is by default argumentative.  Any statements by TRC that "[t]he 700-mile transmission line will improve the U.S. electric grid, support economic development and job growth, and make safe, reliable and lower-cost power available to consumers," are designed to make the resistant landowner ashamed or embarrassed by his or her opposition to the project and insinuate that such opposition is inappropriate.  And it's argumentative.

These people are a day late and a dollar short.  The majority of affected landowners are already "educated" about the project and have found that it doesn't provide any "benefits" for them. 

You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer.  Or a Mayberrian.
0 Comments

When It Is About The Eminent Domain

7/2/2016

9 Comments

 
Clean Line Grain Belt Express spokesman Mark Lawlor, when discussing his company's recent re-application to the Missouri Public Service Commission, told KMBZ:
Lawlor says this "isn't about eminent domain," which is one of the worries of many who live along the proposed route.  

"We will sit down with every single landowner and negotiate with them on the unique nature of their property. In fact we've been doing that for a couple years now."
If that were true, then there would be no need for eminent domain authority. 

Except the application GBE filed on Thursday stated:
What happens if a landowner doesn’t want to negotiate with Grain Belt Express?

The Company is allowing sufficient time for negotiations with each individual landowner along the route. Grain Belt Express is committed to conducting easement negotiations in a manner that respects the private property rights of landowners and achieves a voluntary easement acquisition. The Company is also committed to working with landowners to minimize the impacts of the Project upon their property. In order to ensure that infrastructure projects in the public interest can be completed, the entities building them need the right to condemn certain easements, particularly in cases of parcels that have title issues, parcels with missing or unlocatable landowners or heirs, or parcels where landowners refuse all reasonable attempts at contact or negotiation. Grain Belt Express views the use of eminent domain as a last resort that is appropriate only after exhausting all reasonable attempts at voluntary easement acquisition and title curative work. In all cases, landowners are entitled to due process and payment of fair market value for any easement acquired, and will retain ownership of their land.


So, no matter how many "landowner protections" Clean Line pretends to dream up, there's only one landowner protection that actually protects the landowner.

THE RIGHT TO SAY NO.

And IT IS ABOUT THE EMINENT DOMAIN to the landowners.

In fact, the eminent domain is at the heart of the opposition to this project.

Without eminent domain, Clean Line would have to:
...sit down with every single landowner and negotiate with them on the unique nature of their property.
But Clean Line doesn't even want to attempt that without having the right to condemn to use as leverage.

None of Clean Line's "landowner protections" will protect you.
9 Comments

Can You Trust the Government, Missouri?

6/30/2016

7 Comments

 
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon announced yesterday that he had negotiated "landowner protections" with a Texas-based company on behalf of Missourians affected by its for-profit transmission project.
Picture
Except none of the affected landowners participated in the Governor's negotiations with the company.  In fact, the landowners were not consulted in any way.  Nor were they even notified about these "protections," except to read it in their morning newspapers.  You'd think that if the "protections" were for benefit of landowners, that they would reflect actual landowner concerns, right?

Something stinks here...

Governor Nixon's "protections" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  They don't protect you.  Let's take a look:
Specifically, Clean Line has agreed to:

Offer the option of binding arbitration to resolve any compensation disputes.

Establish a Missouri Agriculture Protocol. Clean Line will follow strict guidelines to avoid, minimize and mitigate any impacts to agricultural fields or activities. The Missouri Agriculture Protocol should implement utility best practices and establishes an Agriculture Inspector to monitor construction activities. The Agriculture Inspector has the power to immediately stop construction when best practices are not being followed or when contractors are in violation of any negotiated obligation with landowners.

Establishment of a fund to decommission the project when it is determined to be near the end of its useful life.

Have a local firm update land value assessments. In the event land values have decreased since the last assessment because of commodity prices or any other reason, the Grain Belt Express will honor the higher of the values. Also, compensation will not be reduced after an Order has been issued approving the project by the Missouri Public Service Commission.
Oh, binding arbitration?  What is that, exactly?  "If the arbitration is mandatory and binding, the parties waive their rights to access the courts and to have a judge or jury decide the case."  Binding arbitration is quicker.  Binding arbitration is cheaper.  Binding arbitration may be free from public scrutiny.  Binding arbitration is giving up your rights to have a similarly situated landowner determine your value in a public, appealable court proceeding.  Now who would have an interest in making eminent domain takings of hundreds of land parcels across Missouri quicker, cheaper and quieter?  It's not landowners.  It's Clean Line and Governor Nixon!  Protecting you?  Not so much.  These people must think you're really stupid.

As well, financial compensation may be the least of a landowner's worries when presented with an easement agreement written by Clean Line's lawyers.  Who's representing the landowner's interests in this situation?  Not Clean Line.  Not the arbitrator, he only wants to talk about land value.  It's up to the landowner to retain his own counsel to review any easement agreement.

Missouri Agriculture Protocol?  How many actual farmers were consulted to develop this "protocol," and why does the Missouri Farm Bureau still oppose the project if this "protocol" ameliorates agricultural concerns?  Buyer beware on this one!   Ya know the best way to avoid impacts to agricultural activities?  Don't build the project.

Establishment of a decommissioning fund?  How much will that be?  Since Clean Line has the idea that the scrap value of the project's physical components will be more than enough to pay for its decommissioning, this "fund" might contain nothing more than pocket change and a couple of gum wrappers.  Where's the guarantee?  Where's the oversight?  Where's the money?

Update land value assessments?  When was the last "land value assessment" performed, and where can landowners access this information?  Will landowners be able to access the information in the new assessment, or are they just supposed to take Clean Line's word for it?  A transmission company never reveals any professional assessment of what your land is worth before approaching you to sign an easement or purchase agreement.  That's because your property is represented by a range of values that comes from land sales data in your county or region.  It's all very generic and created by some company in another state that never visits your property.  Because it's a range of general value, the company will start by offering you the lowest amount in range.  As you negotiate, the offer will increase within the pre-designated range.  Get to the top of the range, and suddenly any offers need to be approved by supervisors and managers.  How IS a landowner supposed to know whether their "land value assessment" increased or decreased under Governor Nixon's "protections?"  Is he going to come to your house to help in the negotiations and "protect" you?  Of course not.

Compensation will not be reduced after approval?  Again, who is going to police that?  Are you just supposed to trust Clean Line to honor this, when their profits are directly tied to the amount of money they must pay for your easement?  This is another worthless "protection."

So, what is going on here?  Political gamesmanship.  Clean Line and the Governor have now turned this into a political process.  They hope that the Missouri Public Service Commission can be politically influenced to approve the project the second time around, since Clean Line's first attempt was rejected on its technical merits.

Public Service Commission decisions are supposed to "provide an efficient regulatory process that is responsive to all parties, and perform our duties ethically and professionally."  They are not supposed to be politically motivated.  Commissioners are supposed to be free from political influence so that they may make independent decisions based on the law.  They're supposed to be ethical.  They're supposed to have integrity.  Will the Commissioners be brave enough to remain true to their own personal code of ethics when making their decision, or will they fall before political pressure from lame duck Governor Nixon?  And what good is Nixon's political pressure, when he'll be long gone before any decision is made?  Be careful who you vote for, Missouri!  Your Governor is not protecting you.  In fact, he's giving your private property rights to an out-of-state company to use for their own profit.  With a leader like that, nobody's property in Missouri is safe.  It's all for sale to the highest bidder.
7 Comments

Iowa Utilities Board Wants Clean Line To Get On With Things

6/24/2016

0 Comments

 
In an Order issued yesterday, the Iowa Utilities Board set a scheduling conference and intervention date for Clean Line's applications for electric transmission franchises in 16 counties.  The IUB wants to discuss "the likely time requirements for this proceeding," and presumably set a procedural schedule.  The conference is scheduled for July 11.

The IUB explains its actions are the result of recent new law in Iowa that sets a strict time standard for merchant transmission applications.
On May 27, 2016, House File 2459 was signed into law, adding § 478.6A “Merchant line franchises – requirements – limitations” to the Iowa Code. This newly- enacted statute creates a new class of electric transmission lines, called “merchant lines,” and sets time limits for processing franchise petitions for merchant lines. Clean Line’s proposed electric transmission line is a merchant line as defined in the new statute. Going forward, all petitions for a franchise for a merchant line that involves the taking of property under eminent domain will be subject to § 478.6A, which establishes a three-year deadline for Board action on those petitions.  If that deadline is not met then the petition shall be rejected and the petitioner may not file a petition for the same or similar project within sixty months following the date of rejection.
Section 39 of House File 2459 sets out slightly different time requirements for merchant line petitions filed on or after November 1, 2014, that have not yet been approved by the Board as of May 27, 2016. The three-year approval period is not applicable to these petitions; instead, the Board must act on these petitions within two years. The Clean Line petitions fall into this classification and therefore a decision on these petitions must be issued by the Board no later than May 27, 2018.
The Board recognizes that such proceedings can take significant time to conduct.  Therefore, a schedule must be set.

Clean Line can no longer hold Iowa landowners hostage by refusing to move its applications forward.  The company has failed to complete its applications by submitting what is known as "Exhibit E" material.  Instead, Clean Line has repeatedly attempted to bifurcate the permitting process to avoid submitting Exhibit E.  Exhibit E is a package of materials particular to each property upon which the applicant expects to exercise eminent domain, if granted.  Because Clean Line has been so ridiculously ineffective in obtaining easements in Iowa, Exhibit E's will be required for up to 80 - 85% of properties crossed.

Clean Line has repeatedly whined that creating Exhibit E material is too time consuming and too expensive.  Its whining has fallen on deaf ears.  Now it's time to put up or shut up.  The clock is ticking.

Could this be the end of the Rock Island Clean Line project?  Check mate!
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.