StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

Kansas Wants Invenergy To Put Up Or Shut Up

3/27/2019

6 Comments

 
That's the nice idiom.  There's also another appropriate here... use whichever floats your boat!

Yesterday was the deadline for the staff of the Kansas Corporation Commission to file their report and recommendation in the acquisition proceeding to transfer GBE to Invenergy.  While a lot of it was unsurprising dreck, there were a few gems in there, along with a few new recommended conditions.

First, a revelation:
Of the 1163 affected land tracts, GBE has made 582 written easement offers to Kansas
landowners but only secured signatures from 129. Because of the regulatory uncertainty
in other states, GBE stopped pursuing easement agreements in 2015 and eventually
released 122 of the signed agreements rather than pay the final balance due on the
easement agreements.

As noted earlier in my testimony, GBE has acquired easements from only seven of the
affected tracts of land. At one time it had 129 signed agreements but stopped actively
pursuing easements in 2015 and eventually released 122 of the easements.
Seven. 7.  Lucky number 7.  That's how many easements GBE owns in the entire state of Kansas.  Only 1,156 to go!

And why is this important?
What impact has the delay in acquiring easements had on the affected Kansas
landowners?

Because of the approved routing, I assume the landowners are aware the transmission line
will cross their property. But they have no indication of when or if it will occur, and they
have not been compensated for the easement across their property.

Would you expect the approved route to affect land values of the landowners?

In my opinion, the impact on land values is unknown. However, I believe knowledge of
the pending transmission line easement would need to be revealed in any land sales
transactions, which may affect a potential buyer's decision to purchase.

Has GBE kept in contact with the landowners to keep them apprised of it plans regarding the GBE Project?

As per the conditions in the 13-803 Docket, GBE is required to file quarterly updates with the Commission on it progress. However, all of those updates are filed confidentially with Staff and not available to the public or interveners in the 13-803 Docket. In the past, GBE has sent newsletters to those that have requested to be on a list to receive updates.  However, GBE...  *** Whoopsie!  Confidential Information  ***
GBE what?  Went belly up?  Was consumed by its own hubris?  Not sure why this is confidential...  anyhow...
The only benefit that can be attributed to the landowners affected by the approved route
of the GBE Project would be the certainty of the line's impact on their property and
compensation for the line easements. In this case, certainty can be provided by the sunset
provision dismissing the approved route, or by GBE or its successor completing the purchase of the necessary easements through Kansas.
So the staff recommended this condition to approval of the acquisition:
If the Commission approves the acquisition and agrees to extend the sunset provision in the 13-803 Docket, I recommend the Commission require Invenergy to make
preliminary payments or acquire the easements necessary to construct the Kansas portion of the GBE project regardless of its success in resolving its regulatory issues in the other affected states.

Invenergy shall make preliminary easement payments to all Kansas landowners affected
by the line siting within 12 months of a decision to extend the line siting sunset provision found in Docket 13-GBEE-803-MIS (13-803). If the sunset extension is not approved and Invenergy requests approval of a new line siting route, Staff recommends the Commission require Invenergy to make preliminary easement payments within 12 months of gaining approval for a new line siting.
Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud...  new line siting route?  Where did this come from?  Why would staff bring that up and include it as a condition for approval?  If we're just talking about possibilities here, why not include one about a meteor falling from the sky and crushing Invenergy's Chicago headquarters, what would Invenergy have to pay Kansas landowners in that instance?  So... a re-route is a remarkable possibility.  In fact, it looks like it may be a distinct possibility.

And now that we're over the Freudian portion of my comment...  Invenergy is going to have to shell out a lot of money within one year of approval.  If it later decides not to go forward with the project, it's not getting any of its money back.  And only one year to acquire 1,156 easements and make initial payments... while the uncertainty of approvals in other states still hangs in the balance.  This is impossible.

Put up or shut up, Invenergy.

This staff person also recommends, "When the GBE Project and/or AC Collector System become operational, Invenergy will maintain sufficient personnel in the region of the facilities such that it can provide adequate emergency response to any portion of its Kansas operations within one hour of being notified of an emergency."

Looks like there's going to be lots of little Invenergy offices across Kansas, with a skeleton staff sitting around waiting for an emergency to occur.  Well, at least that will guarantee a handful of permanent jobs.

However, this is only a staff person's recommendation.  What the Commissioners will eventually do is anyone's guess.

My guess is that Invenergy is screaming and having a big ol' tantrum today.

Too bad Missouri doesn't care for its landowners this way.  How bad do you have to be for Kansas to look good?  At least someone seems to be looking out here...
6 Comments
Math whiz
3/27/2019 01:25:32 pm

Written easement offers to 582 of the 1163? That's 50.04% of landowners, just one more than half. I wonder how many times Skelly and Lawlor and company bragged to the potential customers, other landowners, and anybody else who'd listen, that they had written offers for a majority of the properties in Kansas. I wonder if the KCC was told something similar in the quarterly updates?

And Clean Line managed to secure only 11% of properties. I'd bet if someone had asked Clean Line how many easements in Kansas were actually signed that the answer was: "A double-digit percentage".

Think I'm making it up? During Clean Line's media tour in Missouri, prior to any proceedings in that state, Clean Line touted they had already had "a number" of signed easements. Zero is a number, folks.

Reply
Elephant Who Never Forgets
3/27/2019 02:42:18 pm

I seem to remember one news article that stated GBE has all the land (easements) it needed in Kansas. ALL.OF.THEM.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Reply
Math whiz
3/27/2019 03:12:12 pm

Thanks for the reminder, Elephant. When that paper's editor was informed of the inaccuracy she claimed that's what she had been told by Clean Line. She also said it's hard for papers to find revenue these days. The editor promised to print a correction, it never happened. I think that paper is still promoting the project.

The Land of Good Intentions
3/28/2019 05:57:59 am

While I appreciate this staff person trying to stick up for landowners, I really do, "just compensation" for eminent domain condemnation and taking is not a "benefit." It's compensation. In exchange for the "benefit" of a cash payment, the landowner loses part of his land rights and loses control over the property he's paid for, worked, and taken care of for years (in some instances his family has taken care of it for generations). It's not a "benefit," it's a trade, it's a barter, it's the sale of property against the landowner's will. Having your property taken via eminent domain is never a "benefit." Until regulators realize this, the takings will continue.

Reply
Norm
3/28/2019 08:58:35 am

On how many of those lapsed easements for non-payment did GBE provide the landowners reimbursement for the filing fees and legal expenses necessary to clear up the title to reflect their failure?

Reply
Just FYI
4/3/2019 08:54:25 pm

You are 100% correct! We have not heard a word from clean line since the KCC approved the project (over 5 years ago). Not a word from the KCC either. As far as property owners are concerned - the 5 year window clean line had to secure the easements and start construction on this project in Kansas expired in November 2018!! Case closed.... Invenergy should see what they are up against by now.. Lets hope they are smart enough to drop their purchase of the project and let clean line shut its doors permanently!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.