JEFFERSON CITY - A group of about 30 farm property owners and/or interested supporters took to coming here to protest outside of the Public Service Commission building Tuesday to voice their concerns with Invenergy Transmission’s application for the Tiger Connector project and its threat to private property.

Many in attendance felt that their voices needed to be heard and that, indeed, the message was being delivered.

“I thought the protest was a huge success,” protest organizer Pat Stemme, of Centralia, said. “No one from the PSC offices came out. I did not expect anyone to come out. I doubt the commissioner were there. But they know we were there, and we put a focus on them.”

Monroe County’s Marilyn O’Bannon, who has fought the entire Grain Belt Express project for nearly a decade, said, “I feel the peaceful protest gained media attention needed to understand the threat of eminent domain landowners will face if the GBE Tiger Connector is approved by PSC. There was representation from Monroe, Audrain Callaway Counties and a County Commissioner traveled from Caldwell County to participate.”

“I don’t own a farm, but I like to eat, so whatever I can do to protect my food source,” Cam Moore, of Harrisburg, said. “It’s government overreach in general. It’s way too much. The fact they are using eminent domain for a private company to be allowed access on private property is unacceptable in America for sure.

“I am standing with Americans who can’t be bought.”

Susie Everhart was in attendance to stand for her mother’s property – one of which is unaffected as of now in Audrain County.

Michael Martin of Thompson also doesn’t have any property being affected by the project.

“Not yet,” Martin said. “If they can run through there, they run through someplace else. Once you light the fire, it can go ahead and burn.”

Marilyn Smith, helped her son Jason manage the Hatton family farm since 1999 after the passing of her husband Marvin.

“It’s going to go right across (Jason’s) place and he’s wanting to put irrigators up, so we’ll see what happens,” Smith said. “It can be a real problem. I don’t want (Invenergy) to make it easier. I don’t want them on our land. We have been in Callaway County since 1979. We did this by ourselves – it was a lot of work and a lot of stress.

“Invenergy was not there to help us do any of it. They don’t deserve to go across my property. It’s our land.”

How the PSC responded to citizen concerns

No members of the PSC came out to address any of the protesters, who stood outside the building for approximately three hours.

However, they were asked a myriad of questions posed to them by The Mexico Ledger, including these:

What will the PSC use to determine if they approve this application? What standards/requirements do you guys usually use to make a positive determination in the favor of an applicant?

Invenergy has been granted the ability to use eminent domain. However, they are on record saying that they are a business trying to make money and that they will use eminent domain essentially with those that slow down the process. That doesn’t sound like qualifiers under the original intent of eminent domain. Will the PSC take that into consideration?

Does the PSC take into account the impacts this project could put on the farm owners? In a response to me last week, Invenergy did say they tried their best to keep impact minimal. How do you gauge this in decision making?

Why did the PSC approve (and give eminent domain to) a project, with what appears to be, without a signed interconnection? If the interconnection point further changes from Callaway, how many more people will be affected by routes zig zagging all over the place to connect at different points?

Why would the PSC approve eminent domain for a merchant transmission project without, as it appears, enough customers to be financed and built? What happens to the easements GBE has acquired if they can’t find customers and don’t build the project? How will landowners be made whole?

What certainty does the PSC have that this project can ever be financed and built?

Kevin Kelly of the PSC responded to the inquiry with a lengthy explanation of where the organization stands.

“(The PSC) is both quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative,” Kelly wrote in an email.

“The Commission is responsible for deciding cases brought before it by the utilities it regulates, as well as by customers of those utilities, or by other interested stakeholders. Many of the Commission’s actions or decisions are made after it hears complaints or applications in which the rights of individuals, ratepayers, utilities, or other stakeholders  are determined.
“Such hearings are held in a trial-like setting using appropriate evidentiary standards. The Commission’s decisions are subject to review by Missouri’s courts.”

The PSC staff participates as a party in all cases before the Commission. They will be conducting an independent review of the application filed in this case and will be filing testimony and making recommendations to the Commission.

“PSC Staff recommendations, like those recommendations filed by other parties to a proceeding, are thoroughly evaluated by the commissioners in reaching a decision.”

The Office of the Public Counsel is a separate state agency from the (PSC). They represent the general public in matters before the Commission. They are also involved in cases before the Commission.

“The Commission will ultimately decide this case, as it does with all cases before it, after a thorough review of all of the evidence in the case.
You can see all of the information that is a matter of public record in this case (Docket Number EA-2023-0017) by going to www.psc.mo.gov.”
Once on the website, click on Access EFIS which is right under “How Do I,” on the right-hand side of the page.

“I believe the Commission will soon be issuing an order which establishes an intervention deadline in the case. An intervenor is someone who files an application seeking to participate in a proceeding before a regulatory commission.

“Intervenors are usually large business customers, government agencies or representatives of a customer group with a particular interest in the outcome of the case. These parties would indicate on their application to intervene and participate in the case that they have an interest which is different from that of the general public.

“As mentioned earlier, the general public is represented in all proceedings before the (PSC) by the Office of the public counsel.

After a party is granted intervention in a proceeding, that party may present testimony, submit exhibits and cross-examine witnesses during hearings. The rule on intervention is 20CSR 4240-2.075.”

Individual citizens wishing to comment in cases before the Commission should contact either the Office of the Public Counsel (Governor Office Building, 200 Madison Street, Suite 650, P.O. Box 2230, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-2230, telephone (866) 922-2959, email opcservice@opc.mo.gov) or the Public Service Commission Staff (P.O. Box 360, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, telephone 1-800-392-4211, email pscinfo@psc.mo.gov). They can also go directly to the case on the PSC website to submit comments.

As far as speaking to the protestors, Kelly noted commissioners are prohibited by law, “from expressing an opinion on the merits in a case until they have heard all of the evidence.

“The issue of eminent domain lies with a court of law and not the (PSC),” Kelly said.