Kansas Wants Invenergy To Put Up Or Shut Up

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...