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

New FERC Transmission Permitting Rules

5/18/2024

0 Comments

 
Let's move on to FERC's new rules for permitting transmission projects in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor.  FERC also released this rule on Monday.  It's another instance of FERC batting away any constructive criticism and doubling down on a bad idea.  What's in the water down there anyhow?

If the U.S. Department of Energy designates a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor, and a transmission project is planned for that corridor, first the transmission developer must attempt to get state permits for its project.  In the event that a state denies a permit for a project, then the transmission developer can go to FERC, denial in hand, and ask that FERC overrule the state and site and permit the transmission project anyhow.

This may be the situation with MARL, and any other transmission project that DOE creates a corridor for.

FERC was given authority to site and permit transmission as a "backstop" to state inaction back in 2005.  FERC subsequently created rules for its process to do so.  When Congress changed the "backstop" law in 2021 to allow FERC to permit even when a state denied a project, FERC released a rulemaking to update its process.  During the rulemaking, FERC received numerous comments on its proposed rule and suggestions to make it better.  Across the board, FERC rejected most of these changes.

If you find yourself in a situation where the project you oppose ends up before FERC, you're going to need to know the rules for participating in that process.

FERC made only one useful concession between its proposed rule and the final rule issued on Monday.   The proposed rule allowed a transmission developer to begin the pre-filing process at FERC at the same time it filed its applications with state commissions.  That idea, which was widely panned by states and landowners, would have required landowners to participate in the FERC process at the same time as the state process.  Two permitting processes, two sets of rules, two sets of lawyers, two sets of headache.  All with the knowledge that the FERC process would become unnecessary if the state approved the project.  A complete waste of time.  However, FERC dumped that proposed rule and now says that a developer cannot begin its pre-filing until one year AFTER it files its state applications.  This gives the state a year to complete its permitting before the FERC process begins.  At least you won't be engaging in two permitting processes at the same time.  However, FERC did not speak to landowners' question regarding whether the FERC process would proceed while state appeals are pending.  For instance, if a state denies, the transmission developer could appeal that denial in state court, instead of engaging in the more expensive and lengthy FERC process.  Conversely, if a state approved and the landowners appealed that decision, when would the FERC process begin?  This means that this process is still subject to being shaped in practice.

The part of FERC's new rule that is truly awful is its insistence that an "Applicant Code of Conduct" will ensure that the transmission owner has "made good faith efforts to engage with landowners and other stakeholders early in the permitting process" as required by the statute.h
FERC has turned this into a box-checking exercise, not an actual determination of whether the transmission developer has complied with any "Code", as specious as it is.  The "Code" is generalized garbage and anyone who has ever had to deal with a transmission developer land agent would be able to drive a truck through its many holes.  It's not like any "Code of Conduct" you've ever seen used on any transmission project.  In fact, it's so short and devoid of any landowner protections, I can copy the whole thing right here. Applications 
Ensure that any representative acting on the applicant’s behalf states their full name, title, and employer, as well as the name of the applicant that they represent, and presents a photo identification badge at the beginning of any discussion with an affected landowner, and provides the representative’s and applicant’s contact information, including mailing address, telephone number, and electronic mail address, prior to the end of the discussion.

Ensure that all communications with affected landowners are factually correct. The applicant must correct any statements made by it or any representative acting on its behalf that it becomes aware were:
(i) Inaccurate when made; or
(ii) Have been rendered inaccurate based on subsequent events, within three business days of discovery of any such inaccuracy.

Ensure that communications with affected landowners do not misrepresent the status of the discussions or negotiations between the parties. Provide an affected landowner upon request a copy of any discussion log entries that pertain to that affected landowner’s property.

Provide affected landowners with updated contact information whenever an applicant’s contact information changes.

Communicate respectfully with affected landowners and avoid harassing, coercive, manipulative, or intimidating communications or high-pressure tactics.

Except as otherwise provided by State, Tribal, or local law, abide by an affected landowner’s request to end the communication or for the applicant or its representative to leave the affected landowner’s property.

Except as otherwise provided by State, Tribal, or local law, obtain an affected landowner’s permission prior to entering the property, including for survey or environmental assessment, and leave the property without argument or delay if the affected landowner revokes permission.

Refrain from discussing an affected landowner’s communications or negotiations status with any other affected landowner. 

​Provide the affected landowner with a copy of any appraisal that has been prepared by, or on behalf of, the applicant for that affected landowner’s property, if any, before discussing the value of the property in question.  
That's all the "protection" you get.  As long as a transmission developer files this and says it will follow it, then the box is checked and the transmission developer is "acting in good faith" no matter what it does.  "Avoiding" certain behavior is not the same as prohibiting it.  

Compare this crappy "protection" to what a group of experienced transmission opponents asked FERC to do in their comments.
impacted_landowner_comments.pdf
File Size: 620 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

You can expect to experience the same things landowners described in their comments, not FERC's rosy "landowner protections," which do little to actually protect landowners.  FERC believes that its "success" permitting natural gas pipelines will ensure landowners are treated fairly in the process.  If FERC's future permitting of electric transmission lines is anything like it's prior permitting for natural gas pipelines, we'd all better learn the words to this song:
FERC has chosen to become, in the words of Impacted Landowners, "...just another flashpoint that draws protestors to the Commission’s headquarters because the people understand they have been stripped of the last vestige of any fair process to defend their rights by a federal agency captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate."

​See you at FERC, friends.  Bring your singing voice!
0 Comments

But Wait!  There's More!

1/12/2021

1 Comment

 
A Missouri landowner recently commented that Grain Belt Express is starting to remind him of those folks who call to extend his car warranty.  It's all huckster, all the time.  Everyone is familiar with the infomercial huckster... he's not only selling a GREAT product, he's offering you bonus free gifts with your purchase.
BUT WAIT!  THERE'S MORE!
Perhaps someone at GBE spent too much time watching infomercials over the holidays... or got too into the Native American urban legends over Thanksgiving break...

Who hasn't heard the legend that Native Americans sold Manhattan to the Dutch for $24 worth of glass beads?
Picture
A Dutch West India Company representative sent a missive home in 1626:
They have purchased the Island of Manhattes from the savages for the value of 60 Guilders.
Ahh, those gullible "savages."  Tricked out of their land by shiny objects!
And now GBE is offering MORE for those eager savages... err... landowners who sign a voluntary easement to allow construction of GBE on their land!
Picture
That's right!  In addition to 20% of GBE's valuation of your easement property, you will also receive a pair of work gloves and a hat that you probably won't want to wear out in public as their amazing "Thank You" gift! 

Not available in stores!  Call now!  Operators are standing by!
Seriously?  Invenergy thinks that landowners who have resisted all their efforts to negotiate the sale of an easement will be swayed to do so now by a pair of gloves and a hat that's likely to spawn numerous arguments with friends and neighbors when worn?

Perhaps they need to hire someone for a few late nite infomercials?  Might I suggest this guy?
1 Comment

Grain Belt Express Admits It Plans To Change Project

1/10/2021

1 Comment

 
In a recent letter to landowners, Invenergy admits that it is PLANNING to change its Grain Belt Express project:
Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers.
This is a PLAN to change the project that was permitted by the Missouri PSC.  Invenergy admits that it will have to get this CHANGED PLAN approved by the PSC.
Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan...
But not yet.  Right now Invenergy has been telling the PSC that it hasn't decided to change the project yet and therefore can continue to operate under the existing permit.  Is that like asking your Mom if you can have a cookie after you've cleaned out the cookie jar?  The PSC isn't in the business of permitting projects after the fact... a utility project must be permitted before it begins activities.  Perhaps this is why the PSC has decided to hold a hearing on whether the changed Grain Belt Express project is no longer in compliance with the permit it was issued?

What other silly things does this letter say?
Increased Local Delivery to Kansas and Missouri
As you may be aware from recent news, Grain Belt Express has announced a proposed plan to increase the project's delivery capacity for Kansas and Missouri consumers. For many years before lnvenergy Transmission acquired the project, local stakeholders called for more of Grain Belt's power to be delivered locally. This plan makes sense as demand for clean energy has grown in Kansas and Missouri. For the first time, this would open the option for Kansans to benefit from energy produced in-state, and in Missouri, it would expand access beyond the 39 communities across the state that are already contracted to receive service from the line.
Under this plan, up to 2,500 megawatts of Grain Belt's 4,000-megawatt capacity would be delivered to Kansas and Missouri consumers, who would see up to $7 billion in energy cost savings over 20 years. This requires expanding the already-approved converter station in northeast Missouri, which would double the overall economic investment in Missouri to approximately $1 billion.
Local stakeholders called for increased local delivery of power from GBE?  Where?  When?  I don't recall that ever happening.  In fact, as far as the public is aware, GBE has failed to find "local" customers for all of its originally offered 500MW of delivery to Missouri.  That doesn't sound like a call for more local delivery.  It actually sounds like a call for LESS local delivery.

And the logic here is even worse... "local" delivery to Kansas would be effected by shipping power from Kansas to Missouri, and then back to Kansas?  Does Invenergy know how stupid that sounds?  Local delivery of power to Kansas would be most efficiently done on existing transmission.  You don't need GBE for that. 

Another problem with this "plan" is that GBE is a merchant transmission project (at least according to its current permits) that would negotiate service with voluntary customers.  If the "local" customers don't sign up for service, they receive none of it.  The customers of GBE would be distribution utilities that in turn sell electric service to retail customers.  There is no new "option" for Kansans to sign up for service individually.  They are captive consumers of whatever their electric provider decides to to, and  GBE has not revealed any voluntary wholesale customers, aside from a few municipalities who purchased "up to" 250MW of service (which is half of what was originally offered by GBE).  Where's the customers, Invenergy?

Expanding the converter station?  Has that been approved by the regional grid operator?  The grid operator must engage in numerous studies to determine how much power may be injected into the existing transmission grid by GBE.  Changing 500 MW to 2500 MW is going to be a significant increase in power.  It's going to require certain changes and upgrades to the existing grid, and Invenergy is going to have to pay for them all.  Perhaps Invenergy is planning to inject its power elsewhere on the grid?  The feasibility of expanding the converter station has not been made public.
Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan, which would also allow for project construction to proceed prior to approval in Illinois. In the meantime, as the proposed changes do not affect the approved route, project development activities are proceeding based on existing regulatory approvals.
Invenergy is going to ask for permission to build only a portion of the transmission line?  But GBE told the PSC that the economic feasibility of the line was premised on selling service to utilities in the eastern PJM grid at a much higher price, and in order to do that, GBE must be connected in Indiana.  Without the leg through Illinois, the project is not economically feasible.  Is Invenergy going to build a road to nowhere and hope that things come together later?  Doesn't sound very plausible, does it?  Invenergy would have a lot of explaining to do at the PSC before it got approved to do that.  In addition, GBE's Kansas permit requires approval in Illinois before it can build the project in Kansas.  Looks like two states would have to approve the road to nowhere.
In Kansas and Missouri, Grain Belt has moved from monopole to steel lattice structures, resulting in more compensation for landowners per structure.
Oh, please!  It's not about more compensation for landowners, it's because lattice structures are CHEAPER for Invenergy to build!  And why was it that lattice structures were compensated at three times the price of monopoles?  Because they're more invasive and take up more ground and are harder to work around.  Save the drama for your mama, Invenergy!
Grain Belt Express, along with its land partner, Contract Land Staff ("CLS"), is in active dialogue with landowners along the route as our team continues to sign voluntary easements in Kansas and Missouri. Thank you to those who have signed agreements to date. We value open conversations with landowners and landowners' attorneys to provide timely, accurate, and useful information that will allow you to make the best decisions regarding your land.
Voluntary.  All easements are voluntary.  So is "dialogue" with CLS land agents.  Thank you for signing an easement?  Did this letter really go out to landowners who have already signed voluntary easements?  Or was that some glaring attempt to make landowners believe they have missed the bandwagon if they have not signed up?  If so, that's pretty insulting to the intelligence of landowners.
Our goal is to secure all easements voluntarily and to make informed facility design decisions
related to your property. That is possible only with open communication. If we have attempted to contact you and we have not yet reached you or your legal representative, please contact your CLS representative at your earliest convenience.
Is Invenergy saying they have not yet made "facility design decisions" for the project?  I find that rather hard to believe.  It looks more like an attempt to get landowners to believe they can change the design of the project if they only call now.  Operators are standing by...

And then there's this.  I laughed so hard I gagged... and almost threw up.  Positive Energy?  Didn't the wheels fall off that when Invenergy rolled it out?  Who hasn't read all about it?
Positive Energy: Pass it Along
Finally, 2020 has brought some significant challenges to the world. We believe that Positive Energy is needed now more than ever. Grain Belt will bring affordable power for families and businesses, jobs for workers, and local investment in school districts, and public services - that's positive energy. With everything going on in 2020, we want to pass along positive energy to you, and hope you do the same. These days we all need it.
I don't know about Positive Energy... but I am positively revolted at GBE.  Is Invenergy positively lying to the PSC?  Is Invenergy positively negotiating with landowners under false pretenses when it negotiates for a different project than the one it has permitted?  Let's hope the PSC positively gets to the bottom of this!
Picture
1 Comment

Who Do You Think You're Fooling, Invenergy?

9/29/2020

6 Comments

 
 Now who do... who... who do you think you're fooling?
I got notice yesterday that Invenergy is sending this letter out to landowners along GBE's route.  There's a lot to argue about in this letter, in particular this imperious statement by Invenergy:
"Grain Belt Express will be seeking regulatory approval for this plan, which would also allow for project construction to proceed prior to approval in Illinois. In the meantime, as the proposed changes do not affect the approved route, project development activities are proceeding based on existing regulatory approvals.”
It sort of makes your head hurt, right?  "We need regulatory approval for a new plan" but on the other hand "we're proceeding to try to negotiate an easement based on the approval of our old plan."  Sounds to me like Invenergy doesn't have a valid approval for its current plan.  The route has absolutely nothing to do with it!

And then I got to the end of the letter.  The last paragraph positively smacks of poorly concocted propaganda.
Positive Energy: Pass it Along

Finally, 2020 has brought some significant challenges to the world. We believe that Positive Energy is needed now more than ever. Grain Belt will bring affordable power for families and businesses, jobs for workers, and local investment in school districts, and public services - that's positive energy. With everything going on in 2020, we want to pass along positive energy to you, and hope you do the same. These days we all need it.

For more information about the project visit the project website at www.GrainBeltExpress.com
and Follow us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/GrainBeltExpress.
What in the world does any of that have to do with landowner notification or easement negotiation?  Not a thing.  It's an incongruous insertion that's maybe supposed to have some psychological effect on the landowner reader... a little bit of "feel good" siphoned off the national coming-together in the initial days of Corona.  Sorry, Invenergy, that ship has sailed.

Did Invenergy and its PR contractors have a virtual meeting lately where landowner distrust and hatred were discussed as a problem to solve?  Did they cook up a new marketing slogan to deploy on landowners in order to make "feel good" happen while reading a letter talking about acquiring easements, and distract the landowner to engage with GBE for a positive reason?  Geek out, public relations geeks! 

The new branding statement is "Positive Energy."  It's capitalized like a proper noun.  It's designed to pop up with annoying frequency in GBE's marketing to landowners in order to replace all those hateful thoughts about GBE with Positive Energy!

Convinced that Positive Energy was some poorly designed marketing ploy, I took GBE up on its invitation to visit their Facebook page because I was pretty certain I'd find a glowing roll out of Positive Energy on social media.  I wasn't disappointed.  In fact, the whole exercise made me laugh for hours.

On GBE's Facebook page, there was this video. *
With everything going on in the world right now, we couldn’t think of a better time to focus on the positives. We’d love to hear your stories. We’ll start – We’ve been working with landowners across the country to build clean, reliable, low-cost energy solutions for communities. Let’s keep that energy flowing! Tell us stories of positive energy being passed in your community.
And someone had already commented to share their Positive Energy story!
Katie Hatfield-Edstrom
I've noticed more of those sidewalk share libraries pop up in our community lately. I love seeing them and so does my kiddo. The idea is so simple...give what you don't need anymore and take what you do. I've also seen small community pantries with non-perishables and small farmer stands. In times like this, it is nice to see people thinking of how they can share and help others out. I guess the food and books are just the Positive Energy that feeds our souls these days!
Isn't that interesting?  Miss Katie had capitalized Positive Energy in her comment.  Now what random person would be so cued into the marketing scheme of capitalizing the catch phrase like that?

I found it completely irresistible. 
Turns out that Katie the Commenter works for HDR.  HDR is a "strategic communications" contractor "that works to help our clients manage the social and political risk associated with infrastructure development."  HDR does this by "...specialize[ing] in grassroots education and outreach through existing social groups in communities. Our teams leverage web, video and social networking and are experienced with wide-scale media campaigns that include targeted digital, print, television and radio material."  Katie is the "Strategic Communications Power Sector Lead & Senior Coordinator" at HDR.  Her skills are:  "Katie is a skilled communication strategist that has expertise in message construction, audience analysis, and is trained in facilitation. Prior to her tenure with HDR, Katie was a university professor, specializing in public communications, campaigns and social movements, and media communications. As a senior coordinator, she is responsible for leading strategic communication efforts for our clients. Katie practices her understanding of communication while leading local, regional, and statewide projects. She excels in leveraging existing communication strategies, while employing fresh tools and technologies to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients."

Considering that Katie was the only commenter, and had her comment answered by "Grain Belt Express" saying "We love that!", I got a little curious about who was using the "Grain Belt Express" account as their sock puppet.  So, I asked:

Make sure the branding slogan is in caps, Katie from HDR, Grain Belt's public relations contractor.  Nice touch!  I just hope some other HDR employee is using the GBE profile, and you're not talking to yourself.
Picture
Suspecting what was about to happen next, I preserved this comment thread...  And wouldn't you know it?  GBE deleted my comment and Katie uncapitalized the words "positive energy" in her post within minutes.  If I was totally off base with my theory, there was no reason for Katie to edit her post (and it does say "edited") and certainly no reason to kill my post like a surprising hidden rattlesnake.

So, I renew my question... Who do?  Who?  Who do you think you're fooling, Katie, HDR and Invenergy?  Your attempts to change landowners' feelings about GBE don't seem to be working.  I'm not sure you really understand the problem you're trying to solve.

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

Positive Fail.
P.S.  No hard feelings, Katie (because I know you're reading this).  I've been eating PR geeks for breakfast for more than a decade now.  You're certainly not the first.
*UPDATE:  Whoops!  It looks like Positive Energy has died an early death.  Invenergy/HDR/Katie simply deleted the entire Facebook thread about Positive Energy yesterday.  Positive Energy has been chucked out with the garbage.  However, it looks like Invenergy found something new to use while it was rooting through the trash yesterday.  Stay tuned!
6 Comments

Are Grain Belt Express Land Agents Trespassing?

9/23/2020

0 Comments

 
That's the question posed by Missouri Landowners Alliance and Eastern Missouri Landowners Alliance in the petition recently filed in the Circuit Court of Randolph County.

MLA/EMLA contend that because the Missouri Public Service Commission's Certificate of Convenience and Necessity provided that negotiations with landowners would be in compliance with the Missouri Landowner Protocol, and because the Protocol includes GBE's "Code of Conduct" for negotiating with landowners, therefore all negotiations shall be in accordance with GBE's Code of Conduct as filed in the record of the case.

The Code of Conduct says it:
applies to all communications and interactions with property owners and occupants of property by all employees, right-of-way agents and subcontractor employees representing [Defendant Grain Belt] in the negotiation of right-of-way and the performance of surveying, environmental assessments and the other activities for the Grain Belt Express project (the “Project”) on property not owned by Grain Belt Express.”
The Code of Conduct further states:
“[a]ll communications and interactions with property owners and occupants of property must be respectful and reflect fair dealing”. That statement was immediately followed by subparagraphs (a) through (p). Subparagraph (g) of that list states in part as follows: “Obtain unequivocal permission to enter the property for purposes of surveying or conducting environmental assessments or other activities.”
MLA/EMLA contends that attempts to negotiate easements with landowners are "other activities," therefore GBE must obtain unequivocal permission from the landowner to enter the premises for the purposes of discussing easements.

The Petition further asserts that GBE land agents have not been seeking, nor have they been granted, permission to enter private property.  They have been simply showing up on landowner doorsteps and attempting to negotiate easement agreements on the spot.

The Petition seeks a declaration that GBE land agents who enter private property without first obtaining unequivocal permission to enter from the landowner are trespassing, and that GBE be enjoined from further trespassing without landowner permission.

The case has been docketed and assigned to a judge.  Keep your eye on it!

Meanwhile, beware of GBE land agents showing up at your place unannounced... they may just be trespassing!
0 Comments

What Does Invenergy Say About Missouri Landowners When They're Not In The Room?

9/15/2020

1 Comment

 
Invenergy filed some stuff on the Missouri PSC docket for the first of the three pending landowner complaints about its Grain Belt Express project last week.  I say "stuff" because honestly I'm having a hard time believing Invenergy said some of this stuff publicly, where the landowners it's trying to win over can read it.  Was all of this stuff really necessary, if Invenergy is the much beloved, transparent, community benefactor it wants the public to think it is?  Does the PSC need this kind of stuff to dispose of this complaint?  It kind of looks to me like Invenergy is about to blow its stuff in frustration.

There are three distinct documents of stuff.  The first is Invenergy's response to the Staff's report.  Not sure what was actually in the Staff's report since it was completely confidential, but I'm guessing it was a doozy if we can judge from the way it seemed to wad up Invenergy's corporate shorts.  Here are the kinds of things Invenergy says to regulators where, perhaps, the landowners aren't reading them.
Respondents’ commitment to working with local communities and landowners has been evident since Invenergy began managing the Grain Belt Express Project. As acknowledged by Staff’s Report, Grain Belt trained its agents on their obligations both before and after the Formal Complaint (“Complaint”). The agenda for the June 2-3, 2020 training shows that Invenergy spent 1 hour and 45 minutes training its land agents on the Code of Conduct, Missouri Landowner Protocols, and the Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocols. The email to land agents prior to the June 2-3, 2020 training directed them to review the Code of Conduct and other material on the GrainBeltExpress.com website. The script example used for training begins with the land agent introducing herself/himself as “with Contract Land Staff representing Invenergy and the Grain Belt Express transmission line project.” The materials for the June 25, 2020 training shows that Grain Belt held detailed discussions with its land agents on the Code of Conduct, Missouri Landowner Protocols, and the Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocols.


Based on the training materials, as well as written landowner communications that are replete with references to Grain Belt, there is absolutely no basis to conclude that land agents are incentivized to make false statements about Grain Belt’s involvement in the development of the Grain Belt Express Project, as alleged by the Complainants. It makes no sense. The Staff Report does not address this scurrilous allegation, but based on the absence of intent, the Complaint is reduced to--at most—an unintentional misstatement by land agents that have been trained and re-trained to make truthful statements. Further, there is no reliable evidence that such misstatements actually occurred. It is just as likely that the landowners misheard or misinterpreted the land agents’ truthful statements that Clean Line is no longer involved in the Project.
Oh, bonus!  Use of the word "scurrilous" to describe the complaints of landowners who feel they are being taken advantage of or tricked in some way.  Scurrilous:  making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation: a scurrilous attack on his integrity.  Oh, poor, poor Invenergy's reputation!  Is this scurrilous language supposed to improve Invenergy's relationship with targeted landowners across Missouri?
Respondents are not opposed to the recommendation by Staff that Grain Belt “periodically continue training to current Land Agents and ensure new Land Agents receive all available training.” Nor are Respondents opposed to the recommendation that “this training focus on protocols including, but not limited to, the Missouri Landowner Protocol, which includes the Code of Conduct for Missouri, and the Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocols.” However, Respondents assert that the Commission does not need to “direct” Grain Belt or Invenergy to take such action--and further--it would be bad public policy to issue such directive. As explained above and throughout the record of this case, Respondents have demonstrated that they already have and will continue to train their land agents, with a focus on adherence to the Missouri Landowner Protocols, the Code of Conduct, and the Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocols. If the Commission directs Respondents to do something they are already committed to doing, it will only serve to encourage additional, non-substantive, baseless complaints and to discourage the good faith, best efforts of Grain Belt to be responsive to landowner concerns, as discussed in Section II below.

Good faith efforts to assert that all landowner complaints are baseless and scurrilous?

Invenergy believes landowners should be restricted to filling complaints with the company, instead of bothering the PSC.  If GBE believes all landowner complaints are baseless and scurrilous, what hope is there that Invenergy would treat any complaint filed with the company differently?  This defies logic...
Before filing their Complaint, Complainants did not take advantage of the procedures set forth in the Missouri Landowner Protocols for the purpose of reporting alleged violations of the Code of Conduct. Those procedures provide: Landowners are provided with contact information for both ROW agents, as well as contact information for the corporate office of Invenergy Transmission LLC ("Invenergy Transmission"), the parent company of Grain Belt Express, in order to ensure that a landowner can directly contact the Vice President of Invenergy Transmission or any other corporate employee leading land efforts on behalf of Invenergy Transmission (the "Land Team") to report any possible violations of the Code of Conduct. Reported violations of the Code of Conduct are taken seriously and are investigated by the Vice President and the Invenergy Transmission management team.

Picture
On August 21, 2020, a group called “Block Grain Belt Express” issued a press release that purported to be “warning landowners to be cautious after two separate complaints against Grain Belt Express (“GBE”) and its representatives have been filed with the Missouri Public Service Commission ....” Accordingly, it is evident that groups opposed to the Project are using the Complaint to interfere with and damage the easement acquisition process and increase the cost of the Project, despite the fact that Grain Belt provided the relief sought nearly two months prior to the press release.
Oh, perish the thought that anyone "interferes" with Invenergy's visits to the landowner hen house or increases the cost of the project!  Invenergy is simply entitled to use all means at its disposal to acquire easements as cheaply as possible.  Just remember, cheaper easement acquisition costs go right into Invenergy's pocket and don't reduce the rates charged, like they would in a cost-allocated public utility project where customers pay only the cost of service.  Invenergy will negotiate its rates with voluntary customers, presumably to negotiate the highest rates it can collect for service in a free market.  Invenergy's rates won't change if it costs them more or less to acquire an easement.  The difference in costs only makes a difference in Invenergy's profits.

Of course Invenergy should be ticked off at any group who lets the public know about any complaints that have been filed, in the interest of transparency and good community relations, right?  Let's keep those complaints swept under the rug (like the PSC Staff report!) or confined to Invenergy's corporate office.
Based on Respondents’ demonstrated commitment to training its land agents and the lack of evidence regarding an intent to mislead landowners, providing any further relief to Complainants is unnecessary. Moreover, issuing a redundant directive would encourage Project opponents to file numerous additional complaints--regardless of substance and without using the informal processes already in place--in order to facilitate additional press releases, tout the Commission’s directive as a punishment for Grain Belt, impair the easement acquisition process, and increase the cost of the Project. Finally, issuing such a redundant directive would discourage Grain Belt and other public utilities from taking proactive, voluntary actions to respond to landowner or customer concerns. While Grain Belt will always provide sufficient training to its land agents, one of the benefits of proactive action is the avoidance of protracted complaint cases and Commission orders that may be viewed by some as punitive.
Does Invenergy think that "project opponents" are not landowners who are entitled to file complaints?  Can Invenergy pre-judge the purpose of all future complaints this way in order to discourage landowners from filing them?  Will the filing of additional complaints make Invenergy stop taking proactive voluntary actions to respond to landowner and customer concerns?  Who are these customers?  Landowners want to know!

And check out this "undisputed fact" from Invenergy's Motion for Summary Determination.
There is no genuine dispute that there are no recordings of the phone calls and therefore “it is nearly impossible to ascertain what exactly was said, and in what context of the conversation.”
So, are landowners supposed to record all phone calls from Invenergy land agents in the future?  Just to be fair, shouldn't the landowner state that the call is being recorded at the beginning of the call?

And don't miss Invenergy's Memo in Support of Motion.  Who doesn't love being called "merely argumentative, imaginary or frivolous ."  Too bad the Grain Belt Express isn't imaginary...

Invenergy seeks to drive home their contention that phone calls with land agents should be recorded.


...the Complainants, after an adequate period for discovery, have not been able and will not be able to produce sufficient evidence to allow the Commission to determine that a misstatement by the land agents actually occurred. The Staff of the Commission (“Staff”) stated in its Report: “without a phone recording of the conversations, it is nearly impossible to ascertain what exactly was said, and in what context of the conversation.” Report of the Staff, p. 7. It is just as likely that the landowners misheard or misinterpreted the land agents’ truthful statements that Clean Line is no longer involved in the Grain Belt Express Project.
Or perhaps they merely imagined that Invenergy's land agents made frivolous statements merely to be argumentative?

I've been searching for my tiny violin... this occasion begs music!
The Commission should not reward the Complainants’ eagerness to file the Formal Complaint without first pursuing informal relief. Undisputed Fact Nos. 11-13. Nor should the Commission reward the Complainants for their continued pursuit of the Formal Complaint, despite the clear willingness of Respondents to grant the relief requested. Undisputed Fact Nos. 14-15. This process has been an unfortunate misuse of the Commission’s resources and an unnecessary and costly hindrance to the Grain Belt Express Project, which the Commission has deemed to be in the public interest. If the Commission “directs” Respondents to conduct training that is already occurring (and will continue to occur regardless of the outcome of this proceeding), it will likely be touted as punitive towards Grain Belt, which will encourage additional unproductive formal complaints of this nature.

Landowners should try to remember how much Invenergy loves and respects them while they record every future phone call.

Does this sound like a company enjoying its cordial interactions with folks in rural Missouri who shall become its eternal partners on the Grain Belt Express transmission line?  Or is it the sound of frustrated failure?
1 Comment

Invenergy Finally Admits It's Not Building Clean Line's Grain Belt Express

8/26/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
Nudge, nudge, nudge... did it get a little hot under that magnifying glass, Invenergy?  Seems like Invenergy rushed its gush just a little bit yesterday, because it just doesn't make sense.  There are still crucial parts missing.  However, the fake news corporate-controlled media probably won't notice because they are no more than well-trained parrots anymore.  They don't know, and don't care, whether the "news" they report makes sense... they just re-print glossy press releases as if they mean something.

The media has never understood, and fails to understand now, that GBE is just a transmission line without enough customers to make it feasible.  GBE does not sell electricity, wind powered or otherwise.  It is nothing more than a toll road.  So when Invenergy and the media gush on about how much a transmission line will save consumers, it's complete and utter garbage.  Without the wind farms built and in operation (and they're not, not even on any planning list) nobody knows how much the power would cost, it's nothing but a guess.  As well, nobody knows how much the transmission line is going to cost consumers.  The rates GBE will charge its VOLUNTARY customers are still to be negotiated.  If the rates negotiated with customers who so far don't exist are high, so are the costs consumers will pay to use the transmission line.  If the rates negotiated in the future are low, then costs consumers pay to use it will be low.  GBE has NO IDEA how much it will charge its customers to use the transmission line in the future, but it's a given that GBE will try to charge the highest prices it can negotiate.

GBE only has ONE rate scheme.  It has been authorized to negotiate with voluntary customers to sell service on an open-access transmission line under FERC rules.  It has no state rate mechanism where it can add its costs to the rates captive electric customers pay.  Saying that Grain Belt Express + some vague generation that doesn't exist will save the citizens of Missouri up to $50 per month on their electric bill is nothing more than a shell game.  It's just guessing.  GBE's "report" from a hired consultant is nothing more than speculative garbage.  It tries to sound all scientific, but it actually says nothing more than... "We created an equation that produced this number.  We can't let you see the actual equation, or the actual data we used, or the variables we tossed in, but just trust us on this one.  Our answer is valid!"

Oh, please!

Unless, it's not an open-access merchant transmission line selling capacity at negotiated rates, but instead the GEN-TIE Beth Conley mentioned.  A gen-tie would combine Invenergy's generation with Grain Belt Express and sell buyers generation delivered to eastern Kansas or Missouri, instead of just transmission service (plus a contract for generation that would have to be negotiated with a third party).  That would look sort of like this statement:
The transmission line and associated wind generation (collectively referred to as “Grain Belt Express” or “Grain Belt”) are projected to create significant cost savings for electricity ratepayers in Kansas and Missouri.
Who is going to buy this service or product?  Grain Belt Express has been trying to sell 500 MW of transmission service to Missouri since like 2014, and has only managed to sell "up to 200 MW" to MJMEUC at a loss leader price.  During PSC hearings, project owners said they would make up for the below-cost price MJMEUC was paying by selling service from Missouri to Indiana and charging more for it to make up the difference.  Without the leg to Indiana, who is going to pay more than their share to support MJMEUC's sweet deal discount?  And if GBE had so much difficulty selling "up to" 200 MW of its offered 500 MW of service in Missouri that they had to reduce it to sell at less than it costs GBE to provide the service, who is going to buy the other 300 MW of service to Missouri, much less the additional 2,000 MW Invenergy now says it's offering to Missouri customers.... and pay way above cost of service for it?

And what happens if Invenergy dumps 2,500 MW of imported wind energy from Kansas (or other places, like Oklahoma - google "States Edge Wind") into Missouri's electric grid?  That's 2,500 MW of electricity currently produced in Missouri that will be supplanted by a variable source produced in another state.  That's more power than produced by Missouri's largest electric power plant -- no longer needed by Missourians to keep their lights on.  Will Missouri's electric generators be closed, causing massive unemployment and loss of tax dollars for the communities where they are located?  Did Invenergy figure that into it's phony equation?  And how much harder will the surviving electric generators have to work to cycle up and down to support such a large variable resource to make sure the grid's delicate balance is maintained?  Missouri needs to think long and hard about importing such a large amount of variable power, and sending its energy dollars to Kansas and Chicago.  When power produced in Missouri is used in Missouri, the economic boost and energy dollars stay in Missouri.  Supporting economic development in Kansas does NOT fix Missouri's economy!  The nonsense Invenergy is spouting simply doesn't make sense.

And what about Illinois?  Invenergy is pretending it ran into some sort of regulatory snafu there and that's what spurred this sudden change.  There's absolutely no evidence that Invenergy ever applied for a permit in Illinois!  And the one Clean Line obtained was cancelled by the ICC at the direction of the Appeals Court.  Invenergy would have to start from scratch by filing a new application for a permit before it could run into any regulatory snafus.  Invenergy's snafu seems to be of it's own creation by failing to actually file anything in the first place.

And speaking of regulatory filings and state permits...  Invenergy informs that it's going to have to apply to both Kansas and Missouri to make changes to its current permits.  What if one or both states require completely new applications for this completely new project?  This isn't the Grain Belt Express approved by Kansas or Missouri.  It's a completely NEW project that has simply appropriated GBE's name and a portion of its route.  It's a completely new project for a completely new purpose owned by a completely new company.  It deserves to be subject to a completely new state review.  So much has changed that relying on existing information under the guise that this is still the same project is nothing less than lying by omission.
And, hey, guess what?  If Invenergy's permits are no longer valid because they're no longer building the project they had permitted, then Invenergy/GBE no longer has eminent domain authority!  No reason for landowners to even acknowledge GBE land agents that have been calling.  GBE/Invenergy CANNOT take your land until it receives new or updated permits.

Way to win community support, Invenergy!  Now people probably think Invenergy is an even bigger liar than Clean Line Energy Partners ever was.  And the truth is still missing!
0 Comments

Caveat Venditor, Missouri!

8/14/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
Seller beware!

Landowners along the proposed GBE route have found it necessary to file two separate complaints at the Missouri Public Service Commission regarding the behavior of GBE and its land agents as they bombard landowners with requests to "negotiate."  Grain Belt Express seems to be in a great big hurry but perhaps the landowners aren't buying the slick, carnival spiel.  You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool a farmer!  Perhaps Invenergy missed all the earlier Mayberry lessons?

The first complaint, filed on June 22, reveals that a GBE land agent calling a landowner on the phone stated,
“Grain Belt is no longer involved with this business” (or possibly, that “Grain Belt is no longer involved with the business.”)
It was a strange one-off until a second landowner got a similar call from the same GBE agent who made similar statements.
Based on statements made during those telephone conversations by the two CLS agents, Mr. Daniel was also led to believe that Grain Belt was no longer associated with the proposed transmission line project.
Now it's a pattern involving one particular land agent.  Was lying to landowners about who owns GBE, or possibly the name of the project, working for this land agent?  Was it getting his figurative foot in the door?  But it's dishonest!  It's against the GBE Code of Conduct for Land Agents that's on file at the PSC. 

However, Invenergy's attorneys denied it ever happened and filed an affidavit from the land agent denying ever saying anything like that.  Who believes a liar?  The landowner reported that the land agent told him a lie... so why wouldn't the land agent tell the PSC another lie?  You know what happens when you lie... one little lie leads to other lies to cover up the original lie, and the next thing you know everything is a lie... and then you're just a liar.

What a coincidence -- a land agent is accused of saying something that dovetails nicely with Invenergy's current attempt to publicly wash its hands of the GBE name and make landowners believe it's something different.  Why else would Invenergy use door hangers that say "under new ownership"?  And why would they be purchasing country hams in the name of "Invenergy Transmission" instead of Grain Belt Express?  Invenergy's efforts to shed GBE's bad juju have been numerous.  Lying to landowners could be just one more manifestation. 

Landowners aren't falling for this crap, are they?

So, the PSC will investigate.  Or something.

A second landowner complaint was filed just this week.  This complaint comes from a landowner who noticed differences between the standard easement that Clean Line used that was approved by the PSC, and a new standard easement sent to him by a new GBE land agent.  This new easement form has NOT been approved by the PSC and may not be in the landowner's best interest.  Items that changed:
  • Section 26 of the revised easement introduces an entirely new provision, titled “Waiver of Jury Trial”. Printed in all caps, so as to highlight its obvious importance, this section essentially provides that if there is any unresolved dispute regarding any provision of the easement agreement, the parties automatically forfeit their right to settle the issue in a jury trial.
  • Section 21 of the revised easement includes another new concept, under the heading of “Severability.” It essentially states that if any provision of the easement is found to be invalid, the remaining provisions of the document shall remain in full force and effect. There was no similar language in the original easement.
  • Section 23 of the revised easement, mentioned in the preceding subsection, attempts to protect Grain Belt from legal defects in a document which was drafted (or at least approved) by the Respondents themselves. It would force the landowner to join with Grain Belt in correcting such defects by either amending the easement or signing a new easement in a form reasonably requested by Grain Belt.
  • Section 2.e of the revised easement, titled “Site Plan”, could seemingly have the landowner signing the easement as tendered without even knowing the type and number of support structures, if any, which would be installed on his or her property. The “approximate location” of the structures, as referred to in Section 2.e, may or may not mean that those structures will eventually be built on any particular parcel of land. And without that information, the landowner cannot determine what the total easement payment will be, and thus cannot logically decide whether or not the proposed easement is in their best interest.
  • Section 8 of the revised easement, titled “Cooperation”, seemingly gives Grain Belt the right to sign documents in the landowner’s name, without the landowner even knowing the specific language in the document being signed.
  • Section 22 of the revised easement is also new. It provides that the activities of both parties shall be controlled by the Missouri Landowner Protocol, Missouri Agricultural Impact Mitigation Protocol, and the Code of Conduct -- “as may be amended, supplemented or replaced from time to time....” Based on this quoted language, Grain Belt has apparently given itself the unilateral right at any point in time to revise or replace any of the documents in question. And those revisions would presumably constitute binding provisions of the easement.
  • Under Section 10 of the original easement agreement, Grain Belt was generally given 30 days to cure any monetary breach of the agreement before it could be terminated by the property owner. Under Section 12 of the revised agreement, that period has been extended to 60 days. This change is significant, in that it could allow Grain Belt to salvage an easement which could otherwise be terminated. If 30 days was sufficient during the entire course of the CCN proceedings, there is no reason to believe that is still not the case.
  • In Exhibit C to the new agreement, Grain Belt grants itself a three year Easement Agreement Extension, as opposed to the two years specified in the original easement.  Again, this is simply another example of Grain Belt’s attempt to unilaterally modify the terms of this important document to its own advantage.
  • The Missouri Landowner Protocol, compliance with which is mandatory on Grain Belt’s part, provides in part as follows:  Grain Belt Express will pay landowners for any agricultural-related impacts (“Agricultural Impact Payments”) resulting from the construction, maintenance or operation of the Project, regardless of when they occur and without any cap on the amount of such damages. For example, if the landowner experiences a loss in crop yields that is attributed to the operation of the Project, then Grain Belt Express will pay the value of such loss in yield for so long as such losses occur. In other words, the intent is that the landowner be made whole for any damages or losses that occur as a result of the Project for so long as the Project is in operation.  This language clearly means, for example, that Grain Belt would be responsible for crop damages resulting from soil compaction anywhere on the property for as many years as those damages continue. The same would be true for crop losses resulting from damages to drainage systems.  Crop damages are addressed in Section 3 of the revised easement agreement, which is at best confusing. It first echoes the general principles quoted above from the Landowner Protocol. However, it goes on to state that the compensation as computed in Exhibit E to the revised easement “is in satisfaction of all loss in crop yields attributed to construction of the Facilities ... throughout the Term of this Agreement and Grantor [the landowner] waives all additional claims for loss in crop yields associated with such construction ....”  So one must look to Exhibit E to determine if it preserves all of the rights to compensation provided for in the Landowner Protocol. At best the answer is unclear. At worst, the revised easement can be read as eliminating a potentially significant portion of the compensation for crop damage required under the Landowner Protocol.
  • As is apparent, Section 3 and Exhibit E of the revised easement either totally confuse the issue of crop compensation, or more likely, they would act to reduce by potentially significant amounts the actual compensation to which landowners are entitled under the provisions of the Landowner Protocol. In either case, those provisions of the revised easement agreement should be eliminated.
  • Section 6 of the original easement states that if the easement is terminated by Grain Belt, it must remove its facilities within 180 days of the termination. Under Section 11 of the revised agreement, Grain Belt would only be required to remove the facilities “as soon as practicable”.
  • Section 13a requires that if someone purchases the land on which an easement has been granted, the new owner is required to notify Grain Belt in a specific, detailed manner before Grain Belt is required to make any payments to the new property owner. No such provision was included in the original easement, and nothing has occurred in the interim which would warrant this more stringent notification process.
  • Section 2 of the original easement refers to the grant as being “a perpetual exclusive agreement.” The comparable section in the revised easement does not specify that the easement is to be “perpetual”. This change could cause needless confusion not only on the part of landowners, but potentially in any future litigation related to the term of the easement. The original language should be reinstated.
  • Finally, Paragraph 2.d of the revised easement gives Grain Belt the right to use the property in question “for installation, operation, and maintenance of fiber optic cable ....” The problem here is that the CCN does not authorize the installation of fiber optic cable as part of the Grain Belt project. 
That's a lot of changes.  Looks like Invenergy just did a wholesale re-writing of the easement agreement.  I'm pretty sure they didn't do it for the benefit of the seller.  Invenergy's lawyers work for Invenergy, not you.  Never sign anything without the advice of a lawyer who works for you!  The second complaint is the reason why.

Invenergy has reneged on a lot of Clean Line's promises about GBE, and not for the better.  Remember the monopoles?  Yup, gone.  All towers will be lattice.  They're cheaper to build, you know.  Spare no expense for the landowner who will be looking at it in perpetuity.  As well, the name "Grain Belt Express" has become a dirty word best not mentioned in the hope that the landowner will forget to pick up all the old GBE baggage before negotiating.  Now the easement and other documents that the PSC thought provided a measure of safety to landowners have been tossed out the window and replaced with documents that give Invenergy more rights and landowners less compensation.

What else has changed?  Don't you think it's time for Invenergy to come clean about exactly what it thinks it's building now?  It's not Clean Line's Grain Belt Express.  What if landowners refuse to negotiate until they have answers?

Caveat Venditor, Missouri!
0 Comments

Building Community Trust

8/9/2020

1 Comment

 
That's an important part of any infrastructure project, and Invenergy has completely failed at the task.

Behold!  An Invenergy/GBE door hanger left on a landowner's door.  Know where it ended up?  The trash can.  It had to be separated from the household refuse in order to sit for its recent photo session.  I'm going to guess that's a giant grease stain at the top, and not a weird, gray cloud.
Picture
And how does Invenergy attempt to build community trust with this door hanger?  
NOW UNDER NEW OWNERSHIP!
Obviously, Invenergy understands that nobody trusted the prior owner of the project, Clean Line Energy Partners.  But simply stating there's a new owner doesn't get the job done.

Clean Line spent years holding community meetings and events with pulled pork sandwiches, bouncy houses, and other "fun" attractants for local residents to come and develop a cordial relationship with the company based on trust.  There was even a ham dinner, where one lucky landowner filled up his own sack with a pile of ham slices.  That event was so successful, it transformed an ordinary house cat into the amazing Miss Kitty Hamm, who is able to communicate through the internet for brief periods of time.
Picture
Unfortunately, like all cats, Miss Kitty Hamm has developed a little bit of an attitude.  She recently penned a note asking for more Grain Belt Express ham, but Invenergy is a cheap date.  It prefers to do ABSOLUTELY nothing to foster trust in the local community.  I tried to explain that there's little a company can do during these trying times.  There's a pandemic raging and person-to-person contact and sharing of food isn't a good idea.  But Miss Kitty Hamm can be incredibly stubborn...
Food is the key to a kitty's heart, however, the humans at Invenergy have underestimated the intellectual abilities of the average feline and the people who serve the cat kingdom.  We can read!  Where's the news stories?  Where's the colorful community advertising?  Where's the outdoor music festival where kitties and humans can cavort at a distance while enjoying music and speeches?  Where's the donations to food banks?  Where's the new parks being built for the communities?  Where's the cash donations to help the local schools with the added expense of distance learning?   Where's the catnip mice for the local animal shelter? There's plenty a "new owner" can do to win the hearts and minds of your average kitty.  Invenergy is failing to do anything to build trust with the communities in Missouri!  Without a pile of free ham, I simply cannot trust these people!
P.S.  That's not a grease stain.  My litter box needed changing.
The community's mistrust of Invenergy is raging.  First thing they did was eliminate Clean Line's proposed monopoles and replace them with cheaper and more invasive lattice structures.  Invenergy has not bothered contacting local county commissions to seek assent for its project.  Without assent, this project is not fully permitted.  And speaking of permits, Invenergy STILL has not bothered to submit an application for a permit in Illinois.  There's no end point for this project.  Where's the end point?  Well, Invenergy isn't saying.
Western Kansas and the surrounding area to customers in Missouri and other states in the region.
Well, that's sort of like dialing your binoculars out of focus, isn't it, Invenergy?  Clean Line's project used to go from Western Kansas to a substation in Indiana for delivery to eastern states.  But now Invenergy's project begins in "the surrounding area" of Western Kansas.  What "surrounds" Western Kansas?  Other states, like Oklahoma, where Invenergy owns the unfinished States Edge Wind Farm.  Other states like Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, and even Texas.  How many potential wind farms does Invenergy own in those states?  On the eastern end, what other states are in the same "region" as Missouri?  Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas?  Where are the customers in those states?  How big is a state "region"?  Invenergy could be planning to build a transmission line through Missouri that begins and ends anywhere... or nowhere at all.  And since Invenergy is just so vague these days, should we ask ourselves who does that?  Who builds the middle of a highway to nowhere that doesn't connect with any known roads on either end?  You can bet that Invenergy has a plan... it's just not one it wants you to know about right now.  In fact, it appears that they don't want anyone to know about their actual plan right now, including regional transmission organizations, other utilities, and especially state regulators.  Not exactly a way to win your trust, is it, Kitty?
Meow!  Err... no.  I trust Invenergy about as much as I trust that smiling sadist at the veterinary clinic with the syrupy voice and greased fanny pole behind her back.
Trust in Grain Belt Express is at an all time low in Missouri. 
UPDATE:  Ya know how Facebook spies on you and attempts to show you things you may like?  Miss Kitty Hamm hopes this means that Invenergy is planning another community ham dinner!  And sometimes the jokes just write themselves...
Picture
1 Comment

Can Grain Belt Express Cure Coronavirus?

7/2/2020

2 Comments

 
OF COURSE NOT!
Leave it to the Missouri Times to publish a bogus editorial claiming that GBE could be solely responsible for Missouri "avoiding a catastrophic recession."

Hold your nose (and maybe a barf bag) while reading this pack of prevarications.  It's GBE spokespuppet Lee Barker, back again to try to convince Missouri how great GBE is going to be.  C'mon, Lee, who are you trying to convince?  GBE has been bumping around Missouri for at least a decade now.  There are no minds left to change.  Glossing over the repugnance of the project only serves to set more opposition to the project.  Is the purpose of this diatribe an attempt to make the guilty feel better about themselves?  I really don't think the guilty care.  They know they did wrong, but they did it anyhow because they wanted to please an out-of-state corporation who wants to make a whole bunch of money off the backs of Missouri citizens.

Where to start?
The developer of this clean energy infrastructure project has begun sending letters to landowners about the financial compensation they’re entitled to. Soon, rural Missourians will start to receive some of the more than $20 million that this project will pay to landowners over its life.
However, contributing landowners aren’t the only Missourians who stand to benefit from the Grain Belt Express Transmission Line.
Yeah, we know... and landowners simply don't care.  The "letters" are going right into the trash.  Nobody is going to receive anything because they're not signing easement agreements.  Tell me, Lee, how do you know how much GBE is going to pay landowners?  Did Invenergy share that information with you?  That would be untoward, don't you think?  Invenergy hasn't negotiated anything with anyone yet, but yet Lee knows how much this is going to cost the company.  $20M divided between 700 landowners -- but Invenergy stands to make billions BILLIONS on this project over its lifetime.  Does this seem fair to you?  I also noticed that Invenergy is trying to get landowners to select to receive their "compensation" over decades, instead of when their land is taken using eminent domain.  Why would anyone do that?  There's a whole lot to digest in an Invenergy "letter" and it's best to discuss it with your attorney and tax advisor before taking any action (other than using it for animal bedding).

Lee seems confused about the difference between compensation and benefit.  He uses both words.  They mean entirely different things.  Compensation is something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.  Compensation is an attempt to make a victim whole.  Benefit, on the other hand means an advantage or profit gained from something.  The landowners are gaining nothing in this deal.  Eminent domain merely requires "just compensation", it doesn't require "benefit."  There is no benefit for "contributing landowners."  Contributing?  Yes, these landowners are contributing a portion of their wealth, peace of mind, and sense of place to a for-profit corporation in Chicago, and they're being forced to do it against their will.  I wonder how much of Lee's 401(K) he "contributed" to Invenergy's profits?  I'm going out on a limb here to guess none.  Lee doesn't contribute anything, but he thinks others should.
Local energy suppliers will have the opportunity to use the more affordable electricity and pass the savings onto their customers. This will lower utility bills by more than $12 million every single year. 
Oh, please.  The savings aren't guaranteed and there is no requirement that any municipal utility "pass the savings" onto customers.  Your city utility could use the entire savings to host a ritzy shindig celebrating Michael Polsky and you'd get nothing.  Or maybe the woke mob can commission a statute to their new leader?  Tell me about the savings after they happen.  What guarantee is there that Invenergy won't pull out of the MJMEUC contract entirely?  Better check that contract again...
The Grain Belt Express will also put a serious dent in the staggering unemployment rate by hiring 1,500 Missourians to work on the transmission line. While most infrastructure projects demand massive tax breaks in return for this level of job creation, the Grain Belt Express hasn’t asked for a single state incentive. In fact, it will inject more than $7 million into local communities through taxes. 
1,500 jobs are going to pull Missouri out of a sure recession?  Doubtful, even if 1,500 Missourians were offered jobs building the transmission line, which they won't.  So far, landowners have seen a handful of land agents from out of state.  The highly specialized labor required to build a project like GBE is also going to be imported.  Jobs for Missouri aren't a part of GBE.

Of course GBE has asked for a state incentive!  It's asked for the solemn power to take private property for its own use in order to make a profit.  Much bigger than a minor tax break... and speaking of taxes... really.... $7M?  That's chump change!  How much will Missouri communities have to spend fixing roadways destroyed during construction?
Economic stimulation on this scale is quite rare, but it should come as no surprise. Under new ownership by U.S.-based Invenergy, the Grain Belt Express has become much more than a means of transferring clean, renewable energy across the state. It also includes a plan to bring broadband internet to communities in need. 
Today, over 40 percent of counties in Missouri are without improved health care, education, business, communication, and entertainment because they lack broadband. Grain Belt Express aims to bridge the so-called “digital divide.”

Well, maybe the local communities can use their $7M windfall (spread among 8 counties, mind you) to actually make GBE's broadband accessible?  Putting a wire on a pole doesn't create broadband by magic.  You make Missouri sound like a straight-up slum, Lee!  These poor communities don't have health care, education, businesses, communication or entertainment and only Invenergy can come to their rescue?  Pure hogwash!
Hey, maybe you could use your "letter" to wash your hogs, or other fattened pigs wandering around your communities spreading manure?
2 Comments
<<Previous

    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

    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
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.