Grain Belt Express sought waiver of the requirement to file notice 60 days in advance, explaining that it filed the Notice of Intent as soon as practical after the finalization and public announcement of the proposed modifications to the Project.

Between the effective date of the Report and Order on Remand in Case No. EA-2016-0358 (i.e. April 19, 2019) and the end of the two year period established by Section 393.170.3 RSMo and referenced by 20 CSR 4240-20.045(2)(D) (i.e. April 19, 2021), Grain Belt Express conducted the following activities in exercise of its certificate of convenience and necessity (“CCN”).

1.  Constructing access roads of approximately 800 feet in total with such work commencing on April 9, 2021 at approximately State Hwy C & County Rd 141, Braymer, MO 64624 in Caldwell County and April 12, 2021 at approximately Hwy 3, Huntsville, MO 65259 in Randolph County.

2.  Installing foundations for transmission towers on property owned in fee simple in Chariton County at approximately Allen Rd & St. Joseph Ave, Keytesville, MO 65261 and Clinton County at approximately NE 280th St & NE Estep Rd, Turney, MO 64493, with such work commencing on April 13, 2021 in both counties and completed on April 17 and 20, 2021, respectively.

Previous winners of the Ripple of Hope Award include Stacey Abrams, former Vice President Joe Biden, Bono, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, George Clooney, Tim Cook, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Amanda Gorman, Vice President Kamala Harris, Dolores Huerta, Colin Kaepernick, late Congressman John Lewis, former President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Desmond Tutu.

"Robert F. Kennedy's vision of a better world spanned all areas and industries – he understood that advancing human rights and social justice requires investment in everything from education to energy and the environment," said Polsky. "I'm honored to receive this award and look forward to growing Invenergy's impact as we fulfill our mission as innovators building a sustainable world."
Shaped by Polsky's philanthropic values, Invenergy invests heavily in project communities through an impact program. His humble roots ignited a commitment by him and his family to giving back to many causes including education, entrepreneurship, climate and sustainability, healthcare, women's rights, immigration, veterans, and arts and culture. Most recently, Polsky's philanthropic efforts have been focused on his native Ukraine to ensure the well-being of Ukraine's people, the nation's victory, and ultimate reconstruction. 
The Ripple of Hope Award is inspired by Robert F. Kennedy's most famous speech, the 1966 Day of Affirmation address he gave in South Africa at the height of apartheid: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples to build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

Smith says it is unfair for farmers to have their land used against their consent when they are the ones who have maintained the land for decades. 

"They weren't here when we were bringing in the crops in the fall," Smith said. "They weren't here when my family was bringing in the cows and vaccinating them. They weren't here for planting."

...farmers have earned the right to manage their land as they see fit. “We like to be able to look out at see this without any big power lines,” Smith said.

"Some farmers are not necessarily going to want this going across their farms, but others are going to welcome the opportunity because they could make some additional money for the rights of way," McCarty said.

"If you ask any farmer, they will tell you they can't pay me enough to put that line through my farm," Smith said. 

"And also understand that it may help them get out of a jam if they’re able to get power from that source when otherwise they wouldn’t be able to."

McCarty says projects like the Grain Belt Express are necessities to several parts of the community. 

"Electricity is an essential commodity," McCarty said. "We have to have it to run our farms, we have to have it to run our businesses, we have to have it in our homes."

The Tiger Connector would expand the reach of the Grain Belt Express in Missouri by bringing power from the main line in northern Missouri to the McCredie Substation in Callaway County, which would send that energy out to thousands more Missouri homes and businesses. 

It’s not just state regulatory authorities that reject transmission projects when they don’t see a benefit. Ranchers and other local landowners are sometimes put off by how these (admittedly hulking) metal constructs will look on their property. The lines can be buried underground—or even underwater—but it’s more expensive. Everybody has a price, and you might just as easily find success paying the landowner what you would’ve spent burying the line.

That makes using existing infrastructure corridors so enticing. We’ve already got tracts of land connecting different parts of the country that are pre-approved for public works projects, like highways and railroads. If we could layer in transmission lines, it would avoid a lot of these land-use conflicts. We could also use existing electricity corridors to pump through a lot more power using modern technology. Issues remain: Our roadways are usually designed with shoulders where people can regain control of their cars if they veer off the road, which doesn’t always leave room for power lines. But many places, such as along railroads, should have sufficient capacity. You could run high voltage, direct current lines through those areas to high-population centers in need of clean energy.

And the most productive solar and wind farms will not be located right next door to our population centers. Broadly speaking, they’ll be in more rural areas in the middle of the country, while the majority of people live on the coasts. Many of the rest live in metro areas inland. We need to move clean power from the places where we’ll harvest the bulk of it to the places where we’ll consume the bulk of it.

“Transmission, these big regional lines, often have benefit-cost ratios of 2:1 or 3:1, and that's because you can access resources that are on really low-cost land. Sometimes these solar and wind plants produce twice as much power at a given location than if you get closer to [where it’s used].”

​In practice, these lines would primarily carry energy from the center of the country—between Texas and North Dakota, where the wind really blows—to the East.  Others would carry energy from solar facilities in the South—particularly the Southwest, but also the Southeast—northwards.

The old environmental movement was about stopping things from getting built. The new environmental movement's about building stuff.

The fix is to make it easier to build large transmission lines in anticipation of need, like an interstate highway, and allow power markets to spring up near them like communities along the road. Sen. Joe Manchin’s larger permitting reform bill goes some way in this direction, making it easier to site these lines and setting time limits for the environmental review and stakeholder comment periods. (It would do the same for fossil-fuel projects, which climate activists are not happy about. The bill is on hold after Manchin agreed to pull it from a larger funding bill at the end of September.) The bill would develop predefined corridors where this stuff can go on federal land and make it easier to create these corridors in general. Finally, Gramlich says, it will help with cost allocation, creating a regulatory framework to recover the upfront cost of these large interstate lines.

Keeping the lights on is a matter of life and death, and so is transforming our energy system.

Under the Department of Energy’s Transmission Facilitation Program, as envisioned in Section 40106 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Department of Energy may serve as an anchor tenant on new and upgraded transmission lines, by buying up to 50% of the planned commercial capacity of lines for a term of up to 40 years. Yet, under MISO’s interpretation of Attachment FF and BPM 20, a merchant transmission project with a Department of Energy contract, and meeting Invenergy’s other suggested indicia of being sufficiently advanced stage, would still not be accounted for in MISO’s transmission planning processes unless it had an executed interconnection agreement with MISO or was included in a state or utility IRP. This cannot be a just and reasonable interpretation of MISO’s Tariff and BPM language which requires MISO to “analyze the performance of the Transmission System in meeting both reliability needs and the needs of the competitive bulk power market, under a wide variety of contingency conditions,” to “give full consideration to the needs of all Market Participants,” and consider “a wide range of potential conditions that comply with Federal, State, local and transmission owner reliability standards and public policy mandates . . . as well as other industry trends,” as Invenergy quoted in its Complaint.

Is it advisable for DOE, when selecting eligible projects for capacity contracts, to prioritize projects that have a certain percentage of capacity already subscribed? If so, what should that percentage be? What level of commitment (firm supply versus other types of capacity subscription) should DOE require eligible entities to demonstrate to be selected for a capacity contract? How should applicants be required to document such commitments? Should DOE's capacity be capped as a ratio of the firm subscription obtained before the execution of a capacity contract? If so, what should that ratio be?

MISO TOs cite to the Rock Island Clean Project as an example of why advanced-stage merchant transmission should not be accounted for in MTEP/LRTP base case analyses.  However, the Rock Island project never had final, non-appealable permits in any state. See Illinois Landowners Alliance, NFP v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2017 IL 121302 (2017) (finding that the owner of the proposed merchant transmission project was ineligible under Illinois law to obtain a required certificate of public convenience and necessity). Rock Island subsequently discontinued efforts in neighboring Iowa in light of the Illinois developments. In contrast, Grain Belt Express has final, non-appealable permits in Kansas, Missouri and Indiana.  Although Grain Belt Express is making minor modifications to those permits approvals, which is typical for new project development, the underlying approvals are sound and Grain Belt Express has significantly advanced the development of the project since securing those permits including securing rights of way and land.

Compensation for property taken under this subsection shall be determined and awarded by the district court of the United States in accordance with section 3114(c) of title 40, United States Code.’’.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Friday backed the much-debated permitting overhaul provisions unveiled in Congress this week, saying they would enhance the department’s efforts to speed up electric transmission lines that connect clean energy to the grid.

“We are very excited at DOE about the potential for streamlined permitting on clean energy projects,” Granholm told reporters on the sidelines of the Global Clean Energy Action Forum in Pittsburgh.

“And I think that holds the greatest promise of the goals we’d like to achieve, which of course is getting to 100% clean electricity by 2035,” Granholm said.

“Community input is important in all of this,” she said. “We have to be very intentional about that, and we’ve got a team that is focused on that as well.”

“Obviously, the transmission process has been ridiculously slow, and so many NIMBY issues related to it,” Granholm said, using an acronym for the “Not In My Backyard” movement.

We don’t think that removing the states is actually going to reduce the time frames,” said Greg White, executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which represents state officials.

He called the permitting proposal “draconian,” arguing it does nothing to solve delays stemming from federal environmental reviews. NARUC has pressed the department to scrap the proposal and bring states to the table.

“The sense is, if they can remove the state authority on siting these, that these projects will proceed quicker—and we disagree with that,” White said.

Enhance federal government permitting authority for interstate electric transmission facilities that have been determined by the Secretary of Energy to be in the national interest.

Replace DOE’s national interest electric transmission corridor process with a national interest determination by the Secretary of Energy that allows FERC to issue a construction permit.

Require FERC to ensure costs for transmission projects are allocated to customers that benefit.

Allow FERC to approve payments from utilities to jurisdictions impacted by a transmission project.

These arrogant greedsters will continue to push their narrative that only a boot on the neck of rural America can usher in a renewable energy future.  Instead of working with rural America to find a solution, these folks continue to push for more authority to simply take what they want.

At a recent Australian energy conference, the program indicates that the energy industry is acutely aware of, and concerned about, the urgent need to develop trust and acquire social licence for transmission. So much so that a panel discussion specifically focussed on the best ways to combat anti-transmission line sentiment. The panel included key industry representatives from the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, AusNet Services, Powerlink Queensland, Nous Group and CutlerMerz.

Interestingly, the panel did not include members of the public, representatives from community advocacy bodies or community groups calling for better transmission planning and framework reform.

This raises an important question; how can anti-transmission sentiment be truly understood by the industry if those representing the Australian public are not involved in the discussion? The lack of public inclusion in forums such as this suggests there is still much work to be done in understanding best practice engagement principles.

Firstly, communities are not upset that their concerns haven't been heard as there is no doubt opposition has been voiced. Communities are upset because their concerns are not being understood, listened to or respected, with collaborative action being taken to understand and accommodate this opposition to bring about a more mutually beneficial outcome. There is a significant difference between being heard and being understood. Communication is not simply about the transmission of information; it is about the reception and understanding of it. Genuine engagement is then demonstrated by taking meaningful, constructive and collaborative action.

Secondly, in the case of the WVTNP, there are no foreseeable benefits to communities expected to carry the burden of 190km of overhead transmission. How can the industry better sell the benefits to host landholders and neighbouring communities when there are no benefits to sell?

The energy industry and governments can do more to understand and appreciate that community benefits and compensation may not be the quick-fix solutions they hoped they might be. In fact, pushing the ‘talk to them early and pay them more’ agenda is very likely to further dilute trust, increase opposition and dissolve any credible opportunity to acquire social licence. Without empathy in the social licence and public policy equation, it will be near to impossible to develop trust for transmission.

Empathy is the ability to emotionally understand what other people feel, see things from their point of view, and imagine yourself in their place. Essentially, it is putting yourself in someone else's position and feeling what they are feeling. The ability to feel empathy allows people to "walk a mile in another's shoes". It permits people to understand the emotions that others are feeling.

The admonition to walk a mile in someone else's shoes means before judging someone, you must understand his/her experiences, challenges, thought processes, etc. Truly listening to another persons view creates empathy, something that community sentiment suggests is lacking within the energy industry.

It’s not difficult to understand why it may be challenging for the energy industry to demonstrate empathy. For decades, its has been insulated from the need to consider social or environmental externalities and has rarely had to meaningfully engage with, or have empathy for landowners and communities.

Empathy helps develop trust; therefore, it is important that transmission network planners and policy makers spend time to consider, understand and respect landowner and public perspectives, experiences, and motivations before making a judgment about them and asking rural communities to shoulder the burden of overhead transmission for the benefit of the masses. Economic benefits, community benefits, compensation, the climate, environment, emissions, jobs, and green energy, are often wielded by governments and the industry to garner public support for overhead transmission. While there may be truth in some of these benefits, many in the community view this strategy as an intentional attempt to reduce credible objections to those of NIMBYism (Not in my backyard). For many, this strategy demonstrates a concerning lack of empathy as to why overhead transmission projects are being objected to in the first place.

In addition to legitimacy, credibility and trust, empathy should be added to the list of social licence components. Without empathy, it is impossible for the other three components to exists. Without empathy, it will be challenging to garner community support. To develop empathy, it is necessary to first explore the deeper reasons for objection to offer these objections the respect and attention they deserve.

When discussing compensation and engagement with potentially impacted landowners throughout the eastern states of Australia, many have indicated, in no uncertain terms;

‘I'll never sell'; 'We will not be bought off'; 'No amount of money will compensate for the impact on our properties, community and environment'; 'We will not risk our kid's inheritance'; 'Our land is our superannuation, we will not sacrifice that'; ‘This is our livelihood, who has the right to take that away.

When speaking with stakeholders in the energy industry and those living in more urbanised environments, reactions suggest a level of confusion. Comments often conveyed indicate it’s difficult to comprehend why people would not accept payment for the burden they are expected to carry.

'They are only transmission lines'; 'We drive past them every day to work, what's the issue'; 'This is the price we must all pay for progress and to reduce our impact on the climate'; 'Transmission towers remind me of our engineering mastery'; 'It's only farmland, plant your potatoes somewhere else'.

To understand this, we need to dig a lot deeper than early engagement and financial motivation. We need to understand the connection between people, the environment, the land, and rural areas. We need to understand the person-place interaction that leads to attachment to place. This connection to place is experienced by traditional owners, landowners, neighbours, and visitors alike. The strength of this attachment often surfaces under threat of loss of place.

Family farms are a unique institution, continuing through time in a world where considerations of hard work, long-term thinking and commitment are often sparse. Families in agriculture have long provided a steady backbone to rural Australia, serving as stewards of our natural resources and taking care of the neighbours, communities and environments in which they live. Because of their dedication to preserving farm operations and improving land for native wildlife, farm families are very emotionally close to their way of life and to the land on which they live. Many see themselves as temporary stewards of their land, managing it for future generations, just as their great-great-grandfather might have done for them.

A statement by one landholder was, “I don't have a sense that I own it as such. But I've been given the privilege to influence it, to protect it, to enhance it and among other things – stop other people influencing it, without me giving them permission."

It’s also important to note that a cost seen by some, is viewed as an investment by others. Communities impacted by proposed overhead transmission projects argue that despite potential increase in capital by avoiding a shorter more impactful route, use of existing easements, longer least-impact routes or an investment in undergrounding (particularly HVDC), is a long-term economically viable investment in achieving climate change objectives, protecting our environment, avoiding land use conflict, and providing increased redundancy, resilience and reliability to our transmission networks. Despite the increased cost, Star of the South, a private development, is undergrounding its transmission to minimise the environmental impacts. This has been well received by potentially impacted communities.

On March 17, 2021, MISO laid out its initial roadmap for LRTP transmission solutions based on the Futures analysis. The initial roadmap included a proposed line from central Iowa, through northern Missouri, with two offshoots further south into Missouri with one in a similar area as the proposed Point(s) of Connection for the GBX Line, and finally into central Illinois.
 
It was announced during that meeting that the analysis had been completed on the proposed Transmission Solutions linking central Iowa to Northern Missouri to central Illinois and that those upgrades would be included in the LRTP portfolio. It was only after this announcement that Invenergy approached MISO to express its views regarding the GBX Line and how it interacted with LRTP.

In comments to MISO, Invenergy claimed that “[f]ailure to account for the GBX Line may cause economic harm to GBX.”

Grain Belt Express acknowledges how it intends to edge out new MISO projects by taking their place:

“Across the Midwest and Great Plains, several potential transmission projects have been proposed over the next decade to address regional reliability needs, enable the delivery of power to load centers, reduce congestion, and unlock renewables potential. While there still may be a need for localized upgrades, given that the Project addresses these broader goals, it stands to logically reason that the Project could plausibly defer/eliminate the need for certain future major transmission developments."

Invenergy also compares the expected timeline of its proposed projects to the expected timelines of the LRTP Tranche 1 projects, but that comparison does not help Invenergy’s argument, even if taken on its face value. Under the Tariff, the MTEP is “developed to facilitate the timely and orderly expansion of and/or modification to the [MISO] Transmission System.

Including projects without sufficient certainty, regardless of timeline, does not advance system reliability.

Invenergy also fails to show that the GBX Line should receive special treatment and circumvent the MISO planning process. As a project that is not yet certain, MISO properly excluded the GBX Line from the planning studies for LRTP projects.

Invenergy claims that its GBX Line, a merchant high voltage direct current (“MHVDC”) transmission project designed to carry up to 5,000 megawatts (“MW”) of energy, should have been accounted for in MISO’s transmission planning analyses even though it has not yet obtained all necessary approvals and interconnection agreements, and its prospects for achieving such statuses are not at all certain.

While Invenergy explains the status of the GBX Line noting the number of approvals and permits it has obtained, the prospects for the project are far from certain. For example, as Invenergy concedes, permits are still required in one state. In addition, on August 24, 2022, Invenergy submitted an amended Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Application in Missouri to request significant changes in the GBX Line.   Invenergy also has not yet executed interconnection agreements with half of the transmission systems it proposes to interconnect—MISO and PJM.

The Commission should deny Invenergy’s attempt to obtain preferred treatment for the GBX line.

In its Complaint, Invenergy claims “Grain Belt Express has secured voluntary easements for over 75% of the necessary right-of-way in Kansas and Missouri.” However, in its Application in Missouri, Grain Belt claims it has “[a]cquired 72% of all easements required for the Kansas and Missouri portion of the Project.” While only a difference of 3%, it is notable that the percentage of easements acquired went down in the two weeks between the filing of this Complaint and the filing of the Missouri application.

“Subject to additional oversight and approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), Grain Belt Express may sell and/or lease an undivided interest in the project to potential buyers and/or lessees, and Grain Belt Express and those buyers/lessees may seek to provide transmission service over the line to eligible customers as defined by FERC on a non-discriminatory basis under a FERC-approved open access transmission tariff (“OATT”). Any co-owner or lessee of Grain Belt Express that seeks to provide transmission service will be required to operate pursuant to an OATT on file with FERC that will meet the requirements of the Federal Power Act and FERC’s regulations. Grain Belt Express may also sell a cotenancy interest or lease a long-term leasehold interest in the transmission line, in which case it is not providing transmission service to such buyer/lessee because the buyer/lessee has control over that undivided interest”.