Invenergy, regulators and farm group outline benefits and protections for Grain Belt Express at Kansas committee hearing

Invenergy executives told the Kansas House Energy and Water Committee on the record that the Grain Belt Express high‑voltage transmission project has current state approvals, that a Department of Energy corridor designation affecting Kansas has been withdrawn, and that the company has negotiated nearly all easements for Phase 1.

The Grain Belt Express project, described by Invenergy as a roughly 5‑gigawatt, 800‑mile high‑voltage direct‑current (HVDC) line connecting multiple regional grids, will move large quantities of power from western Kansas eastward, project officials said. Patrick Witty, Invenergy’s senior vice president for public affairs for transmission, told the committee: “Grain Belt Express has followed all existing laws in Kansas.” He also said, “NITC is no longer happening in Kansas. The Midwest Plains corridor is gone.”

Why it matters: supporters say the line will lower wholesale power costs, increase reliability and create construction and property‑payments in Kansas; critics and landowners have focused on notices, compensation and the possibility of federal siting authority. Committee members heard presentations from Invenergy, staff from the Kansas Corporation Commission and the Kansas Farm Bureau that addressed approvals, landowner protections, and regulatory conditions.

Invenergy’s presentation and claims

Patrick Witty and other Invenergy staff described the project’s scope, timeline and landowner terms. Invenergy said Phase 1 is targeting an early‑2026 construction start and a 2030 in‑service date, with phase‑two work to follow roughly 18 months later. Witty said the company acquired the project in 2020 and has completed about 98% of Phase 1 mainline land acquisition across Kansas and Missouri, with “over 96% of agreements having been entered into on a voluntary basis.” He said Invenergy has paid $12,000,000 in upfront payments to Kansas landowners and that more than $50,000,000 in landowner payments will be due at the start of construction.

Invenergy described a standard mainline easement of about 150 feet, and said structure footprints take less than 1% of that easement area. The company described its compensation package as including an easement payment at “110% of fair market value,” an immediate 20% payment at signing with landowners able to elect a lump sum or annual payments for the remainder, structure payments ($18,000 per large lattice tower on the HVDC mainline; $6,000 per monopole for AC collector structures), and crop compensation of “300% of annual crop value paid in year 1 of construction.” Brad Panaszek, Invenergy vice president for transmission development, described the 40‑by‑40 foot typical tower foundation footprint and said landowners retain ownership and use of easement land except for the small structure footprints.

Invenergy also addressed the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NITC) program, which had drawn landowner concern. Witty told the committee that Invenergy and other stakeholders pressed DOE and that DOE removed the Midwest Plains corridor in December 2023. He said the company had submitted comments to DOE and explicitly committed that Grain Belt Express “would not seek federal siting authority so long as the existing public utility approvals remained in place.” Witty said a separate DOE loan programs office review of Grain Belt Express (a federal draft environmental impact statement, or DEIS) was expected to be published soon and that DOE filings will make clear the DEIS process is separate from the NITC discussion.

Regulatory record and conditions (Kansas Corporation Commission)

Justin Grady, deputy director of the Utilities Division at the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), reviewed the commission’s prior dockets and findings dating to the project’s earliest filings in 2011. Grady said the KCC’s approvals were based on extensive records and economic and reliability studies, and that the commission must decide transmission‑siting petitions “based on the evidence in the record.” He summarized the KCC’s findings of statewide economic benefits from earlier proceedings, including construction jobs, landowner royalties and long‑term tax and wage impacts that were cited in KCC orders.

Paul Owings, KCC chief engineer, summarized the KCC’s recent AC collector line docket (345 kV collector lines near Dodge City) and the conditions the commission attached. Owings said the commission required an AC collector line master plan, limited construction until interconnection agreements are executed, included a five‑year condition that would return involuntary easements to landowners if interconnects were not secured, and required protocols and codes of conduct to be submitted for landowner interactions and agricultural impact mitigation. “The purpose of the lines is to aggregate power from wind farms and bring them onto the DC line,” Owings told the committee, describing the collector lines’ roles and the commission’s procedural deadlines for public hearings and timely comment.

Landowner protections and farm‑group concerns

Wendy Grady, assistant general counsel and director of the Legal Foundation for the Kansas Farm Bureau (KFB), said KFB supports renewable energy growth while pressing for stronger private‑property protections. KFB described a membership‑driven policy shift toward balancing transmission and generation development with more explicit landowner rights. Wendy Grady said KFB has urged adoption of a code of conduct, landowner protocols and agricultural impact mitigation plans that would require transparent communications, standardized compensation choices (one‑time or annual payments), and agricultural remediation measures such as soil decompaction, erosion control and weed control. “KFB has long been an organization that supports private property rights, but our policy also supports the growth in electric generation and transmission to help meet, the growing demands for electricity,” she said.

Committee questions and clarifications

Members pressed Invenergy and KCC staff on key technical and property‑rights points: whether consumers in Kansas would face higher rates (Invenergy characterized the line as a merchant project paid by voluntary buyers and sellers, not allocated to captive ratepayers), how a 150‑foot easement relates to state‑approved corridor flexibility (Invenergy and KCC staff explained an approved corridor gives flexibility for micrositing within a broader corridor), and whether there are AC vs. DC differences in electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure (KCC staff said the commission will require on‑request EMF measurements following construction in some dockets and pointed to public scientific literature when responding to health concerns).

What the hearing did not finalize

The committee hearing recorded no legislative votes and did not change existing KCC orders or statutes. Several witnesses described ongoing and future steps: completion of the DOE DEIS process, continued land acquisition settlements, and possible future KCC proceedings related to routing alternatives or additional collector lines.

Next steps

Project proponents and KCC staff told the committee they expect further federal environmental review (the DOE DEIS) and continued state permitting and commercial negotiations. Invenergy and the Kansas Farm Bureau both said they will continue outreach with landowners and local officials.

(End of coverage.)