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.

This week marks the final week of the Missouri legislative session for 2020. With a six-week hiatus in the middle of their normal work period due to COVID-19, both chambers returned to Jefferson City expecting to pass the budget, maybe some high-priority pieces of legislation, and little else. However, that is not the case. The state budget was passed on time and now sits on Gov. Mike Parson’s desk. Leadership and committee chairs have attempted to pull together many omnibus pieces of legislation with “noncontroversial” provisions to get through the process before the final gavel drops on Friday, May 15 at 6 p.m.

Two items of interest to Missouri Corn include a measure to rein in eminent domain and a separate provision to require higher blends of biodiesel to be included in diesel fuel sold in the state. Rep. Mike Haffner (R-Pleasant Hill) worked diligently with Rep. Don Rone (R-Portageville) to attach the biodiesel legislation on the House floor to Senate Bill 618, which is now in conference committee. SB 618 also contains the provisions related to eminent domain, which Missouri Corn also supports.

Sen. Justin Brown (R-Rolla) and Rep. Jim Hansen (R-Frankford) are the champions for the eminent domain legislation.

There was a debate on this provision on the Senate floor last week when Sen. Brown attempted to amend it on a bill. Much to MCGA’s frustration, several Republican and Democrat senators stood up to block the provision. This important legislation is also still attached to Senate Bill 662; however, this bill has not yet been assigned a conference committee. In addition to supporting these pieces, MCGA staff is working hard to safeguard against detrimental provisions during a time when tracking legislation and interacting with elected officials is challenging to say the least.

The caucus includes Sens. Eigel, Hoskins, Cindy O’Laughlin, Andrew Koenig, Bob Onder, and Eric Burlison.

Hillary Clinton spoke Tuesday about meeting with "a big group of clean renewable energy businesses," without noting that these companies' leaders gave financial support to her campaign and received taxpayer subsidies through the stimulus program.
"I met yesterday in Chicago with a big group of clean renewable energy businesses and they're just ready to go," Clinton said on the campaign trail in Iowa. "But they need some help from the government.
The meeting was in fact a $2,700-a-head fundraiser at the home of Tonya and Michael Polsky, the CEO and president of Invenergy, and hosted by four others whose companies received "help from the government" in the form of $2.2 billion in taxpayer-funded cash grants to boost wind, solar and hydroelectric-based projects.

Polsky, who also threw a fundraiser attended by President Obama ahead of the GOP midterm victory in 2014, received over $662 million in funding to boost wind and solar projects by the firm — with various partnerships throughout the country receiving the funds.

Outside of Polsky, Clinton fundraiser hosts Gabriel Alonzo, Mike Garland and Jim Spencer received nearly $1.6 billion combined for projects to push forward renewable and wind-based energy production.

Overall, Clinton has been a backer of alternative energy, with an emphasis on solar, during the seven months of her campaign. In July, Clinton pledged to put the U.S. down a path to creating enough renewable energy to power every U.S. home by 2027. The former secretary of state also vowed to have installed over 500 million solar panels across the country by the end of her first term in office.

Clinton called Tuesday for extending the tax credits that make these projects "worthy of investment," arguing that many jobs will be created as a result.

Also Tuesday, a joint committee of representatives and senators decided that eminent domain restrictions that would prevent the Grain Belt Express energy transmission project from becoming a reality will remain in an omnibus utilities bill.

The Grain Belt Express, an energy transmission project that would extend from Kansas to Indiana, would run across Missouri through eight counties, according to the project’s website. As planned, it would deliver 500-megawatts of wind-generated power to Missouri’s electric grid — with some going to Columbia.

Senate Bill 618 would hinder the project because of a provision that restricts the use of eminent domain, which refers to the government’s ability to acquire private land when it is needed for public use as long as compensation is provided.

The bill says, “no entity shall have the power of eminent domain under the provisions of this section for the purpose of constructing above-ground merchant lines.”

Lawmakers said that the House was not willing to compromise or consider removing the eminent domain restrictions.

During the conference committee, Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, asked if there was a reason the eminent domain issue was included as part of the overarching utilities bill.  She said that she and others “may like the underlying bill” but wanted to do something different on the eminent domain question.

Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Frankfort, referenced the Missouri Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in favor of the Grain Belt Express project but emphasized that the court had not ruled on the issue of eminent domain. The Supreme Court “did not rule on whether or not they had the right to eminent domain,” Hansen said of the individuals pushing the Grain Belt Express project. “I think it’s our job to make eminent domain laws dealing with a project that this state has never seen before by a private company.”
He added: “Pass it. Let’s go to the Supreme Court.”

Our Mission
We support access to broader vital services across the state through the promotion of innovative projects resulting in positive economic, environmental, and community impact.

Focus on What Matters, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a nonpartisan organization having as its primary purposes the following: (i) the education of our local communities on public policy, including economic policy, relating to local communities and governments; (ii) the education of the general public on economics and public policy; and (iii) generally advancing and preserving the rights and responsibilities of citizens to appreciate the benefits of and ensure the continued existence of competition, economic freedom, and free markets. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 50l(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or corresponding section of any future federal tax code).

This astounding amount of political spending by Maine’s largest utility amounts to $55,448 per day from January through March, which compares to the average medium household income in Maine of $55,602.  The government-owned Canadian energy giant Hydro-Quebec has spent $2.047 million as part of its coordinated effort with CMP to defend the project against a citizen initiative successfully brought forward by more than 66,000 Maine voters to stop the project. Total daily spending by the two companies combined over the report period was nearly $77,000.

CMP’s political campaign includes a vast network of out-of-state political consultants; misleading and simplistic television, print, and online advertising; and mobilization of lawyers and lobbyists trying to stop Mainers from voting on the project. The company has spent lavishly on polling, private investigators to stalk petition gatherers, opposition research, consultants that specialize in blocking citizen-initiated referenda, helicopter services, and even fine dining. The company’s political spending reports show:

• $5.139 million on TV and cable ads and $70,138 on digital ads
  
• $870,623 on direct mail and print ads
• $505,495 on polling and survey research
• $99,021 on a private detective firm, Merrill’s Investigations, to stalk Maine citizens who were gathering signatures
• $91,520 on campaign manager Jonathan Breed since October, already significantly more in six months than the annual salary of $70,000 for Maine’s governor
• $94,392 on an Oakland, California-based opposition research firm, VR Research
• $75,000 on an Arizona-based political firm, Signafide, whose sole purpose is to discredit signatures for citizen’s referenda
• $2,500 on helicopter services
• $2,077 on fine dining, including at David’s, Flood’s, Union, and Katahdin restaurants

Huge profits are at stake for these corporations, and investors in CMP’s parent company, Avangrid, recently expressed significant concerns that Maine people might defeat this project. Hydro-Quebec stands to make $12.4 billion on this project and CMP and its parent companies would earn $2 billion.

“At this rate, CMP and Hydro-Quebec could spend more than $20 million by November in their effort to sell Mainers a project they don’t want,” said Natural Resources Council of Maine Advocacy Director Pete Didisheim. “This level of spending is unprecedented, deeply troubling during the current coronavirus pandemic, and, frankly, obscene. Mainers should be outraged that CMP would spend this much money when the company still struggles to restore power outages and deliver accurate bills.”

An Invenergy official said the contacts ended last week and included communicating with the landowners.

"Members of our team held meetings, upon approval from landowners, to discuss conducting these surveys later this spring,” said Beth Conley, Invenergy spokeswoman. “These meetings were halted when CDC guidance limited the ability to have in-person meetings.”

Since the state commission approved the Grain Belt Express, a number of “development activities” must take place before the beginning of construction, which is expected in late 2021, Conley said.

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the Missouri Department of Conservation require Invenergy to conduct bat surveys so the line can avoid rare populations of the species, she said.

§903-E. Persons not authorized to administer an oath or affirmation to a petition circulator
1.  Certain notaries public and others.  A notary public or other person authorized by law to administer oaths or affirmations generally is not authorized to administer an oath or affirmation to the circulator of a petition under section 902 if the notary public or other generally authorized person is:  
A. Providing any other services, regardless of compensation, to initiate the direct initiative or people's veto referendum for which the petition is being circulated. For the purposes of this paragraph, "initiate" has the same meaning as section 1052, subsection 4-B; or   [PL 2017, c. 418, §3 (NEW).]
B. Providing services other than notarial acts, regardless of compensation, to promote the direct initiative or people's veto referendum for which the petition is being circulated.

Imagine if Warren Buffett wanted to build a private toll road across northern Missouri. The billionaire would charge cars $100 apiece to race from his home city of Omaha, Nebraska, to Nashville, Tennessee, pocketing a huge chunk of profit on each trip. He might call it the “Music City Express.” Unfortunately, the toll road would have no exits in Missouri. Cars could only get on in Nebraska and exit in Tennessee. No local residents could use it at all.

Even though the Music City Express would make a fortune for Buffett, he would probably have trouble convincing every single landowner in his path to sell. The road would do them no good — it would just be a nuisance and take away their land. Surely a few holdouts would foil his plans. If only his project qualified as a “public use,” he could invoke the governmental power of eminent domain to force unwilling landowners to sell. But the project isn’t designed to benefit the public — it’s meant to enrich its owner.

The promotional literature for the company touts the project as a “free market solution to meet the growing demand for sustainable energy.” Well, there is nothing in a “free market” that gives entities the right to condemn property owned by the residents of Missouri and taking it for a private business.
When normal utilities are granted the ability to use eminent domain, their electricity rates are regulated by the state of Missouri. In exchange for the convenience of siting their facilities and the money saved because sellers have no bargaining power, the PSC protects consumers and makes sure that the benefits of eminent domain are passed along to electricity consumers.

Tom Kiernan, writing in favor of the project in the Feb. 12 Post-Dispatch, has made it clear that the project, part of a multi-state effort known as the Grain Belt Express, would be “difficult” to complete without eminent domain. But his op-ed piece seemed designed to avoid actually mentioning the words “eminent domain.” Why did he fail to mention the central issue driving this controversy?

As the Missouri Legislature enters its third year of debate over the project, Clean Line’s backers have started talking about fiber optics as well. Not only will electricity consumers receive a bonanza, but everybody in north Missouri will be able to watch Netflix.

Perhaps not as good as a toaster for opening a new account, but haven’t we all been asking for better rural broadband? Well, yes we have, but extending the fiber to homes, which is the most expensive part of providing rural broadband, is a much more difficult and expensive proposition than what Clean Line is offering.

A meet-and-greet for potential contractors for the Independence Energy Connection drew about as many protesters as it did interested contractors Thursday night at the Clarion Inn and Suites in Chambersburg.