TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Homeowners in Traverse City are saying that Consumers Energy has been behaving unprofessionally through the process of trying to remove trees from their properties in order to reduce power outages. In order to push back against the utility, a group of neighbors have banded together and recently spoke to the Traverse City Ticker about what’s been going on.

At stake are hundreds of trees at the base of the Old Mission Peninsula whose plans for removal, neighbors say, has led Consumers Energy to use threats of lawsuits and other tactics to intimidate them into signing over their trees and large areas of their land to the utility.

MORE NEWS: Man Accused of Throwing Molotov Cocktails at Iron Mountain GOP Building

Old Mission Peninsula resident Heather Shaw has a home that sits in the middle a forest of trees. Shaw says that she and her neighbors had received “overnight packets” of legal documents earlier in the year from Consumers Energy asking them to sign over easements of their land.

Unbeknownst to many Michiganders, Consumers Energy has a current statewide policy that is referred to as a “standard of best practice.” This information doesn’t show up on a search of their website but it’s found in online court documents and it’s called the “20/40/80 standard.”

In Brian and Erin Storm v. Consumers Energy, it explains the 20/40/80 standard as easement rights to satisfy the public’s need for safe and reliable high-voltage electric lines and a tool “used for protecting and maintaining” electrical lines. The document also says, “Consumers Energy has the right as a public utility under the Electric and Gas Corporations Act to “condemn all lands and any and all interests therein” for transmitting electric energy, including condemning an absolute fee interest in those lands. MCL 486.252.”

What do the numbers 20/40/80 in the standard represent? They represent the number of feet that the utility has to comply with regarding easement rights. The easement rights allow Consumers Energy to restrict the construction of buildings and infrastructure and limit grading charges within 20 feet of the line of poles; clear any trees and brush within 40 feet of the line that are capable of growing into or overhanging the line at any time in the future or that prevent construction crews from safely performing work to inspect, construct, or maintain the line; and trim, remove, and control any trees between 40 feet and 80 feet of the line which are 35 feet or taller.” This standard also allows Consumers Energy to comply with the Michigan Public Service Commission’s regulatory requirements.

The new aggressive stance of Consumers Energy going after homeowners’ trees came about after the governor’s office ramped up their scrutiny on the utilities because of frequent power outages all over the state which, according to Axios, averaged about 14.6 hours of outages in 2021, the sixth-highest outrage rate in the country behind West Virginia and Mississippi.

Back in August 2021, more than 750,000 Michiganders lost power with outages that had lasted up to a week during some of the hottest days of the year. After that, Gov. Whitmer called on the state’s utilities to “commit resources to improve reliability through tree trimming and grid hardening” saying “The state’s electric grid must be up to the task so families, communities, and small businesses across Michigan can keep the lights on.”

MORE NEWS: Sterling Heights Likely Has Unconstitutional Restrictions on Speech During Meetings

In the fall of 2022, more severe weather took out power lines and about a half a million customers in Michigan were without power. After that, the MPSC ordered an audit on both DTE and Consumers Energy. Commission chairman Dan Scripps said in a statement, ”These actions represent a new approach to the MPSC’s work to hold the state’s two largest electric utilities to account for persistent reliability and safety challenges.”

About two weeks ago, the MPSC announced their intention to start imposing penalties on the utilities if they had extended outages.

Compensation is another sticky point with the homeowners. Mary Nykerk says, “Five years ago, when they first came through with this power line, we got $1,000 a tree. And if they think we’re going to take any less than $1,000 a tree this time around, then they’re mistaken.”

Overall, it doesn’t look like homeowners have much of a voice in the matter whether it has to do with their trees being taken or what they get paid for them. In fact, Nykerk is saying that those objecting to what is going on are being threatened to comply – or else. Nykerk said the utility basically told her she had until September 20th to agree to their terms or it would be turned over to attorneys and then her property would be condemned and they would take it through eminent domain.

Nykerk and her neighbors don’t appreciate the process itself any more than the decisions that are being made. That’s why they came together in the hopes that they get more transparency and good faith negotiations.

Shaw says, “What we’ve realized [from talking with our neighbors] is that everybody’s getting a completely different message. Some people haven’t heard anything since May. Others are getting approached almost daily with threats of lawsuits if they don’t sign these easement extensions. Some homeowners have been told by Consumers not to talk to their neighbors about what’s going on. So, it’s kind of a campaign of chaos. I think Consumers’ whole strategy was to bully us and hope that we’d all sign because we’d be afraid if we don’t, we won’t get any money.”

Most of the Traverse City homeowners involved with the group are reported as not having agreed to sign anything with Consumers Energy yet because they want their chance to present a united front against the company. Homeowner Nick Perez says, “Consumers would clearly prefer that we weren’t all talking, but we’re just trying to protect our rights and our property values, and we want to know what they’re going to do to compensate us fairly and equally amongst everyone. And I’m sure Consumers would like to avoid having this go to court, as would everyone else involved, but it may come to that.”

Traverse City isn’t the only place this is happening. In March of 2023, Van Buren County had joined several township boards to oppose a proposed Consumers Energy project that would build 20 miles of new power lines, running across agricultural, residential and park lands. In order to complete the project, the utility would clear 40 feet of trees on either side of the line with an additional 40 feet of trees that are subject to removal pending further review. The county unanimously passed a resolution against the project. Legislators also sent letters to Consumers Energy, asking them to find a less intrusive route. They were met with a response from Consumers Energy that basically told them to pound sand. In their letter, they said they had already worked diligently to identify the route for the electric line and considered all relevant factors. The work is expected to commence in 2024.

In April, in Chelsea, Michigan, Kathy and Jim Callery had their blue spruce trees removed so that Consumers Energy could replace an 80-year-old natural gas pipeline that runs across their lot. The $550-million dollar project goes across five counties and the utility needed a portion of their property for a temporary work zone. When the couple didn’t accept a cash offer from Consumers Energy in November of 2022 for easement rights, the utility sued them and initiated condemnation proceedings for eminent domain.

Consumers Spokesperson Tracy Wimmer said about the situation, “We totally sympathize with them. This is frustrating and hard, but it’s one of those situations where we have to balance the individual wants and needs of property owners with the reality we have to do projects like this to be able to deliver affordable and reliable energy to customers.” About the extra easement space that the utility needs to do their work, Wimmer said, “It requires an incredible amount of space. It is the unfortunate reality of a project this size that situations like this are going to happen where we have to take up way more space than it seems necessary.”