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

Creating Electricity Out of Thin Air

4/13/2020

0 Comments

 
What if you could paint your house over the weekend and cancel your electric service on Monday?  It probably won't be quite that simple, but researchers at the University of Massachusetts have developed a way to create electricity using the ambient humidity in the air.  In effect, they have "created electricity out of thin air."

I'm certainly no scientist (as my high school science teacher would tell you since I was either unsafely playing with the experiment ingredients or simply elsewhere during class time) but I've believed for quite some time that our current centralized electricity delivery system is going to be completely upended by the invention of a device that creates enough electricity to support your household load, and that you'll be able to install such a device in your basement utility area right next to your heating system, water heater, or any of the other individual devices that make your house livable.  Not sure exactly what it's going to be powered by (because if I did I wouldn't be here writing this blog) but it will happen.  Hopefully in my lifetime because I can think of nothing more satisfying than calling up one of those rude little drones at the "Potomac Edison" call center and telling them to cancel my service.

Oh, but wait... I'd need to be connected to the grid in case of emergency where my power supply goes on the blink?  Not hardly.  It would be just like the occasional failure of my current electric service.  Power supply appliance goes on the blink... call for service.  Meanwhile, I do have that nifty generator left over from my Potomac Edison service days.

So, maybe this is it?  The Air-gen is small right now, but they're looking at ways to scale it up to provide bigger and bigger amounts of electricity.
Yao says, “The ultimate goal is to make large-scale systems. For example, the technology might be incorporated into wall paint that could help power your home. Or, we may develop stand-alone air-powered generators that supply electricity off the grid. Once we get to an industrial scale for wire production, I fully expect that we can make large systems that will make a major contribution to sustainable energy production.”
Get that?  Off the grid.  If each building had its own electricity supply, we wouldn't need any centralized generation, no transmission, no distribution system.  Our electric overlords would become obsolete.

And guess what?  It's completely "clean" and "green". 
The new technology developed in Yao’s lab is non-polluting, renewable and low-cost. It can generate power even in areas with extremely low humidity such as the Sahara Desert. It has significant advantages over other forms of renewable energy including solar and wind, Lovley says, because unlike these other renewable energy sources, the Air-gen does not require sunlight or wind, and “it even works indoors.”
And it's perfectly distributed, requiring no centralized infrastructure, like gigantic solar or wind farms.  It can be installed anywhere, so no more excuses about having to transmit renewable energy thousands of miles to get it to "where it's needed the most."  Anyone who loves renewables can install their own power supply in their own home.  Done.  They won't have to sacrifice other people in remote areas "for the public good."

So, maybe we want to stop wasting time and money pursuing the construction of soon-to-be-obsolete solar and wind farms, along with an unreliable and absurdly expensive "renewable grid"? 

Similar scientific breakthroughs have happened numerous times in the past decade, but after a brief blip in the news they fall off the face of the earth.  Why is that?  Are they really that unworkable, or do their inventors end up in a cell next to Jeffrey Epstein in investor-owned centralized utility basement prisons?  Who's buying up this technology and killing it?

Maybe the utilities will eventually get smart enough to realize they have to adapt to survive, otherwise they're going to end up in the history books next to street cars and landline phones.
0 Comments

The Biggest Transmission Lies Renewable Energy Tells Itself

4/11/2020

0 Comments

 
Renewable energy writers are also suffering from Covid Ennui, if this transmission wish list is any indication.  The article profiles seven possible transmission projects "for renewables" and posits that if any of them are built it could "unlock a renewable energy bounty." 

Unlikely, and here's why.  The article is based on a foundation of stale lies the renewable energy industry continues to peddle.
  • ... big U.S. transmission projects seeking to carry wind and solar power from where it’s most cost-effectively generated to where it’s needed the most.
Where it's needed the most?  Where is that, exactly?  Who "needs" renewable energy the most?  And why is this renewable energy not generated near "need"?  It's no longer true (if it ever was) that most renewable energy is generated far from load.  The places "where it's needed most" all seem to be dense population centers on both coasts.  And guess what?  These places on the east coast are going gung-ho on building offshore wind and transmission to connect it.  This generation can be built within 12 miles of the cities "where it's needed most," although most of them are proposing to put it at least 30 miles offshore so they don't have to look at the generators.  The biggest battle seems to be connecting it at the shoreline.  Does it even make sense to avoid that battle in favor of new transmission from the west, thousands of miles long?  No, it does not.  New transmission to ship renewable generation to the east coast no longer makes sense, and furthermore, the ones "who need it most" aren't buying it.  Giant transmission lines from the Midwest are pretty much dead.

But, but, but...
  • The case for new multistate transmission lines has never been clearer. A growing number of states and utilities have set 100-percent-clean-energy goals, albeit with no obvious path to generating all that power close to home. The gap is growing between the transmission network’s capacity and the need to link wind farms in the Great Plains and Intermountain West, solar farms in the Southwest and hydropower resources in eastern Canada to other regions hungry for carbon-free energy.  
Some states that have set renewable energy targets actually have no idea where their "clean" energy is going to come from?  Isn't that a rather naive notion?  These states are not setting targets and then sitting back to wait for the energy industry to find ways to deliver it to them.  It is the energy industry that is eagerly proposing that these states get their renewable energy targets met with new generators in other regions and new long-distance transmission lines.  The states actually do have plans to make their goals happen, and they don't rely on passive sloth while the energy industry finds ways to meet the goals.  The energy industry is eager to provide these states with renewables from other regions using new transmission lines because that's how the industry makes money.  The industry figures if they can only make these states captive consumers of renewables from other regions that they can reap huge profits.  That's the only "need" and it's actually just greed.  There is no "need" to link wind farms in the Great Plains to "regions hungry for carbon-free energy."  These hungry regions actually aren't that hungry.  They brought their own lunch to the picnic.  The "hungry" regions want to develop their own renewables and the economic boost that comes from them, not send all their energy dollars to some other region.  They may be hungry, but they're not starving.
  • Transmission projects can be derailed at many points in their decade-long timeframes from conception to completion. Failure to gain regulatory approval from every state they cross, public opposition from environmental groups and communities worried about their negative impacts, or the refusal of any landowner along their path to cooperate are ever-present risks and have led to several high-profile project failures.
Wait a minute here... you actually think that one objecting landowner can derail an entire transmission project?  You make it seem like new transmission easements are voluntary on the part of landowners.  Are you truly unaware that transmission developers have proposed using eminent domain to acquire easements for multi-region projects that benefit other regions?  I'm not sure who you think believes this lie.  Also the idea that environmental groups oppose transmission "for renewables" is ludicrous.  Environmental groups love new transmission "for renewables".  They only oppose transmission for energy sources they don't like.  It's about the energy sources, not the transmission.

The real reason big transmission "for renewables" has failed is because these purportedly "hungry" regions don't want to buy the generation.  Transmission for renewables doesn't have customers.  Utilities have not signed up for service on new merchant transmission proposals.  This is the reason Clean Line failed.  It had no customers.  And even though they sold off their projects, the projects will still fail because they have no customers (looking at you, Grain Belt Express).

And then the article purports that there are at least 7 projects still "moving ahead."  My take on this list is that maybe only 3 of these 7 projects have any chance of actually happening.  The viable ones?  They're buried on existing rights of way.... SOO Green, The New England Clean Power Link, and the Champlain Hudson Power Express.  But buried projects are more expensive, and that may price them out of the game when a hungry region can build its own renewables at a competitive price.

What is renewable, "clean" energy worth to the hungry, anyhow?  Do they only want to be "clean" when they can foist the cost of their cleanliness onto other regions?  Is there a price point where a hungry region decides to just be dirty instead?  Instead you've got energy companies competing to be the cheapest option, and they're cutting costs by building cheaper generation in other regions and using eminent domain to acquire easements for new overhead transmission.  It's not that this energy is any cheaper, it's just that someone else is paying its true cost.  Overhead transmission on new rights of way is the hardest transmission to build because it receives the most opposition.  Opposition is costly in both time and money.  Transmission with opposition can linger for years before being cancelled, and the longer it lingers, the more likely it will be cancelled.  Successfully building transmission after decades of opposition is a myth from a history book.  It's not going to happen in this decade.

When is the renewable energy industry going to quit fighting to build what they want, and start building what the customers want?  Maybe right after they quit lying to themselves.  Hungry regions want to build their own renewables.  The only long-distance transmission that's viable is buried on existing rights of way.  Renewables need to be priced at their true cost.
0 Comments

More Missouri Municipality Misinformation

4/4/2020

0 Comments

 
The Missouri Public Utility Alliance (MPUA) and the Kirkwood electric department don't know how government works.

MPUA's spokesman recently opined regarding a recent Missouri Supreme Court rejection of an appeal of the MO PSC's decision to issue a permit to Grain Belt Express.
This decision sends a strong signal to the state legislature that the project has the constitutional basis to proceed with a wind energy transmission line through Missouri,” according to Kincheloe.
And, according to Kirkwood's Petty:
“We would also hope that this helps convince legislators that we will prevail in the courts if they attempt to block the project. Clearly precedent is on our side on this one and this Supreme Court decision demonstrates it,” Petty said.
I'm going to guess these two guys failed basic government classes.  The legislative branch makes the laws.  The executive branch enforces the laws.  The judicial branch interprets the laws.
Separation of powers is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.
If the legislative branch makes a new law that clearly prohibits the use of eminent domain for merchant transmission projects, the judicial branch would interpret it in conjunction with other existing laws, and the executive branch would enforce it.  The courts do not make laws.  And the courts cannot prevent the legislators from making new laws.  These two yakkity-yaks are beyond confused.  They seem to think that the appeals court decision the Supreme Court refused to re-hear somehow prevents the making of new laws because making new laws would be "unconstitutional."

Let's stop and ponder this... the decision of the court is based on EXISTING law.  It's not based on hypotheticals of passing new laws.  When a court determines that an existing law does not do what the legislators want it to do, it is up to the legislators to make a new law.

And that's exactly what they plan to do as soon as the legislature goes back in session.
“Quite honestly, I’ve been focusing on keeping the power on in the wake of the coronavirus crisis,” said Petty. “I’m not sure where things are in the Senate. Hopefully, this Supreme Court ruling will be something they use as guidance.
Sure they will... guidance demonstrating the urgency for making new laws!

In the court decision, the standard of review was whether the PSC had the authority to approve the project under the existing statute.  The court found that it did.  The court also had to determine whether the PSC's action was reasonable; that is whether it was based on substantial evidence.  The court found that the PSC's decision was reasonable.  The court also found that GBE met the definitions of "electric corporation" and "public utility" under existing laws.  However, if the law changes, all that goes out the window.  If the law prohibits the PSC from issuing a permit to a certain entity (such as a merchant transmission project as defined by the law), then all those prior findings fail at their source... whether the PSC has the statutory authority to approve the project in the first place.  If the PSC has no authority to issue a permit, none of the rest of it matters.  There are no constitutional issues here.

Full steam ahead at the legislature!
Earlier this year, the Missouri House of Representatives passed by a 118-42 a bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankfort. His bill will prohibit developers of the 4,000-megawatt high-level transmission project from forcing landowners to sell property.

“This bill protects the rights of landowners in Missouri,” Hansen has insisted in sponsoring the bill.

The Senate also is expected to support the bill along party lines. Petty has urged Kirkwood residents to contact legislators and express their concern over the statehouse blocking the new green energy source.
Looks like Missourians are in good shape at the legislature, once it's back in session.  If any residents of Kirkwood even bother to contact their legislators and plead their case to save a few cents on their electric bills, it is likely to fall on deaf ears.

This editorial masquerading as news is an untimely bit of propaganda based on a misreading of the law.  Legislators are not constrained in any way against the making of new laws.  Trying to convince them that they are is misinformation.

Be ready to go when the time is right, folks!  Defeat of GBE is still a very real possibility!
0 Comments

Poor, Poor Neville

4/3/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

PATH Zombie Using Your Money to Fund Appeal at DC Circuit Court

3/31/2020

1 Comment

 
Three things are certain in life... death, taxes, and PATH continuing to cost ratepayers money.
Picture
Last week, PATH filed an appeal of FERC Opinion No. 554-A at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  In this new battle, PATH asks a court to give it the last few things that FERC denied.  Why not?  After all, ratepayers are still picking up the tab for all PATH's legal fees and court costs.

Did you think PATH was over in 2011?  Or maybe 2012?  It wasn't.  There's still a charge in your electric bill every month to pay to keep the zombie alive so it can keep trying to collect even more money from ratepayers.

We got really close to closing the ratepayer ATM For Zombie Projects once, but FERC recently decided to keep it running for a while longer.  And this is how they get repaid for their generosity with our money.

PATH bites.

Ratepayers pay.

And pay.

And pay.

And pay.

And pay.

1 Comment

FERC Proposes New and Increased Transmission Incentives

3/27/2020

0 Comments

 
Well, hey, just what we need during an economic crisis, right?  Let's increase the electric bills consumers pay in order to enrich the utilities!  I'm thinking that utilities are going to emerge from this clusterferc as better investments than ever.  Where else could you get a double digit, guaranteed return on your investment during a recession?  Maybe FERC's timing is just a bit off, but that's not going to stop the utilities from bellying up to the consumer money bar and gorging themselves comatose.

I note that in its recently issued Rulemaking FERC fails to provide any evidence that transmission incentives are needed.  They just think they are.
While transmission infrastructure development has remained generally robust at an aggregate level, the types of transmission projects that are needed, and the use of rate treatments to incent them, must evolve to reflect the changes in market fundamentals.
This is garbage, plain and simple.  Where's the proof that transmission needs incentives to attract investors?  There is none.  However, FERC feels it is mandated to provide incentives by Sec. 219 of the FPA.
FPA section 219(a) requires that the Commission provide incentive-based rates for
electric transmission for the purpose of benefitting consumers by ensuring reliability and reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion. While we are encouraged by the investment in transmission infrastructure to date, our evaluation of the Commission’s incentives policy indicates that additional reform may be necessary to continue to satisfy our obligations under FPA section 219 in this new transmission planning landscape.
Well, hey there, we should all be happy that FERC can finally read the statute correctly (reliability AND reduced costs).  Except they forgot how to read a couple sections down from this one.

So, FERC is going to "benefit" consumers with its new take on transmission incentives.  It's going to toss out its current "risks and challenges" test and replace it with a consumer benefits test.  This test is going to consist of comparing a proposed transmission project's cost/benefit ratio to a "national average" of transmission project cost/benefit ratios that is compiled by hunting through regional transmission organization transmission plans to harvest the ones with a cost/benefit ratio that fits into the scenario FERC (or maybe it's the transmission owner?) wants to create.  Here's an example.
Picture
First they will separate transmission into greater or less than $25M.  Any project that hits the 75th percentile of the average benefit-cost ratio will receive a 50 bonus point ROE adder.  Any project that hits the 90th percentile after the project is completed is entitled to add another 50 points.  This whole thing is floating on top of the "average" benefit cost ratios that someone is going to create.  It's not really clear who is going to create these, and how much bias is going to go into the creation.  For example, the transmission projects selected for the PJM Region seem to use the ones with the highest ratios.  While rebuilds associated with the Transource IEC project made it into the equation, the IEC itself was not used to create the data.  With picking and choosing like this, benefit thresholds are as flimsy as wiping your hands on your pants to prevent infection.

What if a project is awarded that initial 50 points, but in the completed construction phase its ratio falls below the 75th percentile?  Should its incentive be cancelled?  Well, of course not.  I don't see that proposed.  It's all about handing out consumer cash for "estimated" benefits.

Next FERC proposes a "reliability benefit" incentive of an additional 50 points.  Somehow FERC's reading of Sec. 219 to provide reliability AND reduced rates gets forgotten here.  FERC proposes to award bonus points for "reliability" enhancements that go above and beyond NERC standards.  NERC's job is to ensure the transmission system remains reliable.  FERC's job is to regulate transmission rates.  But suddenly FERC thinks it knows more about reliability than NERC does and is in a position to decide which NERC standards need to be gold-plated.  Hogwash.  It's just a handout.  It doesn't benefit consumers.

The next part is just plain funny (and expensive).  All rates must be just and reasonable.  FERC has established a "zone of reasonableness" standard for transmission ROEs in order to ensure they are reasonable.  The current incentives scheme caps incentive bonus points at the top of the zone of reasonableness.  That is a utility's ROE, inclusive of incentive bonus points, cannot exceed the top of the zone.  Now FERC wants to toss that out in favor of a flat 250 bonus point cap.  So, even if a utility's base ROE is already near the top of the zone, it can still add 250 bonus points and exceed the zone of reasonableness.  And still be "reasonable."  Uh huh.  Right.  Transmission incentives don't have to be reasonable.  They're something else entirely.  Except Sec. 219 says they must be reasonable.  FERC's approach here makes no sense.

Non-ROE incentives are proposed to remain basically the same, except the abandonment incentive (if awarded) will become retroactive to the date an RTO approved the transmission project.  This closes the current gap between RTO project approval and Commission abandonment approval where the utility may have to *gasp* spend its own money!  I thought incentives were supposed to benefit consumers?  What happened to all that happy stuff about Sec. 219's purpose?  There is no "benefit" to consumers who pay for RTO mistakes such as transmission ideas that are never actually built.  There is no benefit here.

FERC tosses the transco incentive.  Good enough.

However, FERC proposes to INCREASE the RTO membership incentive from 50 bonus points to 100 bonus points added to a utility's ROE.  Ya know, based on the prior comment period that lead up to this rulemaking, I could have sworn that the case was made that the RTO membership incentive should be phased out.  Looks like FERC just ignored all of those comments and did what it wanted to do from the beginning, which was to increase this incentive.  Sec. 219 requires FERC to “provide for incentives to each transmitting utility or electric utility that joins a Transmission Organization.”  It does not specify the form of the incentive... it could just as easily be a little, plastic participation trophy as ROE bonus points.  There's also the issue about whether Congress meant to reward utilities who joined an RTO or continually reward them for remaining as members.  This whole thing is a joke.  What if states began a mass exodus from RTOs in order to avoid the consumer burden of this increased incentive?  Who would pay it?  Could utilities still charge consumers for their RTO membership if the consumers were no longer members?  And how likely may a state be to approve new transmission projects for a company with a huge incentive cost?  If they don't approve the transmission project to be built, the incentives mean absolutely nothing.  (Hey, maybe that's why there was that risks and challenges test?)  I'm thinking we may find the answers to these questions once FERC just goes merrily on its way of making new transmission incentives rules and ignoring all the comments it receives about better ideas.

FERC also proposes an incentive of 100 bonus points on the costs of "transmission technologies" as well as allowing the cost of operating them to be a regulatory asset for 5 years (to earn a return on the operating costs).  Transmission technologies improve the operation of existing transmission assets without building entirely new transmission lines.  We should be doing more of this and less building of new transmission on new rights of way.  But what does FERC care?  They're giving utilities full cost recovery + return for whatever transmission projects they want to try to build.  It doesn't matter whether they ever get built or not.... and I'm thinking NOT.  It's harder than ever to build new greenfield transmission.  It might be a better use of consumer funds (ya know, "benefit" consumers) to improve the existing transmission system before building new lines.

So, that's the basics.  It's an awful wolf dressed in "consumer benefits" clothing.  It does nothing but increase costs for consumers who pay transmission rates.  Just another giveaway to the utilities by the ones who are supposed to be protecting us from utility greed.

If you want to bang your head against the wall writing comments that nobody at FERC will read, please participate in this rulemaking.  Otherwise, just stand back and open your wallet.  Choices, choices.
0 Comments

Gimme cash!  I need to buy straws!

3/26/2020

0 Comments

 
Who's missing the good old days of individually wrapped, single-use plastic drinking straws being handed out at restaurants now?  Would you really put your lips on a restaurant cup handed through the drive-in window right now?  But... straws are destroying the planet!  We must outlaw straws!  Seems like we've replaced the climate crisis with the COVID crisis.  A real-time threat instead of a dire prediction.  And maybe all the climate change hysteria has been shoved to the back of the rack right now in favor of dealing with the actual threat we're all living with.

Except all the "clean energy now" folks are still trying to push their agenda while holed up in their urban paradise.  Everyone has probably heard something related to an effort to include financial incentives for wind and solar in federal economic relief packages.  That's kind of like worrying about your single-use plastic straw destroying the planet when a pandemic is killing thousands.

Depending on your political persuasion, you may think the attempt to shove environmental wish lists into federal relief packages isn't happening.  But it is.

Here's a "wish list" for the American Wind Energy Association.  AWEA sent a letter to Congress urging them to provide "relief" to the renewable energy sector.  As if they're not part of the corporate world already included in relief packages?  For some reason they need special, additional relief.

While this whole economic crisis was winding up, so was my anxiety over how we'd ever pay for it all.  Maybe we need to cut some pork.  The billions of taxpayer dollars handed out each year to big wind and big solar in the form of renewable energy tax credits seems like a good place to start.  After all, this industry has claimed that it is competitive in energy markets without any subsidy.  Isn't it about time to make them put OUR money where their mouth is?

Perhaps the most disturbing "want" by AWEA is "the ability to receive direct payments for or refundability of our tax credits would keep our current pipeline of projects moving forward."  In other words, big wind doesn't even want tax credits anymore because their ability to monitize them by selling them to other corporations has been hit hard by the economy.  Instead, big wind and solar corporations simply want the cash.  Instead of a credit on the taxes they may pay, they want the government to just hand them cash because they're unlikely to pay enough taxes to cover the credits they're earning.

How come I'm not allowed to sell my own tax credits to other taxpayers?  Oh, that we all could receive a payment from the government instead of credits to our tax burden!  Forget all those write-offs I'm allowed on my tax return, just give me cash instead!    Except I never get more write-offs than I can use.  Big wind does.  Maybe we shouldn't lose sight of that fact.  It's not a mere tax credit, it's a source of income.

So, maybe big wind's wish list didn't make it into the most recent economic relief package.  There will be more relief to come, and that's where they're focusing right now.  As more relief comes, it's going to start to look more like corporate Christmas and less like actual relief for the American people who need it.

Keep your eyes on this one.  Greed knows no bounds.

Meanwhile, use a straw, folks.  Go ahead, live large!  I must admit I've been stockpiling them and carrying them around for more than a year.  Have you ever seen how they "wash" bar glasses?  Even before COVID-19 I wasn't a fan of sharing germs on poorly washed, reusable restaurant ware.  And now I've got nowhere to use my stockpile of straws because I'm certainly not eating any food prepared by someone else.  No straws needed!

Yes, this too shall pass, and eventually I can enjoy a meal out again.  I have straws at the ready.  But will I ever look at the "climate crisis" as a real, imminent threat again?  Probably not.  The dangers of climate change have paled in comparison to the present threat.  And that presents a problem to the renewable energy industry, whose power to scare or shame people into submission has paled as well.

Perceptions have changed.  The money buffet may just be closed forever.

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
<<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

    August 2025
    July 2025
    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.