Spectra Energy Watch

Spectra’s “Pipeline Asset” Kills Sea Grass Beds in Florida

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently fined one of Spectra Energy’s “pipeline assets” for killing sea grass beds in Florida.

The St. Petersburg Times reported that:  “[Florida] State environmental regulators announced Friday that they are fining a natural gas company more than $200,000 for killing sea grass beds in Tampa Bay.”
Link: http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/article995078.ece

The April 25th news report identifies the guilty company as Gulfstream and explains that:  “Gulfstream is a Tampa-based company formed by a partnership between Oklahoma’s Williams Cos. and Spectra Energy of Texas.”

According to Reporter Craig Pittman, Gulfstream was building a 17-mile pipeline and:  “used a technique called horizontal direct drilling, cutting its hole for the pipeline a minimum of 3 feet down from the bay’s bottom.  To lubricate the drill, the company used a chemical called bentonite, which is made from volcanic ash.”

There was a “frac-out” when the bentonite chemicals “broke out of the hole” and “The chemical spill smothered the sea grass beds, the DEP found.”

“Nearly an acre of sea grass beds was affected by chemical release, the [Florida] DEP found. More than a half-acre of sea grass sustained further damage from the grounding of the cleanup barges,” according to the news report.

Gulfstream Natural Gas is described as one of Spectra Energy’s “pipeline assets,” according to the company’s website.  See link:
http://www.spectraenergy.com/what_we_do/businesses/us/assets/gulfstream/

Spectra Speak:  “Just Compensation” = Compensation Just for Us

“… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
– 5th Amendment to US Constitution, Bill of Rights

Spectra Energy knows how to spend money in the right places: from generous compensation for its execs and board members, to sports sponsorships.

For example, last week, the company announced it would financially support eight Canadian and US amateur athletes “competing for their national teams in winter sports.”  See link:
http://www.spectraenergy.com/news/releases/2009/apr/20090423_01.asp

The corporate press release did not disclose the amount of funding donated by Spectra Energy, but according to Allen Cameron, reporting in the Calgary Herald, “Spectra is doling out a total of $214,000 over three years to the Olympic hopefuls.”  See link:  http://www.canada.com/sports/2010wintergames/Canadian+doesn+into+funding+irony/1530062/story.html

Corporate social responsibility?  Or a smarmy way to achieve community and political “buy in” (so to speak) in order to offset issues like eminent domain “takings” and environmental problems?

There are variations on this theme in communities across North America where Spectra Energy is seizing property rights and dismissing property owners with the confident application of its power of eminent domain – thanks to government.

Spectra representatives show up at local 4H events, buy the prize steer and give it back to the youngster who raised it.

They hope the sound of local applause will drown out the invasive sound of their seizure of private property rights in those same communities.  And it’s easier than treating property owners as key stakeholders who possess the vital asset Spectra Energy desperately needs to secure its profitable business model.

Here is a test of value:  Who would be hurt the most if property rights could no longer be seized by Spectra Energy?  Hint:  Property owners would throw a party and not invite Spectra Energy – even if they offered to buy the potato salad.  On the other hand, Spectra Energy would be in deep tapioca.  That speaks to who possesses the most valued asset.  For many property owners, Spectra Energy’s seizures significantly diminish the value of their property.

As a business, Spectra Energy has many assets – but property owners are not one of them.  Property owners’ asset – THEIR land – is seized by Spectra Energy under the power of government via eminent domain (or expropriation in Canada).

Spectra Energy gives lip service to the notion of “just compensation” but is dismissive of it in reality.  It tells landowners – in writing – that they have a right to seek just compensation in court, then files a motion with the federal judge asking him to forbid property owners from making various economic loss arguments because it would confuse, mislead and distract the jury.  See the April 3 blog titled “Words vs. Deeds” at this link: http://spectraenergywatch.com/blog/?p=187

This is the same company that:

• Paid its CEO Fred Fowler nearly $5 million in compensation last year, according to the Associated Press.  Now that’s “just compensation” in the gas industry!  Fowler retired as CEO at the end of 2008 and now sits on the board of directors.

• Refuses to offer landowners the same (and better) lease agreement it willingly signed with their next-door neighbor, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, for use of public lands (i.e., taxpayer funded lands).

• Dismisses landowners in press accounts as greedy and wanting more than their damages are worth, according to Susan Waller, Spectra Energy’s VP of Stakeholder Outreach.  (Stakeholder Outreach!)  This is the same Ms. Waller who admitted in a July 1, 2008 e-mail, that storage capacity “is a vital tool in providing the market with timely access to its contracted supplies.”  (Emphasis added.)

This “vital tool” – seized by Spectra Energy from property owners – will allow it to use a different (and more profitable) pricing model to charge its customers for storing their gas under our property, the “vital tool.”

Spectra Energy – Who’s Your Daddy?

Duke Energy: Legacy of Spectra Energy’s Past – What Kind of Corporate Culture Would Create This Level of Animosity Among Its Own Employees?

Family trees often reveal character traits – and that’s as true of companies as it is for individuals.

Spectra Energy’s family tree shows a significant link with Duke Energy. As the Spectra Energy website reveals, its U.S. roots began with Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company in 1929. See link:http://www.spectraenergy.com/who_we_are/history/

After a series of corporate “begats,” the company’s name was changed to PanEnergy in 1996. The following year, Duke Power and PanEnergy merged to form Duke Energy. Ten years later, in 2007, Spectra Energy was spun off from Duke Energy.

This family tree offers insight into the behavior and corporate culture we are dealing with at Spectra Energy – especially when one considers that at least 7 former Duke Energy executives are running the show at Spectra Energy.

At least four members of the current executive leadership team at Spectra Energy came from Duke Energy, including Gregory Ebel, Spectra Energy’s current CEO. See link: http://www.spectraenergy.com/who_we_are/leadership/

At least three members of Spectra Energy’s Board of Directors came from Duke Energy, including Fred Fowler “who led the successful spin-off of Spectra Energy from Duke Energy in 2007,” according to the Spectra Energy website. Mr. Fowler was Spectra Energy’s first CEO. See link:http://www.spectraenergy.com/who_we_are/board/

The point? Check out a very unusual website called the Duke Energy Employee Advocate at: http://www.dukeemployees.com/

This independent-from-the-company website accuses the Duke Energy management team of lying to employees. There are references in the website to current executives at Spectra Energy – from their Duke Energy days. And they are not flattering references.

Hmmm. Could there be a family resemblance?

The site is a bulletin board of issues, commentary, reproductions of news articles, letters to politicians and so on. It is exceedingly negative about its employer, Duke Energy, its leadership team and the company’s ethics.

The stated purpose of the site is centered around “improving benefits and equitable treatment,” including (and perhaps especially): “The restoration of retirement-pension benefits lost to the cash balance conversion.”

Judging from dates used on the website, the Employee Advocate might have started in the year 2000. If that is correct, we have an employee-controlled website that for approximately 9 years has slammed Duke Energy for its lack of integrity.

What kind of corporate culture would drive this level of animosity among its own employees? If a company cannot persuade its own employees that it is ethical and acting in their best interests – how can it possibly be credible with external stakeholders and audiences (including property owners)?

For example, following is an excerpt from commentary on Fred Fowler, Spectra Energy’s first CEO and former Duke Energy exec. The setting appears to have been a talk to employees about safety. This excerpt begins with the headline:

Fast Freddie Fowler Flounders

Employee Advocate – www.DukeEmployees.com – September 27, 2004

http://www.dukeemployees.com/duke2.shtml#flounders

“Fred Fowler came on like a storm trooper, declaring all the great things that he was going to push through. He formed a committee. Management was going to be held accountable for safety. There were going to be zero accidents on the job. There were going to be zero deaths on the job. In fact, no one was even going to get sick on the job!

….

“Mr. Fowler is not much on admitting mistakes. This may be a holdover from serving in the old management regime for so long.

.…

“He will probable [sic] never be referred to as an inspirational executive.”

I contacted the Duke Energy Employee Advocate website to see if someone would be willing to share more insight into the gene pool that begat these two corporate cultures. No response has been received yet, perhaps because they want to maintain anonymity.

In the meantime, landowners who wonder whether they can trust energy companies might want to visit this employee-controlled website and learn what employees think.

Spectra Energy’s “Inquiry Report” – Will This Dog Hunt?

With all of its piety in preparing a 32-page inquiry into improper and unethical behavior toward landowners, what is the toughest conclusion found by Spectra Energy?

We might hold a contest modeled after “American Idol” to see which statement in the report would get the most votes. The problem is the lyrics in this 32-page report are hard to follow – in fact, the writing is downright convoluted.

To set the stage, however, remember this inquiry involved at least:

• 5 high-level officers of the company (perhaps more in reality);
• 1 VP who was not supposed to be involved, according to company protocol (but that was not disclosed except on this blog – see post for April 10, 2009, Pious Mouse Wash 2);
• Some number of outside lawyers;
• Interviews with multiple Right-of-Way (ROW) agents and project engineers;
• Interviews with 17 landowners

As we have previously noted, the mountain labored mightily and brought forth a mouse – a pious mouse. Does the pious mouse have any teeth when it comes to speaking truth to the power of Spectra Energy?

One modest candidate for a best-in-class admission by a gas industry company is the following, found near the end of the report. Let’s step through key excerpts in this chain of pain and you will begin to see the challenge.

Feel free to consult the attached pdf to better follow the music and lyrics: “Inquiry Report – Response to Benard Allegations” filed with FERC 1-22-09 (pp. 26-27 of report, pp. 29-30 of pdf). spectra-energy-inquiry-report-1-0931

“Allegation #3 (Finding 8) – There was no general disposition or tactical effort for Project Representatives to use eminent domain as a threat to coerce landowners to execute agreements. … There was no evidence that Project Records or Project Representatives participated in or witnessed any threats to use eminent domain. (Finding 8(a))” [p. 26 of report, p. 29 of pdf]

BUT:

“There may have been a single ROW agent that [sic] diverted from the principles of the ROW Training in dealing with certain members of the Landowner Group. … Taking the landowners allegations at face value but without admitting the truth of the allegations, this particular ROW agent’s behavior may have been considered intimidating or bullying with the ROW agent’s alleged statements referencing the certainty of the Project’s approval by FERC and emphasizing the issue of eminent domain.” [emphasis added, pp. 26-27 of report, pp. 29-30 of pdf]

You’ve got to love the line, “Taking the landowners allegations at face value but without admitting the truth of the allegations….”

Therein lies the code breaker to Spectra Energy’s Inquiry Report: The object was never to admit the truth of any of the allegations.

Think about it:

• What kind of liability would that create for a publicly held corporation like Spectra Energy?
• Every executive involved in this inquiry depends on Spectra Energy for his or her economic livelihood. What are the odds that a zealous investigator would emerge? This was the “clean up” crew.
• A serious finding on unethical behavior would likely embarrass the executive leadership team and the board of directors. (Collectively, this is a group of 22 individuals, nearly all white males with the exception of 2 white females and two persons of color, from a company that says it is committed to “embracing diversity and inclusion” in its corporate charter. Perhaps they should be embarrassed already.)
• A serious finding on unethical behavior might also impact Spectra Energy’s relations with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
• And what about Spectra Energy’s reputation inside the gas industry? (As in, “You people are attracting unwanted attention to gas industry activities – what are you thinking!”)

Too much risk – legally and from a reputation standpoint. Spectra Energy might have gained some credibility if it had added one outsider to the inquiry team (which I suggested to them); but that would have threatened control of the “lid” on this inquiry.

This dog was never going to hunt, not publicly anyway.

Spectra Speak:  “Reaching Mutually Agreeable Resolution”

Conventional wisdom says, if you are proud of your work, you sign it.  The Spectra Energy “Inquiry Report:  Response to Benard Allegations,” is anonymous when it comes to pride of authorship.  It admits only that:

“An investigation team consisting of three high level Spectra Energy employees whose responsibilities do not involve the Project [i.e., Steckman Ridge] were assigned to perform an internal inquiry ….” [p. 1 of report, p. 4 of pdf, “Inquiry Report – Response to Benard Allegations” filed with FERC 1-22-09]  spectra-energy-inquiry-report-1-093

In response to my question, I learned that the members of this high-level team are:

• Tom Stanton, Associate General Counsel in Spectra Energy’s Waltham, Massachusetts, office;

• Jim Haynes, Vice President of Human Resources, Houston;

• Katherine Maidens, Right of Way Manager, Houston.

I was further informed that the report was reviewed and edited by Joe Ramsey, Group VP and Richard Kruse, VP of Regulatory Services and Chief Compliance Officer.

The report was also touched to some extent by Vinson&Elkins, which describes itself as “a Global Law Firm Serving Business Clients.”
Link:  http://www.vinson-elkins.com/

Interviews with 17 property owners were conducted by Messrs. Ramsey and Haynes and, of course, Ms. Waller.  Her participation, as previously noted, was in violation of the original protocol for the alleged investigation established by Mr. Kruse; and not acknowledged in the final report submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  (See “Pious Mouse Wash 2,” post for April 10, 2009.)

There are repeated references in the 32-page report to “reaching mutually agreeable resolution through negotiations.”  Or similar words.  For example, page 22 of the report (p. 25 of the pdf), we find:

“… it is the Project’s intent to amicably resolve all outstanding concerns to the mutual satisfaction of the landowner and the Project.”

But we’ve seen this movie before.  For some time during 2008 (before it was pulled down), Spectra Energy proudly ran a 3-minute video of then-CEO Fred J. Fowler in which he declared:

“We define success by building mutually beneficial relationships … and conducting our business with an unwavering sense of integrity, stewardship and accountability.”

While the report takes pains to define “lying” (apparently for good reason), it does not explain what Spectra Energy means by the “mutual satisfaction of the landowner and the Project.”

Would mutually beneficial relationships mean, for example, that property owners could expect the same lease agreements that Spectra Energy (and gas companies) gives for use of public lands that are under the supervision of the Pennsylvania Game Commission?  Note that public lands means the taxpayer (e.g., property owners) paid for them.

Uhm, no – that’s not going to happen.  How could we dare think that citizens should receive the same treatment that big business gives to government (taxpayer funded government)?  Sorry, we got a little light headed there.

Instead, property owners who deal with the gas industry soon learn to translate “Spectra Speech.”

For example, Property Owner Jim Gipson tells a hilarious story about his offer to Spectra Energy to give them his property rights for free.  As Gipson told the Spectra Energy agent, if the company would give the gas to the elderly and the needy for free, he would give them his property rights for free.

The Spectra Energy representative howled in protest, “No – we can’t just give it away!”  To which Jim replied, well you want me to give away my property rights for free so you can charge somebody else for the gas storage under my property!  You can see and hear Jim’s story on our website video.

Perhaps the theologians at Spectra Energy – and elsewhere in the gas industry – could explain what is meant by “mutually beneficial relationships?”  Hint:  We’re back to words vs. deeds, principles vs. platitudes.

Since the company is interested in definitions, perhaps they will like this one.  It is a definition of fraud by William K. Black, former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention, who now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.  Black was interviewed recently on Bill Moyers Journal.

Link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html

“Fraud is deceit. And the essence of fraud is, ‘I create trust in you, and then I betray that trust, and get you to give me something of value.’  And as a result, there’s no more effective acid against trust than fraud, especially fraud by top elites, and that’s what we have.”

That is worth repeating when it comes to gas industry and Spectra Energy behavior:  “And the essence of fraud is, ‘I create trust in you, and then I betray that trust, and get you to give me something of value.’”

Sound familiar?  And it is not the same as lying.

More to come about Pious Mouse Wash – stay tuned.

From the very beginning of its alleged investigation, Spectra Energy had what it considered a strict protocol for ensuring an “independent” investigation into complaints about unethical behavior toward landowners – never mind they were investigating themselves.

The key to independence, they said, was that no employee involved in the Steckman Ridge Project would work on this investigation.

Richard Kruse, Spectra Energy’s VP of Rates & Regulatory Affairs & Chief Compliance Officer, was scrupulous about this in a conference telephone call back on June 20, 2008.

Spectra Energy would set up an independent group to investigate with an objective set of eyes.  None of the people involved in this alleged investigation would have any involvement with the Steckman Ridge Project, he declared.

While that is hardly a high hurdle for ensuring integrity, it turned out to be untrue.  In other words, Spectra Energy could not even meet its own standard for “independence and objectivity.”

The unnamed player in this corporate morality drama is Susan Waller, Spectra Energy’s VP of Stakeholder Outreach, who was part of the investigation and who interviewed two of the landowners in violation of the company’s strict protocol for ensuring “independence.”

Hired by Spectra Energy in May 2008, Waller quickly moved into an advocacy role for the Steckman Ridge Project.  In news coverage, for example, Ms. Waller dismissed property owners as folks who simply want to be paid more money than their damages are worth.

This from an executive whose total compensation is likely 6 figures; and whose former CEO (Fred Fowler) received nearly $5 million dollars last year in compensation.

To compound its problem, Spectra Energy does not even acknowledge its ethical failure in its final report – though I had a conversation with two of its executives about this issue back on September 24, 2008, during our interview as part of the alleged “investigation” in Rochester, NY.

During that Sept. 24th interview, Group VP Joe Ramsey and Human Resource VP Jim Haynes acknowledged that Susan Waller had conducted two of the interviews with landowners but she wouldn’t be doing anymore; and they realized her actions violated the protocol set down by Chief Compliance Officer Richard Kruse.  In fact, they appeared to be embarrassed when I told them I was aware that she had conducted interviews.

Perhaps that is why the legal theologians at Spectra Energy spent so much time on p. 27 of the “Inquiry Report” parsing the definition of a lie.  (See post for April 8, “Pious Mouse Wash 1.”)  [See also p. 27 of document titled, “Inquiry Report – Response to Benard Allegations,” p. 30 of pdf, “Allegation #4, Finding 9”] spectra-energy-inquiry-report-1-092

In my recent telephone conversation with Group VP Joe Ramsey (see April 3rd  post “Words vs. Deeds”), he said, “The fact that we did not disclose this is an act of omission, not commission.”   Hmmm, I’m flipping through my 32-page Inquiry Report but cannot find a definition for “omission.”

I thought it might be under “lie” on p. 27; but nothing further is there.

More to come next week about the Pious Mouse Wash – stay tuned.

Energy Industry:  We Didn’t Do Nothing

The above sentiment captures the view of landowners in Bedford County, PA, who have suggested that Spectra Energy needs a new slogan to run beneath its corporate name plate:  “We didn’t do nothing.”

In January, Spectra Energy filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the results of its self investigation into complaints about abusive and unethical behavior toward landowners during the Steckman Ridge Project.  A pdf file of the “Inquiry Report” is attached.  spectra-energy-inquiry-report-1-091

The resulting 32-page document is an illustration of the ancient proverb about the mountain laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse.

A pious mouse to be sure.

On p. 27 of the document (p. 30 of pdf), readers are treated to the Webster dictionary definition of “lying” to support the company’s assertion that, “There is no evidence of willful ‘lying’ by any Project Representative to landowners.”  The document goes on:

“The verb to lie, as defined by Webster’s Dictionary, is defined as, ‘to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.’  Allegations of lying typically involve a ‘he said/she said’ scenario or in the case of response to a question which is provided within the context of a general statements [sic] in lieu of technical or specific detailed response.”

[“Inquiry Report – Response to Benard Allegations,”
filed with FERC January 22, 2009
p. 27 of document, p. 30 of pdf, “Allegation #4, Finding 9”]

Got that?

The statement is so labored you can hear the heavy breathing of ten gas industry lawyers behind it.  Do half-truths, statements of omission, and dissembling have separate definitions?  (In contrast, listen to the landowners’ stories on the video that runs on the Welcome page of this website, as well as on YouTube.)

The 32-page “Inquiry Report” is so bad it’s good, in terms of what it reveals about Spectra Energy and the natural gas industry.  At least 5 or 6 highly paid executives were involved in the production of this document, originally promised on June 11, 2008 by former CEO Fred Fowler (who is still on the board of directors and who received nearly $5 million in compensation last year, according to the Associated Press).

One can assume that many more hands were touching, sanding, and refitting the nouns and verbs for the final version.

Hold that thought:  Does any reasonable person believe that Spectra Energy – or any company in the natural gas industry – is going to produce an “independent” inquiry report that will find the company liable in some manner?

Any manner?  A teeny-tiny bit?

In future blog posts, we’ll break down an analysis of the pious mouse into easily digestible chunks.  Stay tuned for Part 2 of the Pious Mouse on Friday, April 10.

Pitt Prof May Launch Health Study

• Do natural gas drilling and related industry operations threaten the health of residents in Clearville and other parts of Pennsylvania?

• Are there higher levels of arsenic in drinking water because of gas industry operations?

• Are reports of animals dying related to these same gas industry operations?

• Are government watchdogs doing anything about this – at either the state or federal level?

A professor from the University of Pittsburgh wants to find out.

From the front page of the Bedford Gazette comes news that a University of Pittsburgh professor spoke with about 40 residents in Clearville, PA, about conducting a study to look into the potential health side effects of natural gas drilling and operations in the area.

The community meeting on March 29 was organized by Wayne and Angel Smith who are members of our landowners group fighting Spectra Energy, according to the March 30th Bedford Gazette news article.

The discussion was led by Dr. Conrad Volz, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC) at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health.  Volz has impressive academic and scientific credentials.  Here is a link to his Pitt website:
http://www.pitt.edu/~cdv5/

He was assisted by Charles Christen, Director of Operations for CHEC at the University of Pittsburgh.

Volz’s goal is to collect data and comments from residents about their experiences with gas well drilling and operations in the Clearville area.  This information will be included in a “published document that will be used to attract the interest of foundations that hopefully will fund the study,” according to the Bedford Gazette.

Dr. Volz spoke about harmful substances and practices of gas companies that are potentially injurious to human health and safety.  For example, on the subject of arsenic, according to the article:

“Using local testing results, he [Volz] pointed out several of about a dozen test results showed arsenic beyond the state’s allowable levels.”

While Spectra Energy’s Steckman Ridge Project is an underground natural gas storage facility, it involves the drilling of injection wells.  In addition, Spectra Energy has been approved by FERC for “fracking” operations in these wells.

Many Clearville residents are not satisfied with the so-called “watchdog” role of government at both the state (PA Department of Environmental Protection) and federal level (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission).

Some have filed “right to know” requests with the DEP, under the state’s “Open Records Law.”

Since the Bedford Gazette has a limited online presence, I am posting two jpg files of the front-page article written by Elizabeth Coyle, Associate Editor.

Bedford Gazette, March 30, 2009; Click on image to enlarge.

Bedford Gazette, March 30, 2009; Click on image to enlarge.

Energy Companies — Polite Words vs. Good Deeds

For landowners who are puzzled about the behavior of energy companies and their representatives, the following anecdote might be helpful.

It is based on a recent conversation I had with Joe Ramsey, who is a Group Vice President in charge of “Project Execution & Process” for Spectra Energy.

He was calling from Calgary in the province of Alberta, Canada; and he wanted to answer questions I had raised about Spectra Energy’s process for investigating itself with regard to landowner complaints about behavior.

As we trolled through our conversation, he said that Spectra Energy has tried to be responsive to me and they do not understand why I “keep coming after” them.

Some at Spectra Energy might consider this a logical question.  In fact, it is an astonishing question because it suggests that Spectra Energy sees itself as the aggrieved party. As I noted last year to the former CEO and CFO of Spectra Energy, the corporate culture there confuses superficial courtesies with integrity; and it is puzzled when polished manners do not result in an embrace by landowners.

In other words, the company confuses polite words with good deeds.

As I explained to Mr. Ramsey, landowners did not initiate a legal assault against Spectra Energy.  It came after us, filing three civil actions in federal court (Johnstown, PA) in the process.

But there’s more to the culture gap between energy companies and landowners.

In January, for example, Spectra Energy sent a proposed “Stipulation and Order” (part of the legal battle we are now fighting in federal court) that read in part:  “This stipulation does not in any way affect the rights of Mr. and Mrs. Benard to seek just compensation in the above-referenced action for the taking of the easements or any other rights, claims or defenses that may be asserted in this action.”   [Emphasis added]

Like a superficial courtesy, that statement of principle turns out to be a platitude because the company filed an injunction asking the judge to forbid property owners from presenting various economic loss arguments as they sought just compensation because the jury would be “confused, misled and distracted … and waste time.”  (This is an excerpt of the actual wording presented to the judge.)  Presumably, there is no point in Spectra Energy’s Yale-educated lawyer talking down to Pennsylvania jurors.

The “keep coming after” question and the attitude behind it reveal much about the corporate culture and value system at Spectra Energy.  For example, how many members of its board of directors and its leadership team have ever been on the receiving end of an eminent domain taking in federal court?

Irrelevant question — not at all.  It underscores a blind spot in the corporate culture.  This cultural preference for polite words vs. good deeds is pervasive throughout the company.  For example, Spectra Energy declares its commitment to “embracing diversity and inclusion” in its corporate charter — while its 11-member leadership team is nearly all white with two white females and one African-American male.  And its 11-member board of directors is all white males with the exception of one African-American female.

The difference between the charter declaration and the lack of diversity is the difference between a principle and a platitude.  It is one more illustration how energy companies confuse words with deeds.

Finally, is it possible that Spectra Energy’s opponents “keep coming after” it because it “keeps coming after” them?

We stand on different sides of a principle (property rights).  Eminent domain is increasingly a hot topic in states across the country.  Even the Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) has launched an interactive website as part of its “fight for changes in eminent domain law that empower rather than imperil residents of the Lone Star State.”

Here is the TFB website:
http://www.txfb.org/newsmanager/templates/eminentdomain.asp?articleid=4236&zoneid=86

Got to love those Texans, don’t you?