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

Transource Releases Routes... and Propaganda

10/18/2017

7 Comments

 
Transource hit the media up with its proposed routes for its Independence Energy Connection early this week.  Transource included lots of propaganda designed to pacify the opposition beast as well.  I don't think it's working.  The route announcement only served to incite even more opposition, as people who maybe thought they were safe, or hadn't paid much attention to the problem before, came out of the woodwork to voice their opposition.

What was it Transource said about its project?
The goal is to alleviate congestion on the high-voltage electric grid, and benefit customers in the region, including parts of Pennsylvania and Maryland, Transource said in a news release. 
But who exactly will benefit from the project, and to what extent?

Regional grid operator PJM Interconnection has already done the math and assigned project cost commensurate with benefit.  80.5% of the project costs will be paid by ratepayers of Baltimore Gas & Electric, PEPCO, and Dominion, therefore 80.5% of the benefit will be realized by those ratepayers.  However, 100% of project impacts will be realized by landowners in communities in Pennsylvania and Maryland that will receive just 6% or less of the project's benefit.  Although Transource continually attempts to gloss over this fact, it doesn't change the math.  Communities along the proposed route are not receiving benefit commensurate with their sacrifice.

New transmission projects dreamed up by PJM to "alleviate congestion" and promote the increased use of certain types of power generators have a long track record of failure.  "Congestion" is a fleeting economic concept used to justify building more transmission for export across the region.  You'd think PJM might have learned its lesson about manipulating markets from the crashing failure of its Project Mountaineer initiative, but obviously that's not the case.  After retreating to its lair and licking its wounds for 10 years, PJM is at it again.  And the victims of its latest scheme are having none of that.

Transource also says:
Abby Foster, a community affairs representative for the company, said typical farming practices in both counties will be able to continue in the rights-of-way. She also said that based on the feedback from the community, Transource will use a monopole structure for the towers, instead of the lattice structure which was in the original proposal. 
“By including community members in the siting process, rather than engaging them after decisions were made, we were able to consider and accommodate many landowner requests,” said Transource Director Todd Burns.
Abby Foster is a public relations spinner employed by The Bravo Group, under contract to Transource to put a nice face on its transmission proposal.  Abby says:  "My experience and strengths include targeting audiences with well-crafted messaging using both traditional and new media to gain exposure, persuade and motivate. Whether it be a product, campaign, event or reputation management and exposure, I can develop the campaign from strategy, to content and graphics, to launch. I will work with you to set benchmarks, track progress and achieve your campaign goals."   What does Abby Foster know about "typical farming practices"?  Any farmer who relies on Abby Foster to educate them about "typical farming practices" may find themselves in a bit of a bind.  And what about that "feedback" she received about monopoles?  I don't know of anyone who opposes this project whose opposition would be ameliorated by the use of monopoles.  In fact, I haven't heard one opponent even mention a preference for monopoles.  The preference for monopoles is parent company AEP's preference, touting what it characterizes as its revolutionary "BOLD" design, a rather flaccid attempt to make people believe everyone else loves smartly designed transmission structures.  How can Abby say that they're making some accommodation towards the public when those people have not indicated a preference?  It's like asking people how they want to ingest poison... would you like to drink it or chew it? 

Todd Burns is another poison purveyor who tells the community how they were included in the decision making, but that's not entirely honest.  The community doesn't just want to be "included" in the siting of the project, the community wants to be included in the decision to build this project in the first place.  That's where community involvement should have begun.  Instead, Todd asks the community how it would like to ingest its poison, without asking them if they would like to be poisoned in the first place.

Transource must think the communities are really gullible, pretending to make concessions so that the company appears reasonable.  Transource's concessions are imaginary and not what the community asked for at the "Open House" meetings.  I'm pretty sure the communities asked for no transmission project at all, not one with monopoles that encourages the community to fight with itself over placement.  The monopoles and "community inclusion" are nothing but a smoke screen.

Then Abby asks the community to get into the Kool Aid line:

Foster added that over the next couple of weeks the company will contact  landowners with property on the proposed route. She said during this time, owners can raise issues like potential crop loss during construction or access roads that need to be built, and negotiate compensation.
 
"They're really looking to minimize and reduce any impacts that might occur to any agricultural practices," Foster said on behalf of Transource.
Maybe landowners don't want to talk to land agents this early in the game.  After all, this project isn't a sure thing until it's been carefully examined and approved by state regulators.  Chances are that one or both states will deny the application, or simply delay it until the project collapses underneath the weight of its own hubris.  Why purchase easements when a route has not been approved?  Because Transource is guaranteed to collect its sunk costs, even if the project is later cancelled.  And if it is cancelled, who wants to be left with an open easement across their property that can then be used for some other project?  Landowners should also consider how easements are typically purchased for transmission line projects.  A company may pay up to 10% of the purchase price at signing, with future small payments made over time as indicated in the contract, with the balance paid at the time construction begins.  Once signed, a landowner (or his heirs) must honor the contract until the easement is released.  This project could be tied up by regulators and courts for years. 

Any landowner who even considers talking to a Transource land agent should first consult with an attorney.  Although Transource will tell you that you don't need an attorney, remember that the contract the land agent presents to you was written by Transource's attorney, for the benefit of the company.  Don't you think you should protect your interests, too?

Transource seems to be in an all-fired hurry to get folks "managed" to go along with its project.  It's your land, it's your choice.
7 Comments

Clean Line Helping Communities... One Extended Stay Hotel Chain at a Time

12/31/2016

8 Comments

 
Clean Line Energy Partners has been busy joining Chambers of Commerce in Arkansas towns outside its Plains & Eastern Clean Line project's route.

I guess the idea is that Clean Line is going to help Hot Springs, Conway, and North Little Rock develop economically by providing opportunities for these communities to profit from the project.  And here's proof!

Clean Line Energy Partners has opened an office in Arkansas!

Here's a picture of it.
Picture
That's right, Clean Line's new membership in the North Little Rock Chamber of Commerce lists its business address as 400 River Market Ave. #406, Little Rock, AR 72201.

That's Room #406 at the Homewood Suites Extended Stay Hotel in downtown Little Rock.  Sounds totally legit to me!  The only thing more legit would be a rented mailbox at one of those mail drop places.

Why should Clean Line rent a real brick and mortar office space in Arkansas when they can operate their "business" out of an extended stay hotel?  It's not like they're going to be around long enough to need permanent housing or a permanent office.   And Clean Line's rental of an extended stay hotel room is just pouring money and jobs into Arkansas!  It's going to take hundreds of new employees to service Room #406!  Arkansas will be a much more prosperous place because of Clean Line's temporary largesse!

So, if someone in Arkansas tells you that Clean Line Energy Partners is a fly-by-night company, be sure to tell them it's just not so.  They've rented a room at an extended stay hotel that they're using as a business office.  It won't be awkward at all to sell a right of way across your property to a company with office space at an extended stay hotel.  Instead, it shows their ongoing, long-term commitment to the people of Arkansas!
8 Comments

Clean Line's "Code of Conduct" Doesn't Protect Landowners

12/14/2016

0 Comments

 
Did you see Block Grain Belt Express- MO's facebook post yesterday?  It was a question/response from Clean Line regarding the company's "Code of Conduct."

As part of the hearing process at the PSC, Grain Belt Express must answer questions about its testimony submitted by other parties. Ever wonder what’s behind the smoke and mirrors you read in the newspapers? Here’s the response of Clean Line Vice President of Land, Deann Lanz to a question you may have wondered yourself over the years.
-------------------------
Who enforces Clean Line’s “Code of Conduct” for dealing with landowners, and does it protect you?

Question DL.2: With reference to page 4 line 11 of your testimony, please summarize all reported violations to date (if any) of the Code of Conduct by any employee or agent of Clean Line or Grain Belt in any of the states in which the proposed line will be located. Please include the name(s) of the individuals involved, the date of the occurrence, the location of the occurrence, and a brief summary of the conduct which violated the Code of Conduct.

Response: There have been two instances where Grain Belt Express investigated allegations of conduct outside the best practices standard. One involved a land agent visiting*************, a landowner in Chariton County, on June 12, 2014.
The other involved a phone call to *********, a landowner in Buchanan County, on April 2, 2014. In both instances the investigation found no violation of best practices. With Ms.********, the allegation was raised by a family member as opposed to Ms.******* herself. The meeting notes and report from the land agent showed no violation of the code of conduct or best practices. With Mr. ********, there was no record of the conversation taking place and Mr. ******** did not raise the issue with Grain Belt Express. The investigation showed no violation of the code of conduct or best practices.

In the first case family reported that a land agent refused to leave an elderly landowners room in a rest home. She repeatedly asked them to leave because she was ill. They refused. They told her that they would leave after she signed the easement. Family members told PSC staff about the incident and filled out a form that is now part of the public record.
In the second case, and elderly landowner was called and told "it was a done deal" and he needed to come fill out the papers. He believed them and had an appointment the next morning to sign the easement. He was told he was not allowed to bring anyone else with him. Luckily, he came to lock up after one of of our meetings and was shocked to find it was not a done deal! He submitted an affidavit about the issue to the PSC.
Block GBE representatives talked with the subject of one of these complaints last night, when he came out to the public hearing in Faucett.  Hear it direct from the horse's mouth:
Who do you believe?

When Clean Line enforces its own "Code" there are no "violations."  Because there really isn't any enforcement.

The "Code" seems more useful in the outhouse than in your house.
0 Comments

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

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

The Department of Energy's "Landowner Benefits" Ruse

4/2/2016

1 Comment

 
The U.S. DOE claimed in a press release
Through its rigorous review and lengthy negotiations to build in protections for landowners and the local communities, the processes insisted upon by the Department go well beyond the provisions established by Congress in Section 1222.
And if you believe that ruse, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

The reality is that the DOE is planning to coerce landowners to sign survey and easement agreements under threat of condemnation and taking of their land by the Federal government.  It's all there in the "Participation Agreement" signed by the DOE and Clean Line.  Every affected landowner should take a look.  No landowners were party to the "lengthy negotiations" that took place at the DOE to "build in protections for landowners," so you may question whether anything in this agreement actually protects your interests.  DOE doesn't even know what your interests are!

Earlier this week, Clean Line stated that it wanted to "share its revenues" with landowners.
Clean Line Energy executive vice president Mario Hurtado, said via email. “We have created a market-leading compensation package that allows landowners to share in the revenues earned by the project and an easement acquisition process that provides important protections so that landowners are treated fairly.”
Bridge.  Brooklyn.  You know what Clean Line is willing to do?  Exactly what is in the Participation Agreement, and nothing more.  Nothing at all.  Clean Line will do the minimum required under the agreement and then turn the remainder over the the DOE for condemnation.  And there is no "share in the wealth" provisions for landowners in the Participation Agreement.

The Participation Agreement states,
No Clean Line Entity shall engage in any coercive action with respect to any Landowner, Curative Party or tenant in respect of the undertakings required hereby.
And then just steps from the starting gate, Clean Line engages in a lie by telling landowners that they will "share in the revenues earned by the project," when this is not part of the Participation Agreement's "protections" for landowners.  What is coercion?
The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
It's perfectly okay with the DOE if Clean Line lies to landowners in order to get their foot in the door, but threats of condemnation are out of line.  Remember this!

Don't be afraid of scary words like "condemnation," or "eminent domain."  The DOE doesn't want to engage in it anymore than you do.  It's costly and time consuming.  Once, a government wanted to take my land to build a gated community and high-end shops.  They offered a pittance.  I refused.  The closer and closer we got to a condemnation hearing, the higher the offers from the government became.  The offer made to my attorney, literally on the steps of the court house just before the condemnation hearing, was six times the original offer.  I'm not an attorney, and none of this is intended as legal advice.  It's just a sharing my own personal experiences, and it's been my experience that the first landowners to sign get the least amount of money.  There's always more money available and a "final offer" is often not final.  I received much more than the other landowners because I was the last one to sign, not the first one. 

Get yourself a competent, local attorney.  Beware large out-of-state "eminent domain specialists" whose payday is dependent upon you signing an agreement with the company.  You'd get better advice from an attorney who is billing you by the hour.  His payday isn't dependent upon you signing an easement agreement.

So, what's in the Participation Agreement "protecting" landowners from Clean Line's easement acquisition actions? 

First of all, Clean Line needs to "locate the landowner."  They can do so by "using a private investigator to conduct a search for such Landowner, inquiries with
relatives, neighbors or other individuals that could reasonably be likely to know the location of
such Landowner."
  This is "protection?"  Sounds like intimidation to me.

Next, Clean Line is supposed to give the landowner an "initial notice and landowner materials," consisting of:
(i) a proposed form of easement and/or other applicable documentation relating to the conveyance of the proposed Project Real  Estate Right;
(ii) a payment calculation sheet or other documentation in respect of any compensation proposed to be paid to such Landowner in connection with the applicable Project Real Estate Right; provided, however, that with respect to any parcel that is not a Waiver Parcel, such payment calculation sheet or other documentation shall only be provided after the appraisal has been performed;
(iii) a sketch identifying the boundaries and the nature of the applicable Project Real Estate Right;
(iv) a construction questionnaire designed to gather necessary information in respect of conditions at the location of the applicable Project Real Estate Right;
(v) a copy of the Clean Line Entities’ Codes of Conduct for acquisitions of Project Real Estate Rights (which is attached as Schedule 12 to
this Agreement);
(vi) a request for permission to conduct a survey of the applicable Project Real Estate Right; and
(vii) in respect of any Project Real Estate Right located in Oklahoma, a copy of the Private Rights Settlement Agreement, dated January 14, 2011 (the “Private Rights Settlement Agreement”), and the Order from the OCC, dated October 28, 2011, approving the PECL OK’s application to conduct business as a
public utility in Oklahoma.
Landowners are "protected" by being offered a legal document written by Clean Line, in its own best interest, that they are encouraged to sign without legal representation of their own.  When you sell real estate in an open market, both parties are represented at settlement by their own legal counsel.  Nobody ever sells their property to a stranger who comes knocking on their door with a prepared legal document.  So, why should you?  Land agent promises mean nothing unless they are written into the signed legal document, before you sign.  Everything you will receive must be set out in the easement agreement, in writing.  You'd be much better off with an easement agreement written by your own counsel, instead of accepting Clean Line's terms.  Clean Line is writing these agreements in their own interest, not yours.  Not all desired terms of easement agreements revolve around money.  In fact, money should be the least of your worries when you are legally bound to a transmission company for decades.  Read the paper linked here to find important provisions to include in your own easement agreement. 

Although samples of many of the documents are included as attachments to the Participation Agreement, the easement agreement is not one of them.  What's in the easement agreement that can't stand public scrutiny?  Doesn't sound like a "protection" for landowners to keep the easement agreement hidden until presented to the landowner in person by Clean Line, and urging him to sign immediately, without advice of counsel.

A "payment calculation sheet" prepared by Clean Line's property value appraisers "protects" you from receiving an offer below market value.  The payment calculation sheet becomes part of your easement agreement, once you sign.  Whatever is on this paper is a legal part of your easement agreement.  Clean Line's "market values" are determined by a company located in another state that uses prior sales in your county to calculate a value for your particular property.  It's all very high level, and prior sales can be cherry picked to come up with the value the company wants to assign to your property.  No appraiser may visit your property to discover its unique features.  Clean Line, at its own discretion, may deem your parcel a "waiver parcel," meaning it will refuse to have your property individually appraised before determining a value.  Even if Clean Line offers to have your property appraised, the appraisal shall be performed by Clean Line's contracted appraiser.  This appraiser performs all Clean Line's appraisals in your area under a contract.  You are not allowed to have your own appraisal performed by an appraiser of your choosing.  Or, better yet, to have the value determined by averaging the values determined by three appraisals -- one performed by Clean Line's appraiser, one performed by the landowner's appraiser, and one performed by an appraiser agreed to by both parties.  This may be small "protection" but it is the kind of value determination required by a state PSC approval of a transmission line.  DOE's "protections" don't even go that far.  And, one more thing about appraisals... if Clean Line doesn't like the appraisal its contractor produces, it can act as follows:
(a) The Appraisal will be sent back to the original Appraiser for revisions based on the appraisal review and then resubmitted through the review process as outlined
above; or
(b) A meeting will be held between the Appraiser and Review Appraiser to gather more facts regarding the subject parcel to formalize a joint appraisal analysis.


Clean Line's contracted appraiser had better toe the "clean" line or risk having their arm twisted.  But you can trust this appraiser because it's one of DOE's "protections" for landowners!

A sample of the Payment (or Easement) Calculation Sheet is included as an appendix to the Participation Agreement.  As you can see from this sample, your total easement consideration (payment) consists of the value of your land.  There's no line item for "revenue sharing," structure payments, damages or anything else.  It's a straight up calculation of the value of your acreage.  Also take note that this is more aptly considered an Option for easement, because you're not getting your payment all at once.  You'll get 30% of the agreed value when you sign.  You'll get the balance when they show up with the bulldozer.  If that doesn't happen before December 31, 2017, then Clean Line can pay you another 10% of the agreed price to extend the contract for another year.  If the bulldozer still hasn't shown up by December 31, 2018, then Clean Line will dispense another 10%.  At this point, you'll have 50% of the agreed upon value in your pocket.  And guess what?  Clean Line can back out of this easement agreement at any time it likes by failing to pay you the additional amounts.  You can never back out of this easement agreement.  It's permanent.  And remember, any percentage of value payments made along the way are deducted from the final amount you will receive.  They are NOT in addition to the value determined. 

Although the Participation Agreement requires Clean Line to pay for:  (iii) any damage to any crops, timber, livestock, structures or improvements of the Landowner that are reasonably likely to arise as a result of the conveyance of the applicable Project Real Estate Right and the Project...
There's no line item for this on the Payment Calculation Sheet.  How is the landowner "protected" here?  Is the landowner supposed to hope that Clean Line pays whatever they request after the damages have occurred?  Or does the landowner have to go through the courts to be reimbursed if they don't agree with Clean Line's assessment of the damages?  Determine damages, and a method for fairly assessing their cost, in advance and add it to your Payment Calculation Sheet and/or easement agreement.  Don't get stuck taking a pittance from Clean Line, or spending years in court, for the damages it caused.

And now let's talk about Clean Line's "Code of Conduct" for acquisition of your real estate.  As I've written before, this "code" was plagiarized from another transmission project where land agents actually did the things set out as prohibited by the "code."  These prohibited actions are standard operating procedures for land agents.  They actually happened.  The problem with this "code," is that there is no enforcement mechanism.  There are no penalties for violation.  There are no "code police" to call when a violation occurs.  Is DOE going to enforce this "code?"  There's nothing in the Participation Agreement about enforcement of this "code" or how a landowner shall report infractions.  This "code" doesn't protect landowners.  It's only so much window dressing.  Landowners should document all contact with land agents.  Record all meetings and telephone conversations with land agents.  If a land agent is abiding by the code, they should have no problem with you recording the meeting.  If they object, however, you can decide if their intentions are genuine, and whether to meet with them at all. 

Regarding "Construction Questionnaire" or "Survey Permission" forms -- you don't have to fill these out or sign them.  Clean Line has no authority to make you do so.  You participate in these activities of your own free will in order to help Clean Line with engineering of its transmission line.  A survey could damage your property.  There is no compensation offered by the company in exchange for allowing a survey.  In fact, the "Survey Permission" and "Construction Questionnaire" forms are not included as examples in the Participation Agreement.  Who knows what's in them, or whether there is adequate protection for the landowner?  Have your own counsel review them, if you're considering signing them.

Another point in the Participation Agreement... at the landowner's request, Clean Line must "submit" to "binding arbitration" if the landowner and Clean Line cannot agree to a price.  Arbitration is a quasi-legal process intended to settle disputes through the decision of an impartial third party.  Binding arbitration means you give up your right to disagree with the decision made.  You don't have to submit to arbitration.  If you do, you give up your rights to have the form of your easement agreement and the value you receive for your land reviewed by a court.  Arbitration is a cheaper process that strips you of your due process rights.  I would much rather have my issues decided by a court, where I may appeal a verdict I didn't agree with.  Arbitration is giving up your legal rights.

In addition, the Participation Agreement stipulates:
The Clean Line Entities shall develop a  standard script of talking points (subject to DOE’s approval) describing DOE’s participation in the Project and DOE’s obligations in connection with any acquisition of Project Real Estate Rights, which standard script shall be applied and followed by each Clean Line Entity and its contractors in material respects in all communications and correspondence with any Landowner, Curative Party or tenant.
Of course, the "script" is not included in the Participation Agreement, so nobody knows what's in it.  Ask to see a copy of the approved "script" before talking to a land agent.  And, just like the "code," there's no enforcement mechanism or penalty for failing to abide by this stipulation.

The Participation Agreement also provides a mechanism whereby Clean Line "assigns" acquiring a particular easement to DOE.  That's because Clean Line does not have the ability to condemn any property and take it by eminent domain.  Only the DOE can do this.  Don't be afraid of any threats from Clean Line that their offer is "final" and if you don't accept it they will turn your case over to DOE.  Once DOE gets your case from Clean Line, it, too, must attempt to engage and negotiate with you before condemning the property.  Only DOE can proceed with condemnation.

Do yourself a favor and read the Participation Agreement in its entirety.  It's long, but not nearly as long as "perpetuity" will be if you sign something that doesn't protect your interests.  The DOE isn't looking out for you here, they only negotiated with Clean Line to come up with this agreement.  Protect yourself.
1 Comment

U.S. DOE Takes Kickback From Investors To Condemn Private Property

3/28/2016

6 Comments

 
Think your home is your castle?  Not anymore, if the Federal government can make money selling it to a private investor.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy sold its authority to condemn land to private investors in exchange for two percent of the investors' profit from using the condemned land.

That's right... the U.S. DOE will receive 2% of the revenues collected by Clean Line at the end of each fiscal quarter, once the transmission line starts delivering electricity.  DOE says it will use its new windfall "to offset costs associated with federal hydropower infrastructure or for any other authorized purpose."  So, at best, this payola will be used to lower rates for customers of federal hydropower marketers.  At worst, it will be used "for any other authorized purpose."  Of course, this isn't defined. So ol' Beethoven could "authorize" the purchase of a private island for him and his renewable energy investor buddies.  Anything goes, right, Ernie?
Picture
I don't think that was the intent of Congress in allowing a brainless piece of lobbyist mischief to become part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.  Section 1222 doesn't contemplate the Federal government making money off transmission projects it "participates" in or "owns."  Nor does it authorize the Secretary to determine how his boodle is spent.  Not anywhere.

Everybody is making money off the Clean Line scheme.  Clean Line's investors, Clean Line's executives (personally invested in the project), legislators Clean Line has "donated" to, vendors who want to supply goods and services, local governments being paid off at the rate of $7500/transmission mile, wind companies, landowners who lease their land for wind farm royalties, Federal hydropower ratepayers, environmental groups, unions, economic development hacks, and even the Federal government.  It's all profit and no sacrifice from these entities.  Everyone's got their finger into the money pie, and it costs them nothing. These are the supposed "public benefits."

And these are the sacrifices that must be made so that "the public" can benefit.  The landowner whose property is along the transmission line route is forced to sacrifice his private property to enable this money-fest for the benefit of others without any skin in the game.  He pays dearly.  The landowner can be found at the bottom of this greed pile on.  The landowner isn't part of any "share in the wealth" plan.  The landowner is involuntarily forced to make a sacrifice by having his property condemned by the Federal government so that others can profit from its use.  In exchange, the landowner is handed a one time pittance that attempts to compensate him for the current value of his property taken.  A landowner's potential for future profit related to his property?  The Federal government doesn't recognize that in its rush to provide for the future profits of energy speculators, union workers, suppliers, etc.

If my property was subject to such a taking, I'd add the following clause to any easement or survey permission presented to me, in addition to any "fair market value" or one-time structure payments:
 Participation Amount. Commencing on and after the Project Completion, Clean Line shall pay to the easement grantor (landowner) at the end of each fiscal quarter an amount equal to 2% of the gross revenues received by the Clean Line Parties from the Project during such fiscal quarter resulting from the sale of transmission service in connection with the Project (as such gross revenue amount is reflected in Clean Line's Financial Statements for such fiscal quarter, including, with respect to the first such fiscal quarter, sales of transmission service which occurred at any time prior to Project Completion) (the “Participation Amount”).
The Participation Amounts shall be paid to landowner to offset costs associated with having their property devalued and their quality of life disturbed in perpetuity, or for any other landowner authorized purpose.
The Secretary of Energy has sold you out in exchange for quarterly dividends from Clean Line Energy Partners.  Ernie would have a really hard time telling you that you're not also eligible to receive 2% of the revenues, since you're actually making an involuntary sacrifice to enable this profit-making scheme.  Fair is fair, right?
6 Comments

What You Need to Know About Utility Eminent Domain Takings

11/17/2015

11 Comments

 
Well, it's finally happened.  An electric transmission owner sited its line in the backyard of the wrong person.  Those transmission siting etch-a-sketch toys can be so risky!

And now the way society thinks about the use of eminent domain for energy transmission easements is about to change.

Andrew P. Morriss, Dean & Anthony G. Buzbee Dean’s Endowed Chairholder, Texas A&M School of Law; Senior Fellow, Property & Environment Research Center; Senior Fellow, Reason Foundation; and Research Scholar, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University. A.B. Princeton University; J.D., M.Pub.Aff. The University of Texas at Austin; Ph.D. (Economics) M.I.T., lately found himself in the bullseye of an electric transmission project.  And he hired counsel.  And then Morris and his lawyers wrote a paper published in the LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources.
In the interests of full disclosure, we should note that we are not neutral observers of
eminent domain abuse in this area. Morriss’s wife’s parents, wife, brother-inlaw, and sister-in-law are involved in proceedings contesting the valuation of a power transmission easement across property held by a family limited partnership in Kimble County, Texas, in which they are represented by Barron & Adler. As a result, none of us feels particularly charitable toward utilities that make use of eminent domain for acquisition of power line corridors.
Whoopsy!  But, finally, someone with a big enough megaphone to question the utility easement status quo has done the unspeakable -- suggested that the use of eminent domain for "large infrastructure easements" (or LIEs, proving that acronym creation is an art) should end.
We argue that eminent domain laws need to be reformed to address these problems. The simplest reform is to eliminate eminent domain from LIEs entirely, forcing utilities to negotiate easement terms in arm’s length transactions and leveling the playing field between the utilities and landowners. Because the burdened landowners are a dispersed and unorganized interest group, while utilities have considerable political clout, this may be
unobtainable through the political process in many states. Similarly, the even more potent “bootleggers and Baptists” coalition of utilities and environmental pressure groups, which
back expansion of transmission lines for renewable energy, if not natural gas or oil pipelines, mobilize powerful interests behind
maintaining the power.
In Involuntary Cotenants: Eminent Domain and Energy
and Communications Infrastructure Growth
, Morriss and his co-author attorneys point out the bald truth about utility LIEs:
  • Easement agreements are written by utilities in their own interests.
  • Easement agreements do not adequately compensate landowners.
  • Courts hearing the eminent domain case simply accept the easement agreement as written and concentrate solely on "fair market value" of the property taken.
Why do we allow ourselves to be treated this way?
Much of the growth is likely to involve the use of eminent domain because utilities and
governments often consider eminent domain to be a cheaper and easier alternative to negotiating with potentially resistant, unhappy landowners for the acquisition of property.
The paper points out that in lieu of doing away with utility eminent domain authority altogether, reform is needed.
 For example, providing courts (and other third parties with roles in eminent domain proceedings) with the opportunity to alter the easement terms proposed by utilities for LIEs would serve as an important step toward solving many of the problems we describe. In addition, states and the federal government can take further steps to improve the LIE acquisition process by gathering and disseminating market data to, and providing greater statutory guidance for, valuation
decisions.
The five reforms recommended in the paper include:
  1. Limiting eminent domain power of utilities.
  2. Empowering neutral decision makers to structure easements.
  3. Create exit rights.  (Utilities should not be able to take perpetual easements).
  4. Create better data on LIE costs and provisions.
  5. Establish standards to guide determination of value.  (Not all costs to landowners are immediate or quantifiable).
The paper is also a great guide to things you should consider adding to any proposed easement agreement presented to you by a utility during the "good faith" negotiation period required by law before the utility resorts to eminent domain.  Of course, the utility will most likely bat your efforts away, but in that case, how much "good faith" is the utility actually displaying?  It's all about the money to them, although money is usually at the bottom of the landowner's list of concerns about involuntarily hosting a utility LIE.

And this paper makes you think.  Ever since I saw my first purchase option agreement and easement agreement presented to landowners by the PATH transmission company more than five years ago, I've wondered how anyone thinks this playing field is fair.  The agreements contained many clauses that I would never agree to, however these agreements are often presented to landowners lacking legal knowledge of any kind, and without the benefit of counsel.  When real estate changes hands in a market-based arm's length transaction, both parties are represented by their own counsel.  It's the way we do things.  Have you ever sold your real property sitting alone at your kitchen table with a fast-talking stranger who's just come knocking on your door, checkbook in hand?  Of course not, unless you've been a victim of a utility LIE.  Why is it okay for utilities to prey on landowners this way?  This needs to stop!  The landowner should have the right to independent counsel, at the utility's expense, before signing any agreements.  In fact, it should be required.

Any why should eminent domain for utility LIES continue?  If you've never been affected by a LIE, you may think eminent domain is a necessary evil to providing a public necessity, like electricity, highways, and other public infrastructure.  Arrogant eminent domain proponents believe that because the power you use required an easement across someone else's land at some point, that you should be eager to provide that same easement for someone else's electric need.  It's been many, many years since America was electrified.  During electrification, eminent domain was accepted because everyone was getting the benefit of the infrastructure.  Today, some greedy transmission companies are proposing eminent domain be used for LIES that aren't needed to provide anyone with basic service.  Transmission lines have been proposed that are intended to make the electricity cities waste keeping their skylines lit up all night "greener."  This isn't public necessity.  It's keeping you stupid believing that utilities shall have the right of eminent domain for whatever they propose.  It's time to rethink this because America is rebelling against this kind of thinking in a big, big way.

Start your thought journey by reading the Morriss paper.  And think, really think, what if this happened to me?  Because if we let this continue unabated, it will.

This post wouldn't be complete without thanks to Janna Swanson in Iowa for digging up this thought-provoking paper.  Janna
moonlights as an energy activist and researcher, when not producing food to feed ungrateful utility executive pieholes.
11 Comments

Pizza, Ponies, and Prostitutes!

5/12/2015

2 Comments

 
Let's get the profitable infrastructure project party started!
A landowner from southeast Iowa today said he has recorded proof a land agent for the proposed Bakken Pipeline offered to get him an 18-year-old prostitute if he’d grant access rights to his property so the pipeline may pass through.

Hughie Tweedy of Montrose said he recorded two of his conversations with the land agent.
“On these recordings you will hear evidence of my senior pipeline representative offering me not once, not twice, but three times the sexual services of a woman,” Tweedy said, “the last time being a $1200 teenage prostitute.”


Hmm... wasn't it less than 2 weeks ago that Bakken Pipeline owner Dakota Access was investigating different accusations against its land acquisition company?
“If anybody knows of anyone who’s been dealt with unfairly,” Boeyink says, “get the names to me and we will deal with it swiftly.”
I'm thinking Boeyink didn't move too "swiftly."  Or maybe he's been a whirling dervish but simply can't keep up with the unsavory activities of his hired land agents.

Whether it's offering ponies and prostitutes to landowners in exchange for easements, or pizza parties and puppy chow to college students in exchange for signatures on petitions of support, buying public support for infrastructure projects is big business! 

And who do you think is first in line for the free cheese?
“If an old junkyard dog like me was offered the sexual services of little girls to get my hackles down, I wonder what was offered to the powerbrokers of this state to gain their support for silence,” Tweedy said. “Shame, shame, shame.”
Can't add anything to that wisdom.
2 Comments

Iowans Take a Stand on Eminent Domain for Private Gain

4/29/2015

0 Comments

 
Great news out of Iowa yesterday!  Legislation targeted to restrict the use of eminent domain by private companies not serving Iowans advanced as hundreds of landowners and other stakeholders gathered to speak out at a subcommittee meeting at the Capitol.

NPR has the story.  Listen to the audio, it's better than the print version.

Several landowners spoke out about abusive practices of land agents attempting to secure right-of-way.

“I've heard this from other landowners being told the same thing,” Murray says. “Right-of-way agents are saying this is inevitable so you better take the easement deal before you.”
A spokesman for Bakken crude pipeline company Dakota Access said what the companies always say when faced with the transgressions of their shifty land agents:
“If anybody knows of anyone who’s been dealt with unfairly,” Boeyink says, “get the names to me and we will deal with it swiftly.”
Yada, yada, yada, we will fire any land agent who violates the "code of conduct."  Tell me, if land agents were regularly subjected to firing for using abusively coercive tactics to secure easements, why does it still happen with such regularity?  I don't think I believe it.  I think it's merely window dressing for instances where a land agent is caught by a landowner in a pack of lies.  I think that companies routinely look the other way when violations occur, as long as easement agreements are being filed.  Because for every one unscrupulous land agent that gets reported in the media, there are probably hundreds of others that got away with it.  I have heard numerous horror stories about transmission right-of-way land agents, continuing up until the present.  Where there's this much smoke, there is certainly fire.

The Sierra Club seems to be backing off its hypocritical support of Clean Line transmission projects, while simultaneously opposing pipelines as an abuse of eminent domain.
Wally Taylor of Cedar Rapids, a lawyer for the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club, said his organization is worried about an "extreme risk to property and the environment" if the pipeline project proceeds. There is no doubt that oil spills will occur and it will be many years before the land can be farmed again, he added.

It's also clear that if Bakken crude oil is transported through Iowa, it will be shipped from Illinois onto the world petroleum market via the Gulf of Mexico, Taylor said. "This is all about private property. It isn't about benefiting Iowa or the nation," he said. Similarly, the Rock Island Clean Line would not provide a way for Iowans to connect to the line or to obtain energy from the transmission facility, he added.
That's right, Sierra Club!  Clean Line does not provide a way for pass-thru states to benefit from its projects!   The projects also destroy the environment and economy of pass-thru states and won't actually shut down any coal plants.  Not one!  Sierra Club should really get its act together here and stop worshipping at the alter of grant funding and renewable energy make-believe.

Clean Line's spokesperson tried to get the committee to believe the company plans on acquiring more than 90% of the easements it needs voluntarily. 

Paula Dierenfeld, representing Clean Line Energy Partners, said her company currently has obtained voluntary easements from about 15 to 20 percent of property owners and has a goal of obtaining "well in excess of 90 percent" voluntary easements. But she questioned the proposed requirement to obtain 75 percent voluntary sign-ups before eminent domain can be requested. She said a company could spend millions of dollars on obtaining easements without even knowing whether a project could move forward. She asked whether any businesses would support that idea.
Paula must be new.  Clean Line has obtained all the voluntary easements it's going to get, even with the hard sell tactics reported by Mr. Murray.  15%.  That's it.  The rest is a fairy tale.  The  people of Iowa aren't buying what you're selling.  You know, Paula, risk is a big, big part of being in the merchant transmission business when you don't have an order to construct the project from a regional transmission authority.  Maybe you should ask your bosses at Clean Line why they're supporting the company spending millions of dollars on obtaining easements without even knowing whether their project could move forward?

Way to go, Iowa!
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.