"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.”

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.”

“[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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

...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.

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.

The Commission in that case granted a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (“CCN”) to Respondent Grain Belt, authorizing it to build the transmission project described in the Application filed by Grain Belt at the outset of that proceeding. However, one condition attached by the Commission to the CCN was as follows:  “If the design and engineering of the project is materially different from how the Project is presented in Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC’s Application, Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC must file an updated application with the Commission for further Commission review and determination.”  In a press release issued on August 25, 2020, Respondents announced plans for changes to the project which will clearly make it “materially different” from the one approved by the Commission in the CCN case. A copy of that press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and is available to the public on the Grain Belt website: www.grainbeltexpress.com.

To Complainants’ knowledge, Respondents have not sought Commission permission to make any changes to the project as it was approved in the CCN case.

Inasmuch as Respondents have publically announced that they no longer plan to build the project for which the CCN was granted, at this point Grain Belt does not have a valid CCN to build anything in Missouri.

Invenergy’s press release also indicates that it plans to begin construction of the Missouri portion of the line before obtaining approval for the line from the Illinois Commerce Commission. However, another condition to the CCN imposed by this Commission was that Grain Belt could not begin construction in Missouri until it has obtained commitments for funding of the entire multi-state project.  Obviously Invenergy cannot obtain financing for the large segment of the project in Illinois, including the converter station there, without approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission.

In contrast, the project approved by the Commission was to deliver 500 MW to the converter station in Missouri, and 3,500 MW to the converter station near the Illinois/Indiana border for delivery to the PJM system. If 2,500 MW are delivered to Kansas and Missouri, then the total capacity for delivery into what the Commission found to be the more lucrative PJM market would be reduced from 3,500 MW to only 1,500 MW.

The drastic reduction in sales into the PJM system will obviously have a material impact on the economic viability of the project, as it was presented to the Commission by Grain Belt in the CCN case.

Respondents (Invenergy) and their land agents are now in the process of seeking easements from landowners on the right-of-way for the project as initially proposed. At the same time, Respondents are telling the public on their website (and possibly by other means as well) that Grain Belt currently has the right of eminent domain for the line in Missouri. Obviously, having the right of eminent domain would give Grain Belt a powerful advantage in its negotiations for the easements it is seeking. But if Grain Belt no longer has a valid CCN in Missouri, then Grain Belt and its agents are currently negotiating with landowners under false pretenses. Grain Belt’s continued pursuit of easements for a project for which it does not have a valid CCN, under threat of eminent domain, constitutes a violation of the Commission Order which initially granted the CCN.