The Staff of the Kansas Corporation Commission has once again sold Kansas landowners down river. This is hardly surprising in the wake of earlier secret meetings between Staff and Grain Belt Express personnel, despite the recent glimmer of hope provided by Staff acting all tough by requesting GBE acquire a percentage of easements within one year of approval of the sale of GBE to Invenergy. It was pure posturing that meant absolutely nothing.
Staff and GBE have entered into a settlement agreement that allows the KCC to approve the sale in exchange for meaningless conditions. The conditions do nothing to provide "certainty" to landowners, in fact, the conditions actually add another 10 years of uncertainty to their plight. Funny that, since Clean Line initially asked for only a 5 year extension of the Sunset date provision (until 2023). Staff has now agreed to a 10 year extension. Well, that's playing hardball, fellas.
It's now just a matter of the Commissioners approving the settlement, and we all know how that's going to go, right? No sense even bothering to confirm it later.
The settlement agrees that Staff and GBE shall use all reasonable efforts to replace the Sunset provision with some stepped up version of action by GBE. Of course, this is being done in a completely separate docket that the intervenors in the original Sunset docket did not participate in. Essentially, the settlement in the sales docket changes the Order of the Commission in the siting permit docket. Oh sure, they pretend that it still has to be approved in that docket, but it's about as much a nail-biter as waiting to see if the Commission approves the settlement.
So, what does this wondrous "protection" for landowners entail? It's pretty much redacted... confidential, you know. Landowners aren't to know how exactly they are being protected by the KCC, they're just supposed to believe they are.
Staff and GBE have entered into a settlement agreement that allows the KCC to approve the sale in exchange for meaningless conditions. The conditions do nothing to provide "certainty" to landowners, in fact, the conditions actually add another 10 years of uncertainty to their plight. Funny that, since Clean Line initially asked for only a 5 year extension of the Sunset date provision (until 2023). Staff has now agreed to a 10 year extension. Well, that's playing hardball, fellas.
It's now just a matter of the Commissioners approving the settlement, and we all know how that's going to go, right? No sense even bothering to confirm it later.
The settlement agrees that Staff and GBE shall use all reasonable efforts to replace the Sunset provision with some stepped up version of action by GBE. Of course, this is being done in a completely separate docket that the intervenors in the original Sunset docket did not participate in. Essentially, the settlement in the sales docket changes the Order of the Commission in the siting permit docket. Oh sure, they pretend that it still has to be approved in that docket, but it's about as much a nail-biter as waiting to see if the Commission approves the settlement.
So, what does this wondrous "protection" for landowners entail? It's pretty much redacted... confidential, you know. Landowners aren't to know how exactly they are being protected by the KCC, they're just supposed to believe they are.
By December 2, 2024, GBE shall have either (i) obtained executed easement agreements, demonstrably commenced negotiations to obtain easements, or instituted proceedings in state district court to obtain easements, or any combination thereof, for at least **-** of the total number of easements required to construct the Kansas portion of the Project; or (ii) satisfied the Financing Requirement as defined in Paragraph 9.a. hereof. If unable to meet the requirements of the preceding sentence, GBE shall either, at GBE’s election: (a) commit to ** REDACTED **;1 or (b) file for an updated transmission line siting permit under K.S.A. 66-1,178.
The financing requirement is essentially that GBE will not install transmission facilities on easement property in Kansas until it has obtained commitments for funds in an amount equal to or greater than the total cost to build the entirety of this multi-state transmission project. Landowners can't know exactly how many easements GBE would need by 2024, and it really doesn't matter. Because the easement condition is so loose that "commencing negotiations" counts as meeting the easement requirement. GBE could say it was negotiating with any number of landowners, and who could disprove it? That's because landowners don't get to see this "confidential" information. And then there's that line that GBE shall "commit to" a redacted thing. An unknown thing. We can keep guessing here for about forever. What is it GBE may commit to instead of actually acquiring easements?
This easement acquisition nonsense is strung out until 2028, a full ten year extension, when Clean Line originally only asked for five. KCC Staff thinks this provides some "certainty" to landowners. Certainty that this nonsense of not knowing whether or not they can use their own land will continue for at least another ten years before GBE has to buy more vanilla pannacotta, perhaps.
This farce is furthered by the agreement that GBE will include information about its easement acquisition activities with the confidential yearly reports it submits to the Commission. How does this help landowners? It doesn't. But GBE agrees to file a "public version" in the future. About as public as its "commitment" above? That's truly helpful. Not.
GBE needs to keep all these "landowner protections" secret, you see, because if landowners knew about them it could compromise GBE's "negotiations" to acquire easements on their land.
This farce is furthered by the agreement that GBE will include information about its easement acquisition activities with the confidential yearly reports it submits to the Commission. How does this help landowners? It doesn't. But GBE agrees to file a "public version" in the future. About as public as its "commitment" above? That's truly helpful. Not.
GBE needs to keep all these "landowner protections" secret, you see, because if landowners knew about them it could compromise GBE's "negotiations" to acquire easements on their land.
So, let me get this straight, even though GBE would have eminent domain authority to take whatever private land it wishes, it must be further protected from landowners taking advantage during negotiations by keeping landowners in the dark regarding conditions placed by the KCC to protect the landowners? And we're still going to pretend that negotiations with landowners are "fair?" Seems like protecting GBE's interests in negotiations are held to a higher standard than protecting landowner interests. I mean, why not just say it... Kansas landowners don't matter.
And the really funny part here is that the KCC still thinks that the project will transmit wind from western Kansas. How dumb are these guys going to look when GBE ends up transporting wind from other states through Kansas for use by other states? There's absolutely no protection here, and it sure looks like GBE has managed to "wordsmith" its way into an ability to change the project significantly. None of the KCC Staff's "conditions" have any teeth. They do nothing but provide more advantage to GBE.
Landowners get bupkis in this settlement.
And the really funny part here is that the KCC still thinks that the project will transmit wind from western Kansas. How dumb are these guys going to look when GBE ends up transporting wind from other states through Kansas for use by other states? There's absolutely no protection here, and it sure looks like GBE has managed to "wordsmith" its way into an ability to change the project significantly. None of the KCC Staff's "conditions" have any teeth. They do nothing but provide more advantage to GBE.
Landowners get bupkis in this settlement.
RSS Feed