In contrast to the Midwestern Clean Line projects, the 2,100-megawatt SOO Green appears to be encountering little if any resistance.

Renewable energy is ready for prime time.  That is if -- like Michael Polsky -- you don't mind angering farmers and chopping up a few bald eagles.

Back in Chicago, Polsky leads an impromptu tour of the three floors Invenergy occupies at One South Wacker Drive in the pandemic ghost town that is downtown Chicago. It’s a Friday morning. Ordinarily, there would be dozens of people in open-plan workstations and offices, but only a handful are present, including the 24/7 crew manning Invenergy’s control center—watching, and even operating, 6,774 wind turbines spread across the country.

Sharing Invenergy’s digs are the offices of Polsky’s $150 million green-tech-focused VC fund, Energize Ventures. Among its 13 portfolio investments: Drone Deploy, which inspects turbine blades using infrared beams and drones, and Volta, which is building a chain of electric vehicle charging stations.

These days, Polsky has reluctantly traded the standing desk in his office for Zoom calls from his living room and quality time with his second wife, Tanya, 47, a former banker, and their three young children. “I’ve spent a lot more time with family than before,” the compulsive dealmaker admits. He seems to be enjoying it. “I’ve discovered being home, in a way.”

Then there’s that Grain Belt Express, which would install an 800-mile high- voltage line across Kansas and Missouri into Illinois at a cost of $7 billion. It was originally the brainchild of wind-industry pioneer Michael Skelly, whose Clean Line Energy was backed by the billionaire Ziff family, among others. Skelly’s team burned through $100 million fighting NIMBys and bureaucrats in its quest for permits and approvals. “After a decade, it was hard for us to attract capital,” says Skelly, now a senior advisor at Lazard.

Polsky agreed to take over Grain Belt on the condition of Invenergy winning those approvals—in other words, all he risked upfront was the cost of lawyers and lobbyists. “It’s much more complicated than just building a wind farm,” admits Polsky, who relishes the challenge. A bill that would keep non-utility companies like Invenergy from using eminent domain to take private land passed the Missouri state assembly this year but has been bottled up in the state senate. Meanwhile, two Missouri appeals courts have upheld the state public service commission’s approval of the Grain Belt Express.

Despite ongoing appeals, farmers like Loren Sprouse, whose family owns a 480-acre tract west of Kansas City that the high-voltage line would cross, are becoming resigned to the fact that soon Invenergy will be able to negotiate with the sledgehammer of eminent domain. “Once you get eminent domain, the price may still be negotiated, but they would have the right to do it,’’ he says.

Sprouse’s land is already crossed by three buried petrochemical pipelines, which he says transport warmed crude that “runs so hot it dries out the ground and kills the crops.” (Indeed, the proposed transmission lines would run along the pipeline right-of-way.) But Sprouse prefers the pipelines to the visual blight of hulking transmission lines, and he’s concerned about the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. Polsky is encouraged by Invenergy’s legal victories in Missouri, and expects Illinois approvals to follow. “It will be built. It has to happen,” he says.

Polsky is buying turbines from GE Power that are twice the size of those at Grand Ridge (at 700 feet, they’re taller than Trump Tower in New York) and generate up to 3 megawatts each. He intends to erect more than 1,000 of these enormous machines on 100,000 acres in Kansas, on what could become the nation’s biggest wind farm.

YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME
One big obstacle to green energy is spelled y-o-u. Technological advances have made wind and solar power cheaper than coal, nuclear and even natural gas. So why aren’t we using more of the stuff? Quite simply because you (and your neighbors) oppose and block the construction of wind farms and new transmission lines for green power.

FirstEnergy's soon to be president and CEO is Chatty Chuck Jones, the famous deal-maker who is completely out of touch with the real world the rest of us inhabit.  Someday, someone's going to spit in his mashed potatoes.

The company said the three executives were fired after an internal review committee determined they “violated certain FirstEnergy policies and its code of conduct.” The company didn’t offer additional details in its press release, and a company spokeswoman declined to elaborate.

Documents filed earlier this month involving a shareholder’s lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Akron show that Jones and other top executives at FirstEnergy sold off millions of dollars of company stock from March 1, 2017, to March 1, 2020.
The records allege that Jones “sold or otherwise disposed of over 788,000 shares” of FirstEnergy stock for $31 million during that time.

Senior Vice President of Product Development, Marketing, and Branding Dennis Chack, and Senior Vice President of External Affairs Mike Dowling

If regional grid operators and utilities fail to build enough transmission capacity, power companies and developers will take a financial hit as customers continue to move toward distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar and behind-the-meter batteries...

"I do think that we need to come to the realization that if we can't get there with transmission planning, customers are going to take the matters into their own hands," McAlister said. "They are and will continue to find ways to localize supply and avoid transmission altogether."

"It's hard to get big interregional projects built without federal siting and eminent domain authority, and I think the record shows that even when FERC has that authority, it's hard sometimes to get gas pipelines built," Emery said. "It's certainly hard with interstate [electric] transmission."

In many cases, state commissions "simply balk" when confronted by local landowners who are upset about environmental and other impacts without seeing local benefits associated with large power transmission lines, Emery said.

While U.S. electric grid operators, states and utilities will need to achieve a high degree of cooperation in the coming years to accommodate a surge in renewable generation, federal lawmakers may also need to get involved in promoting system planning, a panel of energy experts said Oct. 13.

"I think interregional planning is probably going to take congressional action," Beth Emery, senior vice president and general counsel at Gridliance, said during an annual fall forum hosted by the Energy Bar Association. "I hate to say that. Everybody has been talking about getting the states on board, but I'm not sure the states are going to be able to do it without a prompt from Congress."

"It's hard to get big interregional projects built without federal siting and eminent domain authority, and I think the record shows that even when FERC has that authority, it's hard sometimes to get gas pipelines built," Emery said. "It's certainly hard with interstate [electric] transmission."

Transmission hurdles have received some recent congressional attention, with House Democrats releasing a proposed energy and climate bill in January that would direct FERC to issue a rule improving interregional transmission planning. But one former FERC chairman said the bill's transmission section "failed miserably" by not giving the commission the authority it needs to implement a national transmission plan.

Emery noted that in passing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the U.S. Congress intended to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission backstop siting authority when state commissions deny permits for interstate transmission lines located within national interest corridors.

However, a 2009 ruling by a divided panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that FERC read too much into an ambiguously written statute when it adopted new procedures for parties asking the commission to exercise its new authority. The U.S Supreme Court eventually declined to review the case — Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC (No. 07-1651) — and the issue of whether FERC actually has federal backstop siting authority remains murky.

A new transmission line connected to the Grain Belt Express will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in investment to the state of Kansas, Gov. Laura Kelly announced Wednesday.

“Economic recovery and long-term economic competitiveness in Kansas and Missouri depend on new investment, more jobs, and tapping into low-cost, homegrown clean energy, which Grain Belt is moving full speed ahead to deliver,” Zadlo said. “Grain Belt is proud to increase our investment in Kansas and Missouri to rebuild the economy, deliver billions of dollars in energy cost savings, and meet growing renewable energy demand.”

The governor said the state has a lot of unused wind energy and this will be a good way to make sure it isn’t wasted.

"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.