Kansas bill would require KCC workshop on utility wildfire risk and codify liability rules including $5 million punitive cap

A Kansas Senate committee heard testimony on House Bill 2,107, a measure that would direct the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) to convene workshops on utility wildfire risk, utility readiness and cost‑recovery for mitigation, and would codify existing common‑law negligence and a $5,000,000 punitive‑damages cap for wildfire cases involving public utilities.

Proponents said the bill is designed to create a stakeholder forum before the state adopts practices such as public safety power shutoffs or expanded easements and to reduce legal uncertainty for utilities and customers. Chuck Kaesley, executive vice president and chief customer officer for Evergy, told the committee the measure “really does just 2 things,” describing the workshop requirement and the statutory clarification of the negligence standard and punitive cap.

The bill would take effect upon publication in the statute book and, as presented in testimony, is written to take effect on 07/01/2025. Supporters said they expect the KCC workshops to be completed before July 2026 so regulators and stakeholders can assess Kansas‑specific mitigation strategies and cost‑recovery approaches.

Why it matters: Proponents argued that a regulator‑led process would allow utilities, ratepayers, local stakeholders and regulators to weigh tradeoffs — from tree trimming and easement expansion to the disruption of potential public safety power shutoffs (PSPS) — before those practices become framed as the de facto standard in litigation.

Key provisions and claims

- Workshop requirement: The bill directs the KCC to convene discussions on wildfire risks, utility readiness and mitigation‑cost recovery. Kaesley said the intent is to have those workshops and stakeholder discussions “before July of 2026.”

- Liability standard and caps: Testimony described the measure as codifying the common‑law negligence standard that requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill also would state a $5,000,000 cap on punitive damages tied to punitive awards in civil cases against utilities; proponents emphasized the cap would not limit economic or non‑economic compensatory damages.

- Statute of limitations: House amendments discussed during testimony change the limitations start from discovery of damage rather than ignition; proponents noted a commonly referenced 10‑year repose under existing law.

Context and discussion

Kaesley and other proponents referenced FEMA wildfire‑risk designations and cited wildfire legislation in other states (examples named in testimony included California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho and Utah) as precedent for convening regulatory discussions and clarifying liability. He said the bill is meant to “codify, existing common law into the statute.”

Senators pressed several policy and liability questions: whether electric cooperatives would be covered (Kaesley said the draft could apply to co‑ops), whether a one‑time workshop is sufficient or periodic reassessment is needed, and whether adopting a standard could increase liability in some circumstances while reducing it in others. Kaesley acknowledged both possibilities: establishing a Kansas standard could expose utilities to greater liability if the new standard required more aggressive vegetation management, and it could protect utilities from out‑of‑state litigation strategies that impose strict liability without proof of causation.

Legal context cited in testimony

- Witnesses referenced an existing non‑economic damages cap in Kansas statutes (cited in testimony as about $350,000) and the Kansas Supreme Court decision in Hilburn, which was described as finding that cap in conflict with the Kansas Constitution’s jury‑trial provision. Witnesses said that court decision complicates the current statutory picture.

- Proponents pointed to Utah as an example of a state law that sets approaches to fire‑claim damages and limits for non‑economic awards; they also mentioned the federal FEMA wildfire‑risk mapping used to assess exposure.

Quotes

“This bill really does just 2 things,” Chuck Kaesley said, summarizing the workshop requirement and the statutory clarifications.

“The second thing that this bill does is essentially take what the common law is of the state today and codifies it with respect to utilities and wildfires,” Kaesley said.

Nick Myers, who provided an early legal overview, explained that the punitive‑damages cap “is only pertinent to punitive damages in civil actions ... so that would only be if the utility is reckless in their conduct” and said the bill does not prevent plaintiffs from pursuing compensatory economic or non‑economic damages.

Next steps and committee action

Committee staff noted a fiscal note is in the committee file. After hearing proponent and neutral written testimony (including filings from Midwest Energy, Kansas Electric Cooperatives and the Kansas Corporation Commission) the chair closed the hearing on HB 2,107. No final floor vote was recorded in the transcript of this session.

Additional clarifications recorded in testimony

- Proponents said the bill does not limit compensatory economic damages or non‑economic damages. - Kaesley said practical mitigation options include PSPS, expanded easements, and more frequent tree trimming, and that each option carries tradeoffs for property rights, costs and rates.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 2,107; proponents and committee members said they expect further regulator‑driven discussions and potential rulemaking following the KCC workshops.