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

GBE's Monopoles Bite The Dust

6/2/2020

2 Comments

 
Invenergy says it is sending out this letter to its landowner victims.  I'm guessing it's supposed to endear them to you?  Instead, I think it demonstrates how little Invenergy knows about issues that matter to landowners.  I wonder what kind of an ignoramus wrote that thing... and designed the new "landowners" page on their website?  Sort of looks like someone who has never done this sort of thing before and doesn't want to learn.  It's like some socially inept twit going door to door trying to sell you rubber baby buggy bumpers.

First off, Invenergy wants you to know that it bought the rotten GBE hot potato from Clean Line Energy Partners.  Well, good for you!  W.C. Fields would be proud!  Does anyone really care to find out about Invenergy, or want to read more about Invenergy tooting its own horn about how great it is?  Probably not.  Landowners most likely don't care about the pedigree of an out-of-state company who wants to take their land using eminent domain.  It's about the eminent domain, not how great Invenergy thinks it is.  Nobody is likely to be impressed.  I do like how Invenergy tries to toss Clean Line under the bus though, gushing about how it has no affiliation with Clean Line, as if all the problems with the project were the fault of Clean Line?  How badly do you have to behave to have people consider you worse than Clean Line Energy Partners?  If you thought Clean Line was bad, maybe you should hold onto you hat!  It looks like it's fixing to get much worse.  Silly Michael Skelly may look like a hero when this faceless company is done with you.

Invenergy offers this reassuring nugget:
Please note that Grain Belt is seeking an easement – which is typical in linear infrastructure like electric lines and pipelines – and that you will retain full ownership of the land in the easement area.
Hey, great!  You get to continue to own a strip of land that you've lost all control of.  The only thing the owner gets is liability and tax burden... and of course a perpetual tenant they can't evict.  Was this supposed to make the landowners feel good?  It actually adds insult to injury.  I'm thinking nobody wants to be Invenergy's landlord in perpetuity.  Invenergy wants to take use of your land, but not the responsibility of ownership.

GBE/Contract Land Staff say they will be phoning you in the future to negotiate over land you don't want to sell.  How many people answer the phone when their caller ID tells them it's some random cell phone caller from another area code?  My new phone has a great feature button named "call block."  If I don't like the looks of a caller, I simply press that button and they're gone for good.  And even if I do mistakenly pick up the phone, there's no guarantee that I will be able to hear the caller clearly, phone service out in the boonies being what it is and all.  So, watch your phones, folks!  You'll soon have a new friend calling!

And then there's the blabber about how much Invenergy is going to help your community.... while taking from you personally.  Why, you "could" have expanded broadband!  Sure, you "could."

And speaking of could...  GBE has been promising landowners for the past 10 years that the transmission tower structures "could" be monopoles.  But, hey, guess what?
Picture
 The structures will be lattice steel designs.  All of them.  Not a monopole to be had.  Spare no expense for your comfort!  Lattice structures are the cheapest ones to build.   You didn't really believe all that Who Shot John about the monopoles, did you?  Most landowners did not, so it's not really a disappointment.  Landowners expected every promise made by Grain Belt Express to be broken.  It's just one more. 

I do feel bad for the Missouri PSC and the media though... they bought that 9 acres of land disturbed thing hook, line and sinker. 

40x40=1,600 sq. ft. per tower.    If for 200+ miles in Missouri need at least  4 towers  per mile than 800 towers x 1,600 sq. ft. = 1,280,000 sq. ft divided by 43,560 sq. ft. per acre = 29.38 acres.

Is the PSC going to issue a revised press release on this?  How about some breaking news stories?  That number was always a fiction... as if only the base of the towers is disturbed for a transmission right of way stretching more than 725 miles across four states?*

Be sure not to miss the "example" easement map on the website.  Because you mere farmers probably don't know how to look at a plat of your land without coaching from some land sharks from Texas and their know-it-all bosses in Chicago.  This "example" shows a transmission right of way crossing the shortest side of a rectangular parcel in parallel to the parcel's border.  Gosh, I sure hope Invenergy's straight line from Kansas to Indiana won't cross any parcels diagonally through the middle.  Because that would make the example the exception, not the rule.  Talk about using fiction to paint yourself in the best light possible...  This is a ridiculous addition to the website.  Whoever thought this up is a dolt.  Especially because the "example" parcel shows some drainage being crossed.  Hint:  Don't use those kind of aerial photos... pretend the farmland drains by hidden magic!

Don't fear though, landowners, Invenergy will "minimize" its interference with your drain tile and repair any damage it does to an even better condition!  Make sure any easement agreement you see guarantees that Invenergy will improve your drain tile.  I'll believe it when I see it!

And don't fear having permanent roads laid down on your land.  That only happens when there is no existing access to the right of way via public roads.  It will be extremely RARE!  Because every good farm field has public roads running through it already.

So, what's in it for you?  Significant annual revenue for your county!  You sacrifice your land and everyone in your county benefits from it.  Oh, Invenergy, you sweet talker!

And how might you get paid?  You'll get an amazing 20% of the value of your easement when you give it up.  You can get the rest "prior to construction" (isn't the signing date prior to construction?) or you can be really silly and elect to get a fixed rate payment annually for the life of the easement.  I wonder if you have to play a one-armed bandit to make this choice?

And if you have any questions not covered in Invenergy's generic letter or ridiculous website, who you gonna call?  No, not Ghostbusters, although I would like to see a few land agents and well-fed corporate executives sucked up in the Ghost Trap.  You're supposed to call Invenergy's land agent for advice.  Worst advice, ever.  Ask a lawyer... one not being paid by Invenergy.  Invenergy land agents are representing Invenergy's interests here.  They're not representing yours.

Remember, according to GBE's Code of Conduct, Invenergy must obtain your unequivocal permission before entering your land for any reason.
*As if anyone believes this lie anymore.  Get ready, folks, it's the next one to go.
2 Comments

What's the Highest and Best Use of Your Property?

5/8/2020

0 Comments

 
One day, you may find yourself harangued by a utility land agent, eager to purchase an easement through your property.

The agent may start out offering you the lowest value in the company's prepared, secret value range for easements on your property.  This number is derived from "market value" studies of similar properties in your area.  The utility conducts these studies for its own information.  Try asking to see the relevant market value study used to value your property and watch the agent dance. 

The market value study attempts to make a comparison between your property and others that have sold in the recent past.  But instead of using all data available, certain data is rejected.  Everyone knows that this "Garbage In, Garbage Out" magic math method is used to skew the results.

Once a company has completed its market study, your property is compared to the typical property and adjustments are made, either positive or negative, based on your property's own unique attributes.  If you've ever seen a property appraisal, it's the same basic concept.

The utility is comparing your agriculturally zoned property to another zoned the same way.  However, zoning could change to allow other possible future uses, couldn't it?

In some instances, a farmer's wealth is tied up in his land.  Instead of a fat 401(K) account stuffed with employer match, the farmer may rely on development or sale of his property to finance his retirement.  Building an overhead electric transmission line, or a buried gas or oil pipeline changes future possibilities for the property.  What once was a prime chunk of land for building new homes is now not suitable for that purpose.  How is the landowner compensated for foregone future use of his property when a land agent makes an offer?

He's not.  Consideration of factors like this, known as a property's “highest and best reasonably available use” under Pennsylvania law, only come into play when the value of your property is determined by a court during an eminent domain suit.  You may end up being more suitably compensated if you refuse all the land agent's offers.

Check out this case from Pennsylvania that was recently decided by the 3rd Circuit.  While the court found that the pre-taking valuation was too high, it was a matter of multi-family housing vs. single-family housing.  It wasn't a choice between agricultural and residential or commercial.  What was really interesting is the court's affirmation of the post-taking valuation which found that the easement materially affected the property's value for future development.  It found that the utility's authority to "approve" future land use in the easement gave the utility the ability to arbitrarily deny any future land use proposed by the property owner, and this affected the property's future value for development.

How might a transmission line easement across your property affect your future plans and take money out of your pocket?  Just one more reason to slam the door in the land agent's face.


0 Comments

Puzzle Time:  What's Missing From This GBE Report?

4/16/2020

0 Comments

 
Yesterday, Invenergy filed its "annual status report" with the MO PSC.  If you've been following along, there's really nothing new here.  There's more fun to be had figuring out what's missing from this puzzle than there is in reading what is included.  Does this "report" actually give the PSC an accurate and up-to-date picture of the status of Grain Belt Express?  Or is it missing crucial  pieces?  How would any reader know what the status of GBE is from reading this report?

Here's a list of the amazing things Invenergy accomplished since last year:
  • a rebranding of the Project and a new Project website;
  • outreach to numerous state and local officials and other stakeholders to introduce Invenergy as the new Project owner and to provide a status update;
  • issuing easement payments to landowners with active easements along the Project route;
  • establishing field offices to support development efforts;
  • building out the Invenergy Project team, including adding in-house development and project management personnel dedicated to the Project; and
  • implementing a contractor selection process for Project development services to commence in 2020, including engineering, environmental permitting, and land services.
Let me sum that up for you:

"Rebranding"... as if any of the landowners or local governments give 2 cow patties who owns this unneeded project.  This marketing play is completely worthless when applied to a transmission project in rural America.  Keep that crap in Chicago, where it matters.

Invenergy did not provide any real information or answer any questions during its "rebranding" tour.  The only thing its "outreach" did was tick people off all over again.

Issuing payments to the few landowners who were gullible enough to sign easement agreements with Clean Line Energy Partners is REQUIRED by the agreements.  Quit trying to pretend like its some sort of voluntary, magnanimous act.

Establishing field offices.  Now opposition groups have a physical target for future protests.  Thanks a bunch, Invenergy!  Maybe someone will stop by with a basket of banana muffins?  Wow!  Deja Vu!

And hiring people.  Like anyone cares.

What's missing from the State Regulatory Approvals and Appeals section?

Let's see... Kansas, check.  Missouri, check.  Indiana, check.  Hey, wait a minute, how do you get to Indiana from Missouri?  You don't.  Illinois is in between.  What's Invenergy doing in Illinois?   Doesn't say.  We'll interpret that as NOTHING, Invenergy is doing NOTHING in Illinois.  Ya know, you just can't get power from Kansas to Indiana without Illinois, Invenergy.  What's your intention?  It is relevant to your "status."  Do tell...
Picture
And FERC... what's going on at FERC?  Again, nothing.  Although Invenergy was quite diligent about seeking approval for its purchase of GBE from states along the route that had issued permits, it doesn't even seem to think it should send FERC a notice that the project has changed ownership.  Is the change in ownership relevant to FERC's negotiated rate authority?  Only FERC could make that determination.  Must fall under the category of begging forgiveness instead of asking permission.  Pretty risky proposition for a project that relies on negotiated rate authority to acquire customers.  It's almost like Invenergy doesn't care about negotiated rates anymore...

Blah, blah, blah... Invenergy has hired some contractors to actually do the work on its project.  Sounds like Contract Land Staff and Burns & McDonnell, but for some reason the reader is supposed to guess the contractors from the clues given in the report.  Gotta keep those brains sharp during corona ennui!  I'm still puzzling over the clue for the converter station contractor... Siemens or ABB?  Who wants to guess?

And about that land agent contractor... Invenergy says its contractor will  "...hire and train qualified land agents who will interface with property owners and negotiate easement agreements."  Qualified land agents?  There's a huge difference between a professional land agent and a licensed real estate agent.  It's two completely different careers, with two completely different skill sets.  Invenergy's contractor is hiring anyone with a valid Missouri real estate license and "training" them to be land agents.  It would do better to send its professional land agents to get licensed to sell real estate in Missouri.  That could result in less mistakes being made... but who cares about the well-being of Missouri landowners?

Obviously not Invenergy, whose section about COVID-19 is laughably self-serving.  It was only AFTER intervention by the Governor, local government officials, legislators, attorneys, and landowners that Invenergy agreed to pull its virus-denying "land agent" out of the field and stop her endangerment of others by knocking on their doors unannounced.  Good riddance! 

And speaking of that land agent...
Land agents were also deployed in Missouri to discuss survey access with landowners for certain parcels identified as priorities by Project environmental and engineering teams, with surveys expected to be conducted later in the year.
So if she showed up at your place, your parcel has been identified as a priority for environmental and engineering surveys.  It would be a real shame if you refused to sign their paperwork and the surveys couldn't be completed this year.

And I have a bit of a bone to pick with Invenergy's language.  This statement.  It nearly made me vomit.
To demonstrate its commitment to invest in Grain Belt and in communities and landowners along the route, in Q3 2019 Invenergy made easement payments on all easement agreements that had been signed by the Project’s previous owner, Clean Line, and were still active when Invenergy signed the MIPA.
Invest in landowners?  INVEST?  What the heck are you thinking, Invenergy?  Do you think you OWN landowners once they sign your easement agreements?  And what's wrong with your thinking process that equates just compensation for property taken against a landowner's will with some sort of beneficent gift, Invenergy?  You're completely whacked!  And offensive.  You're obscenely offensive to landowners.  Go invest in someone else who appreciates you.  Missouri does not.

But what about the customers?  Grain Belt Express is nothing but an idea without customers.  You'd think that having enough customers to support a revenue stream for the transmission line would be relevant on a status report, right?  If GBE doesn't have enough customers to pay for the transmission line, it cannot build the transmission line.  GBE's current customer list doesn't even pay their fair share of their own burden, never mind result in profit, and could never support the building of the project.  If GBE had any other customer interest, you'd think they'd at least mention the subject.  Instead, zip, zero, zilch.  Invenergy doesn't even mention customers.
Picture
Is Missouri really going to allow Invenergy to continue its efforts to take land from good, taxpaying citizens for a project that doesn't have enough permits to be built in its entirety and doesn't have any customers to financially support it?  Grain Belt Express is an unfinished puzzle with a whole bunch of pieces missing.  It's nothing but a half-baked idea that cannot stand up without the missing pieces.  But it sure sounds like Invenergy plans to start harassing landowners for easements as soon as they can get back out in the field.  GBE may be a pipedream, but its harassment of Missourians is about to get real.

What kind of a company spends a whole bunch of money building parts of a project without having enough pieces to complete it?  This is like building an interstate highway from Kansas to Indiana without a connection in Illinois. 

Invenergy can waste its money any way it wants, but threatening Missourians with eminent domain at this point just seems abusive to me.

I could have written the GBE status report using just 5 letters.  FUBAR.  Done.
0 Comments

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

3/24/2020

0 Comments

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

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

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

But, finally, Invenergy acquiesced this morning and said it would halt the in-person visits.  Of course, they also claimed they never made them in the first place, or if they did it was at the landowner's invitation.
An Invenergy official said the contacts ended last week and included communicating with the landowners.

"Members of our team held meetings, upon approval from landowners, to discuss conducting these surveys later this spring,” said Beth Conley, Invenergy spokeswoman. “These meetings were halted when CDC guidance limited the ability to have in-person meetings.”
'scuse me, Beth, but the CDC guidance for social distancing started long before last week.  That's why the people were so disgusted by Invenergy's refusal to stop putting them at risk with home visits!  Quit trying to pretend Invenergy wasn't doing anything wrong.  Invenergy put the lives of Missourians at risk by sending traveling land agents and courthouse researchers from other areas into their communities, and Invenergy did it long after the first request to stop was made.

And how DARE you pretend that any of these visits were made with the "approval" of landowners?  "Approval" would imply prior consent, not just showing up unannounced, which is what Invenergy agents did.  Just because landowners answered the door doesn't mean they "approved" the visits.
Picture
And Invenergy would still be doing it without all the effort of many people in Missouri.  Like these people don't have anything better to do than invest a week of their time trying to inspire some ethics at Invenergy?  I'm thinking that this company must regularly put its own profits over the well-being of the communities where it does business.  Not exactly a way to inspire confidence in landowners that they would be treated fairly in easement negotiations, is it?  Invenergy = public relations fail.

And what else does Beth have to say?
Since the state commission approved the Grain Belt Express, a number of “development activities” must take place before the beginning of construction, which is expected in late 2021, Conley said.

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

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

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

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

Pretty despicable, Invenergy.
0 Comments

Invenergy Demonstrates That It's Profits Over People

3/22/2020

0 Comments

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

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

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

Last week, an attorney for two landowner groups sent a request to Invenergy's attorneys asking that the unannounced personal visits from land agents cease until the isolation restrictions are lifted. 
Corona Virus Worries:  Landowner Groups Ask Invenergy to Suspend Land Agent Visits
 
March 19 – Two landowner groups have requested that Invenergy temporarily suspend its practice of making uninvited personal visits to individual homes by company land agents seeking rights-of-way and survey permissions for the Grain Belt Express electric transmission project (GBE).  The Missouri Landowners Alliance and the Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance have requested the practice cease until such time as federal and state officials determine there is no longer any need for "social distancing" as a means of slowing the spread of the Corona virus.
 
The landowner groups have received several reports from individual landowners of GBE representatives showing up at their homes along the route unannounced and asking for their signature on a notice form to allow the entry of other unnamed individuals to perform numerous studies and tests at their properties.   Other landowners have found information packets from Grain Belt Express left on their doorsteps.
 
“It is my understanding that no one can guarantee that keeping a distance of 3-6 feet from someone carrying the virus will necessarily prevent its transmission.  And of course there is no guarantee that this distance would be maintained during the course of any conversations between the land agents and the property owner.  For example, handing a business card or any other document to the landowner would bring the two individuals in close proximity, if not actual physical contact.  Therefore, rather than take any chance at all of Grain Belt's agents inadvertently transmitting the virus to property owners, the most reasonable course of action at this time clearly would be to temporarily suspend all such in-person contacts,” said landowner attorney Paul Agathen in his request to Invenergy’s attorneys.
 
Landowners have reported that the visitors have presented themselves as real estate agents from other states working on behalf of Grain Belt Express, or agents of Contract Land Staff based in Texas.  None of the visits have been made by people with local contact information, leading the landowners to worry about transmission of the virus from other areas.
 
“I’m not sure what the rush is here,” said Representative Jim Hansen (R-40th District).  “Grain Belt Express isn’t approved in all states and has no designated connection point for its transmission project in Missouri at this time.  There’s no need to sacrifice social distancing health recommendations in order to rush this project through.”
 
The landowner groups’ request stated that Grain Belt's desire to move the project forward cannot possibly justify even the slightest possibility of transmitting the virus from Invenergy agents to even one of the property owners.  Some of the landowners are in the age category which would make them even more vulnerable to serious health problems if they should become infected.  Landowners also worry about person-to-person transmission in their own communities via Grain Belt Express land agents, as well as the possibility of transmitting the virus from a property owner to one of those agents.
 
“A person traveling door-to-door across rural areas is unlikely to be able wash their hands between calls,” said landowner Jim Daniels of Wright City.
 
Landowners note that Grain Belt Express may still try to contact them via phone or mail in the meantime, but vehemently object to the current practice of spontaneous in-person visits that may spread the virus from person-to-person.
 
“We’ve been told to stay at home and isolate ourselves from others to stop the spread of the virus,” said Dr. Dennis Smith, Assistant Professor, Clinical Emergency Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia.  “It defeats the purpose of social distancing to have strangers pulling up in the yard and trying to hand us business cards or permission forms.  We don’t know where they’ve been, and we don’t know where they’re heading next.  A time of national emergency to prevent the spread of a highly contagious virus is the wrong time to be going door-to-door.”
Instead of showing its "investment" in the communities it proposes would host Grain Belt Express through the use of eminent domain, Invenergy continued its visits, with additional reports filtering in at the end of the week.

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

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

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

But Invenergy is still going at it hammer and tongs.

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

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

Not In Michael's Back Yard.

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

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

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

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

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

Why, Michael Polsky, why?  What's it going to take to show concern and respect for Missouri landowners?  Why don't you email him at [email protected] and ask?
0 Comments

Ding Dong!  Know Your Rights Before GBE Comes Calling

3/12/2020

0 Comments

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

The landowner asked for his information, and his e-mail address was “Mossy Oak Properties” so it seems that Invenergy is outsourcing this testing.
Lots of things to unpack here. First of all, someone from Mossy Oak Properties is disclaiming any responsibility for this caller's actions.  Mossy Oak says this person is an impersonator and not affiliated with Mossy Oak.

Next, let's move on to the the premise that Mossy Oak Properties would be doing the testing.  No, they will not.  First of all, the "Mossy Oaks" guy is an impersonator.  Second, that's not what land agents do.  Land agents work for a real estate company.  The most they do professionally is contact landowners for permission to survey.  The bat surveys would be conducted by a third party environmental survey company with the requisite skills and expertise.  Nobody knows the name of this company, and the land agent impersonator isn't telling.  It looks like perhaps the impersonator is insinuating that he would personally be conducting the bat survey, along with the "core sampling."  What is core sampling?  It's drilling deep holes on your property using large pieces of equipment in order to discover the make up of soils and rocks 30 feet down under the surface of your property.  The company would use this information to engineer the bases for their towers.  Again, the land agent doesn't have this expertise.  It's simply a middle man.  Being a middle man with no real knowledge of the procedures and their purpose, you may not believe anything Invenergy's representative says, including who he works for.  The only thing binding would be on the piece of paper the land agent wants you to sign that grants Invenergy/GBE permission to perform any kind of testing it wants on your property, at any time it wants, using any part of your property it wants, and creating whatever damage or hazards it wants.  Why would anyone voluntarily sign this form?  Notice also that the Invenergy representative tried to get the landowner to sign another piece of paper instead.  But he was smart enough to refuse to fall for that trick.  Don't sign anything!
Picture
Core drilling
What are your rights in this situation?  It's best to consult an attorney for legal advice.  One attorney has opined that Invenergy does not have the right to survey or test your property without your express permission as set out in GBE's "Code of Conduct" for employees and representatives.
Obtain unequivocal permission to enter property for purposes of surveying or conducting environmental assessments or other activities. Clearly explain to the property owner the scope of the work to be conducted based on the permission given. Attempt to notify the occupant of the property each time you enter the property based on this permission.
You may be told that the Missouri PSC has approved the project and that the company has a right to enter and test your property.  That may be so, but that approval does not require you to grant permission to do so.  You never have to grant voluntary permission for entry and testing, and the Missouri PSC (or a court) can never order you to grant voluntary permission by signing a form.  And then there's GBE's "Code of Conduct" which requires the company to obtain unequivocal permission before testing.  GBE filed this "Code of Conduct" with the PSC and promised to abide by it.  It can't change its mind now without express PSC approval to change the "Code of Conduct".  You may refuse to sign anything, just like the quoted landowner did.

The "Code of Conduct" also requires any employees or representatives to promptly identify themselves upon making contact with landowners.  Although it doesn't specifically state it, we can presume the representative must also accurately identify himself.  Maybe you should ask to see a photo ID?
a. When contacting a property owner in person, promptly identify yourself as representing Grain Belt Express Clean Line.
b. When contacting a property owner by telephone, promptly identify yourself as representing Grain Belt Express Clean Line.
How prompt was the land agent's identification to the quoted landowner?  Sort of sounds like it didn't happen until the end of the conversation.  That's not prompt.  Prompt means in the first sentence uttered, and certainly before asking a landowner to sign anything.  In addition, it is purported to be a misrepresentation.  Who was this guy?

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

And if you refuse to sign anything, remember, the representative is prohibited from doing this:
Do not threaten to call law enforcement officers or obtain court orders.
And they have to leave when you tell them to leave.  It can be at any time you find them on your property.
When asked to leave property, promptly leave and do not return unless specifically authorized by Grain Belt Express Clean Line.

All communications by a property owner, whether in person, by telephone or in writing,
in which the property owner indicates that he or she does not want to negotiate or does not want to give permission for surveying or other work on his or her property, must be respected and politely accepted without argument. Unless specifically authorized by Grain Belt Express Clean Line, do not contact the property owner again regarding negotiations or requests for permission.
Just a note here... GBE does not have any right to tell its representatives to trespass on your property after you have told them to leave.  You have every right to tell them to leave and they must leave "promptly."  Let's hope that's a lot more "promptly" than they identify themselves.
Invenergy's invasion of Missouri has begun.  This is going to be a long process, folks, and become more desperate as landowner resistance becomes the norm.  The more desperate Invenergy becomes, the more its representatives may stray from their "Code."

I'm still trying to figure out the rush here.  Why is Invenergy spending millions of dollars seeking voluntary permissions and easements with landowners in Missouri when it doesn't even have an end point for its project or enough customers to make it economically viable?  Maybe you want to ask the representatives who call if Invenergy has even applied for a permit in Illinois yet?  Ask for a list of its contracted customers?  Ask to see ownership of land for the converter station proposed to be built in Missouri?  You have a right to this information, according to the "Code."
All communications with property owners and occupants must be factually correct and made in good faith.
a. Do provide maps and documents necessary to keep the landowner properly informed.
b. Do not make false or misleading statements.
c. Do not purposely or intentionally misrepresent any fact.
d. If you do not know the answer to a question, do not speculate about the answer. Advise the property owner that you will investigate the question and provide an answer later.
e. Follow-up in a timely manner on all commitments to provide additional information.
f. Do not send written communications suggesting an agreement has been reached when, in fact, an agreement has not been reached.
g. If information provided is subsequently determined to be incorrect, follow up with the
landowner as soon as practical to provide the corrected information.
h. Do provide the landowner with appropriate contact information should additional contacts be necessary.
Why is Invenergy trying to obtain voluntary easements in Missouri now?  This is the million dollar question.

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

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

Invenergy Bombs in Clinton County

2/28/2020

0 Comments

 
Well, that didn't go as expected, did it, Invenergy?  News-Press reports that Clinton County was left with more questions than answers about Grain Belt Express after a recent pep-talk attempt by Invenergy's Krista Mann.

Before an audience packed with opponents of GBE, Mann presented an out-of-touch, canned presentation to the county commissioners, and very little in the way of satisfactory answers.
Patrick Clark, Clinton County Presiding Commissioner, said he wanted to hear more details from the answers given. He said he feels that Clinton County is a crossover county and will not receive benefits.

“They really couldn’t answer any questions. You know, they talked about livestock, they talked about electronics on tractors and stuff like that, but when the question was asked about other effects on people, they couldn’t answer,” Clark said. “One thing that really concerns me is this is the first DC line this company’s ever dealt with.”

Clark asked at the meeting why the line is proposed to go through Northwest Missouri instead of southern Kansas and southern Missouri. It was answered that the route was decided by a variety of reasons, which included areas with cultural sensitivities, terrain and other reasons.

I've heard that it's because Kansas said no to the project crossing the Flint Hills.  That would have been the sensible and believable answer, instead Mann chose to give a non-answer that left Clinton County wondering why their own cultural sensitivities, terrain, and other reasons didn't matter.  This is the problem with corporate critters reading from a sterile script created in some conference room in downtown Chicago.  The people in Clinton County are real people, and they want real answers.

In a similar move to prove her tone-deafness towards Clinton County, Mann said her company personnel would be "working with" and "sitting down with" landowners in Clinton County.  None of the people in the audience looked even remotely willing to have anything to do with Mann and her company.
“Invenergy is committed to working with the communities and the landowners who will host this project,” Mann said. “Our land team is going to be sitting down with landowners all along the route.”
That's a bit presumptuous on her part, isn't it?  In order to "sit down" with folks, Invenergy would first have to be invited in.  These landowners have been harassed by Clean Line and its landmen for going on a decade now.  700 of them have resisted all those efforts, and they're unlikely to have a change of heart now.  Perhaps this could happen?
Really, they've heard the canned promises many times before and they simply aren't buying it.  Doesn't look like any landowners in Missouri want to "work with" Invenergy.

Go away, Invenergy.  It's not working.
0 Comments

House Bill To Limit Eminent Domain Clears Committee in Missouri

1/14/2020

2 Comments

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

We're on our way! 

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

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

The article starts out with an apparent misunderstanding of the three branches of government.  This is something I think I learned in elementary school, and perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Although judges and state regulators have given it the go-ahead, Missouri lawmakers are still trying to unplug a controversial electric transmission line.
State regulators are part of the executive branch of government.  They carry out laws as they exist.  Judges are part of the judicial branch of government.  They interpret laws as they exist.  Legislators, on the other hand, are part of the legislative branch of government.  They MAKE laws exist.  The legislature can change laws, or make new laws, that are then carried out by the executive branch, or interpreted by the judicial branch.  It doesn't matter what judges or state regulators did with existing laws, the legislature is in the process of making a new law.  Once it does, the regulators and judges will follow the new law.  This ostensible "justification" for GBE makes no sense, because legislators can change the law.  Legislators are not beholden to the opinions of judges or regulators.  Only legislators make laws!

And now let's skip to the reported malarkey spewed by Invenergy at yesterday's hearing.
A spokeswoman for Chicago-based Invenergy, which is spearheading the project, said the power line project will have a significant economic impact in the state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems to be the only thing the reporter managed to come away with to represent the bill's supporters yesterday.
Landowners in the path of the transmission lines argue that a private company should not be able to condemn land in order to build the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here's what that Invenergy lady had to say in this report:
The company in charge of the project, Invenergy, said condemnation of properties under eminent domain is more of a last resort.

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

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

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

So, in that case, GBE's route may look like this:
Picture
I'm not buying it.

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

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

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

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

She also allegedly said that Invenergy would gladly deliver all the energy to Missouri, if it could.  Still can't find any customers, Invenergy?
Picture
Missouri's energy needs are met, without any part of GBE.

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

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

Tommy, I've Got Your Number

7/11/2018

0 Comments

 
Tommy, Tommy, who can I turn to?
You give me something I can laugh hard at
I know you'll think I'm like the others before

Who saw your name and number on the wall...
...and your ridiculous new "Code of Conduct Principles" on the web.  Is that what happens when one of your prior "Codes of Conduct" mates with your "Principles of Business Conduct?"

Can't get that song out of my head.  Thanks a lot, Tommy.  You're a real pal.

Wind Catcher has some new "Code of Conduct Principles" on its website.  It attempts to take some lines from the old "Code of Conduct" and then adds some new stuff that can only create hilarity.
Tommy, Tommy, you're the manager for me
You don't know me but you make me so silly
I tried to call you before but I lost my nerve
I tried my imagination but I was disturbed

Mostly I was disturbed by this "principle":
Except in response to a question from a landowner, Project Representatives will not represent that a relative, neighbor and/or friend supports or opposes the Project, even if it’s true.
Except in response to a question from a landowner?  Because if a landowner asks a question (any question apparently, such as, "is the sky blue today?") it's okay to divulge information about another person? 

But what about these principles?
All communications and interactions with property owners and occupants must respect the privacy of property owners and other persons.

The details of the negotiations with property owners and occupants are to remain confidential unless allowed by the landowner. Project Representatives will not discuss these details with other property owners or other persons unaffiliated with PSO or the Project.


Project Representatives will not ask relatives, neighbors and/or friends to influence the property owner.
These principles go together sort of like oil and water.  Whipped cream on a Triscuit.  Salisbury steak on an ice cream sundae.  So, if a landowner asks, is it okay to tell them that a neighbor, friend, or relative has agreed to an easement, even if it's not true?  What does the truthfulness of telling tales on other people have to do with easement negotiations anyhow?  And whether or not a neighbor, friend, or relative supports or opposes a project can be used by the land agent to try to influence negotiations with another, as long as the land agent doesn't ask the friend, neighbor or relative to influence the landowner directly?

This is garbage.  It's ridiculous.  It's unenforceable.

Oh, right.  I get it now.  Nobody enforces these "principles" so it's okay to make them as confusing, contradictory, and devoid of true meaning as possible.  What's a landowner to do when a land agent violates any of these principles?
Tommy, I've got your number
I need to report a violation
Tommy, don't change your number

Because there's been hundreds of violations already!  Do you mean that from now on this is a problem, although your land agents have used it extensively in the past (like yesterday).
While PSO has the legal right to use court proceedings to obtain land rights for the Project, the Project Representatives should not threaten to call law enforcement officers, obtain court orders, or threaten the use of eminent domain.
I don't think a land agent can operate without using the words "eminent domain."  Without them, a land agent has nothing.  Especially when...
Project Representatives will respect all communications from property owners to them – whether in person, by telephone or in writing – in which the property owner indicates that he or she does not want to negotiate or does not want to give permission for surveying or other work on his or her property. Unless specifically authorized by PSO, Project Representatives will not contact the property owner again regarding negotiations or requests for permission to survey.

When asked to leave a property, Property Representatives will promptly leave and not return unless specifically authorized by PSO.


Buh-bye!  Your land agents are going to have a lot of free time on their hands, if they paid attention in PSO Customer Relations Training class.  Maybe you can hold more classes to keep them busy?  I suggest enrichment activities related to recognizing a "threat."
If threatened, Project Representatives will promptly and politely leave the property.

This should probably include units on running like hell, because a true threat from a crazy landowner doesn't allow for a controlled and polite exit. 

What, exactly, constitutes a threat?   If a landowner says, "If you don't quit asking me for an easement, I'm going to call Tommy?"  Would that make a land agent leave?
Tommy, I've got your number
I need to make your land agent leave
Tommy, don't change your number

But this... this has to be my favorite line in the whole "Code of Conduct Principles":
Project Representatives will not give the property owner any legal advice.
Because that would be practicing law without a license, since I'll assume your project representatives are not lawyers.  But if they did, would it be okay if it was true?  Would it be considered a threat?

Are the land agents going to be handing out copies of these "principles" when they call on landowners from now on?  Way to throw landowners off balance and encourage them to talk to land agents longer just to see how long it takes for a violation of the principles to occur!  If that happens, maybe people don't want to call you, Tommy, although I don't see your phone number on the principles, nor any other way for a landowner to report a violation.  I guess they'll just have to report violations to Dana Murphy at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
I got it (i got it) I got it
I got her number on the wall
I got it (i got it) I got it
For a violation, for a violation call...

0 Comments

For A Good Time, Call...

7/11/2018

0 Comments

 
Remember back in junior high school when you wrote on bathroom walls?  You'd write things like, "For a good time, call...." followed by the name and phone number of someone you didn't like.  Seemed like a good idea at the time, but do you know anyone who actually ever called "for a good time?"  I've asked, but no one has admitted to doing so.

After Oklahoma Corporation Commission chairman Dana Murphy chided AEP for its mistreatment of landowners affected by the company's Wind Catcher project last week, and called the issue "a systemic problem" that she felt the company needed to step up and deal with, AEP has offered a "good time" to irate landowners.

Call Tom Schaffer with AEP. His direct number is 614-933-2025.

This is how AEP is dealing with its landowner problems.  By giving them somebody to yell at.

His linked in profile says he is Transmission Right of Way Manager at AEP.  Tom claims to be "
highly successful in building, developing and maintaining relationships..."

So if there's something you need, or you just want to have a good time,

CALL TOM AT 614-933-2025 

Operators are standing by to take your call...  see how Tom can help you with an AEP transmission project right of way problem today!


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.