Bill would require utilities to allow law‑enforcement equipment on poles, shift liability to agencies

The House Utilities Committee held a hearing on House Bill 2109, which would require public utilities — including municipal and cooperative utilities as well as investor‑owned utilities — to enter into pole‑attachment agreements with law‑enforcement agencies that request to attach and operate law‑enforcement equipment on utility poles in the public right‑of‑way.

The bill would require the agreement to identify which poles may carry equipment, describe the equipment, establish safety specifications for attachment, access, operation and removal, and give the utility sole discretion to require that attachments and related work be performed either by the utility or by a contractor approved by the utility. The bill would also allow utilities to assess reasonable fees to recover actual costs but would prohibit charging to “rent” pole space. It would require the requesting law‑enforcement agency to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the utility for claims arising from the attachment and operation and for damages to the utility system caused by the attached equipment. The bill states that a public utility that enters such an agreement would be treated as an instrumentality of government under the Kansas Tort Claims Act and eligible for the Act’s limitations on liability. If enacted, the bill would take effect July 1, 2025, upon publication in the statute book.

Nick Myers, assistant revisor at the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, summarized the bill’s provisions, saying it would “require any public utility … to enter into a pole attachment agreement with a law enforcement agency upon request” and that the agreement would “establish safety specifications for attachment, access, operation, and removal of the law enforcement equipment.” Myers also noted the bill’s indemnity language and the effective date.

Deputy Jeremy Knoll of the Central County Sheriff’s Office, testifying for the Kansas Fraternal Order of Police, described local uses of cameras mounted on utility poles and argued the bill would protect utilities from civil liability. “We didn’t have enough manpower to put somebody in the park at night, so this was the next best idea,” Knoll said of a case in Beloit where officers temporarily mounted a camera and collected images that led to identifying suspects. He added that using existing poles avoids additional cost to taxpayers and that law enforcement would bear costs to install equipment.

Ed Klumpfel, legislative liaison for the Kansas Sheriffs Association and other law‑enforcement groups, told the committee a utility in Missouri had been named in litigation related to law‑enforcement video and that the expense of defending such suits has made utilities hesitant to cooperate. “What has happened is over in Missouri, one of the utility companies got involved in a lawsuit … and they named not only the city or the law enforcement agency. They also named the utility company,” Klumpfel said. He described pole‑mounted devices as targeted, temporary tools used to address specific problems and said utilities should not bear litigation costs for law‑enforcement uses.

Committee members asked several operational and privacy questions — including whether agreements would be per pole or cover an area, who decides whether a court order or warrant is needed for surveillance, and whether utility workers could be subpoenaed. Witnesses said the draft bill contemplates site‑specific agreements with the utility retaining safety and operational control; that the law‑enforcement agency would be “the sole entity” responsible for determining need for a warrant; and that, in practice, subpoenas tend to target data holders rather than utility workers who installed equipment.

The committee heard neutral written testimony from the Citizens Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB), Evergy and a KDOT analyst raising operational and regulatory questions, including potential tensions between maintaining utility system integrity and law‑enforcement equipment needs and whether the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) would have a role in resolving disputes. Committee members discussed that the bill lets utilities set safety specifications and that, absent penalties for noncompliance, the statute’s “must” would be difficult to enforce.

The hearing was closed with no committee vote recorded on HB 2109. Committee members proceeded to other agenda items.

What’s next: No final action on HB 2109 was recorded at the Utilities Committee meeting; the bill was heard and commented upon by multiple law‑enforcement proponents and neutral parties, and may be scheduled later for committee action if the chair so directs.