KCC urges 60‑day extension for transmission‑line siting deadlines; utilities urge caution on delay

Kansas Corporation Commission Deputy Director of the Utilities Division Justin Grady asked the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications to approve House Bill 2040, which would extend the statutory deadline for final orders on high‑voltage transmission‑line siting cases from 120 days to 180 days.

Grady told the committee the commission proposed the change because “120 days ... is just an inadequate period of time” to evaluate projects that can affect landowners for decades and to allow meaningful intervenor participation. He cited a recent siting docket in which notice to affected landowners arrived weeks after the application and a hearing schedule compressed opportunities to file direct testimony and alternative routing proposals.

Why this matters: high‑voltage transmission projects can cross many private properties and are typically planned and built over multiple years. The bill would lengthen an already expedited KCC process, a change proponents say would permit fuller review and more effective engagement by landowners and other parties. Opponents and neutral conferees raised concerns that extending the deadline could delay construction and increase project costs.

Utility witnesses adopted neutral positions but urged caution. Darren Ives, vice president of regulatory affairs at Evergy, told the committee the change could be “a little bit of a solution without an issue,” noting Evergy has not filed under the siting statute in nearly a decade and that utilities typically perform extensive routing work before filing. He recommended either narrower application of the extension or discretion for the commission to grant an extension only for good cause.

Representatives of rural electric cooperatives testified similarly in neutral support for landowner input while warning about the downstream impacts of added delay on project costs. KCC staff described resource constraints for review: Grady said the commission’s transmission‑siting work is performed by two engineers and that the current timelines require reading and analyzing very large applications and producing testimony within weeks.

Committee members asked about alternatives and about whether the extension would be mandatory in every case. Grady said the bill would set a 180‑day deadline but that the commission could still issue an order sooner; he acknowledged flexibility language tied to “good cause” could be considered and said staff could support an optional extension in some circumstances.

Formal introductions and procedural notes recorded during the same committee session included three requested bill drafts (RS filings): Representative McDonald requested 25RS0918 (Blind Information Access Act); Nathaniel Blank introduced RS0355 on mobile home park tenants’ access to telecommunications and video services on behalf of IdeaTek; J.R. Bien introduced 25RS0541 relating to electric transmission line construction and ownership on behalf of ITC Great Plains. The committee opened the hearing on House Bill 2040 and invited additional written and in‑person testimony; no committee vote occurred on HB2040 during the session.

Taper: Committee staff announced upcoming hearings on utilities’ return on equity and on a pole‑attachment bill. Members asked staff and conferees to consider language that would preserve landowner participation while limiting open‑ended delays to project schedules.