What Does Invenergy Say About Missouri Landowners When They're Not In The Room?

Invenergy filed some stuff on the Missouri PSC docket for the first of the three pending landowner complaints about its Grain Belt Express project last week.  I say "stuff" because honestly I'm having a hard time believing Invenergy said some of this stuff publicly, where the landowners it's trying to win over can read it.  Was all of this stuff really necessary, if Invenergy is the much beloved, transparent, community benefactor it wants the public to think it is?  Does the PSC need this kind of stuff to dispose of this complaint?  It kind of looks to me like Invenergy is about to blow its stuff in frustration.

There are three distinct documents of stuff.  The first is Invenergy's response to the Staff's report.  Not sure what was actually in the Staff's report since it was completely confidential, but I'm guessing it was a doozy if we can judge from the way it seemed to wad up Invenergy's corporate shorts.  Here are the kinds of things Invenergy says to regulators where, perhaps, the landowners aren't reading them.

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.

Oh, bonus!  Use of the word "scurrilous" to describe the complaints of landowners who feel they are being taken advantage of or tricked in some way.  Scurrilous:  making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation: a scurrilous attack on his integrity.  Oh, poor, poor Invenergy's reputation!  Is this scurrilous language supposed to improve Invenergy's relationship with targeted landowners across Missouri?

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.

Good faith efforts to assert that all landowner complaints are baseless and scurrilous?

Invenergy believes landowners should be restricted to filling complaints with the company, instead of bothering the PSC.  If GBE believes all landowner complaints are baseless and scurrilous, what hope is there that Invenergy would treat any complaint filed with the company differently?  This defies logic...

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.

Oh, perish the thought that anyone "interferes" with Invenergy's visits to the landowner hen house or increases the cost of the project!  Invenergy is simply entitled to use all means at its disposal to acquire easements as cheaply as possible.  Just remember, cheaper easement acquisition costs go right into Invenergy's pocket and don't reduce the rates charged, like they would in a cost-allocated public utility project where customers pay only the cost of service.  Invenergy will negotiate its rates with voluntary customers, presumably to negotiate the highest rates it can collect for service in a free market.  Invenergy's rates won't change if it costs them more or less to acquire an easement.  The difference in costs only makes a difference in Invenergy's profits.

Of course Invenergy should be ticked off at any group who lets the public know about any complaints that have been filed, in the interest of transparency and good community relations, right?  Let's keep those complaints swept under the rug (like the PSC Staff report!) or confined to Invenergy's corporate office.

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.

Does Invenergy think that "project opponents" are not landowners who are entitled to file complaints?  Can Invenergy pre-judge the purpose of all future complaints this way in order to discourage landowners from filing them?  Will the filing of additional complaints make Invenergy stop taking proactive voluntary actions to respond to landowner and customer concerns?  Who are these customers?  Landowners want to know!

And check out this "undisputed fact" from Invenergy's Motion for Summary Determination.

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.”

So, are landowners supposed to record all phone calls from Invenergy land agents in the future?  Just to be fair, shouldn't the landowner state that the call is being recorded at the beginning of the call?

And don't miss Invenergy's Memo in Support of Motion.  Who doesn't love being called "merely argumentative, imaginary or frivolous ."  Too bad the Grain Belt Express isn't imaginary...

Invenergy seeks to drive home their contention that phone calls with land agents should be recorded.

...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.

Or perhaps they merely imagined that Invenergy's land agents made frivolous statements merely to be argumentative?

I've been searching for my tiny violin... this occasion begs music!

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.

Landowners should try to remember how much Invenergy loves and respects them while they record every future phone call.

Does this sound like a company enjoying its cordial interactions with folks in rural Missouri who shall become its eternal partners on the Grain Belt Express transmission line?  Or is it the sound of frustrated failure?