Proposal would let landowners challenge wind and solar land agreements

Covered landowners could ask a court to cancel wind or solar land agreements resulting from a consumer protection violation. Coverage would include individuals, married couples, sole proprietors, family partnerships, and trustees of self-settled living trusts who can grant land rights. It would cover wind or solar generation, electricity transmission, and equipment used to measure wind. Cancellation would require a court decision, rather than a landowner simply withdrawing from the agreement. The attorney general or a county or district attorney could also seek court orders canceling covered agreements. If enacted, these provisions would take effect upon publication in the statute book.

Landowners could cancel qualifying, personally solicited wind or solar land deals without a penalty during the cancellation period. These provisions would cover eligible consumers granting land rights for wind or solar projects, electricity transmission, or equipment used to measure wind. The deal must involve personal solicitation, have a price of at least $25, and be agreed to away from the supplier's business location. Exceptions would include prior negotiations at a permanent retail location, deals with federal credit cancellation rights, and transactions completed entirely by mail or phone without other prior contact. Requested repair visits would generally be excluded, but additional purchases beyond needed replacement parts would not. Authorized sales at the annual Kansas state fair would also be excluded. An immediate personal emergency would qualify for an exception only if the consumer initiated the deal and provided a separate, dated, signed, handwritten statement describing the emergency and giving up cancellation rights. The period would follow signing an agreement or offer containing the required disclosures. Sundays and legal holidays would not count as business days.

Businesses would need consumer consent after sending certified mail before initiating covered sales contacts with hospital inpatients or residents of care facilities. The consent rule would cover hospital inpatients and residents of nursing homes and other residential care facilities. The capacity safeguards would apply to consumers more broadly. Businesses' related companies and representatives would also be covered. The business would first send information by certified mail with a return receipt requested. It could send no more than two such communications per consumer each calendar year. If a business had reason to know or was told that a consumer had reduced decision-making ability, it would stop communication unless it verified the consumer's legal ability to enter a contract. A consumer with reduced decision-making ability could appoint a representative to attend all communications and receive copies of written or electronic messages. Consumers would have to receive the mailed information before consenting to the sales communication.

Consumer contracts could not enforce clauses blocking recordings of contract communications or certain disclosures to public authorities. The rules would cover communications about negotiating, preparing, or carrying out consumer contracts. Protected disclosures would include contract information and recordings shared with government agencies, law enforcement, or courts. Court filings would remain subject to court orders keeping information confidential. Contracts could still restrict disclosure of payment amounts in testimony or statements at government hearings or other government proceedings. The parties could not agree to give up these protections.