Committee advances amended wildfire-claims bill after fixing damage language; KCC to convene workshop

The Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications approved House Bill 2107, as amended, during final action after members addressed drafting errors that would have broadened the statute beyond property damage and clarified how courts calculate damages from unplanned wildfire events.

The bill would establish a statute of limitations for wildfire-related claims and authorize recovery for certain damages; committee members agreed to retain language specifying recovery is for “damage to property” and to remove a novel formula in the bill that would have replaced existing law on how property damages are calculated.

Committee Chair (Committee Chair) opened discussion by asking for input on concerns raised in emails and by stakeholders. Committee member Mr. Carmichael, who led technical drafting discussions, described the principal issue as an unintended drafting change that removed the words “to property” from a section describing recoverable losses and thereby broadened the statute to include personal-injury and non-economic damages. “If we put that back in, I’m happy with the bill,” Mr. Carmichael said, explaining that restoring the phrase would keep the bill consistent with long-standing Kansas law on property damages.

Staff member Nick summarized the balloon amendment for members and said the key substantive fixes were: (1) change the operative start date for the two-year statute of limitations so it begins when damage from the fire is suffered rather than when the wildfire ignited, and (2) strike the bespoke property-damage formula so courts will apply existing law to determine damages. He also said a technical correction was added to reference the current punitive-damages statute (60-3702).

Laura Lutz, director of government affairs at Evergy, told the committee Evergy supported restoring the property-language and saw no downside: “It makes sense to me,” she said, noting Evergy’s prior concern that plaintiffs must prove the utility’s fault before damages are awarded.

Members discussed Evergy’s commercial concerns about limiting ongoing exposure to stale claims (the two-year limitation) and the company’s desire to ensure lenders understand the utility’s liability exposure when borrowing. Committee members said they did not intend to expand liability beyond current law if the “to property” language was restored.

The bill, as amended, also shifts one statutory duty: instead of requiring the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) to provide training opportunities, the amended text directs the KCC to convene a public workshop or docket to assess wildfire risk and mitigation, to present mitigation strategies and utility readiness, and to discuss how cost recovery might be treated in the future.

Representative Neighbour moved to pass HB 2107 as amended, and Representative Roth seconded the motion. After debate on a committee amendment that preserved the “damage to property” phrase, members voted to adopt the amendment and then passed the bill out of committee favorably for passage. The committee recorded at least one affirmative vote for Mr. Carmichael; a full roll-call tally was not provided in the hearing record.

Why it matters: the bill addresses how Kansas courts and utilities treat claims tied to unplanned wildfires, clarifies when the two‑year statute of limitations runs, and creates a forum at the KCC for discussing wildfire mitigation and cost recovery. Those provisions affect utilities’ liability exposure, potential lender perceptions, and how damages are assessed in future wildfire lawsuits.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 2107 and moved to the next agenda item. Committee staff said Evergy will give a presentation to the committee at its next scheduled meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 25, to further discuss wildfire readiness and cost recovery.