Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill extending KCC transmission‑line siting deadline from 120 to 180 days
Summary
A Kansas House committee voted to pass Senate Bill 92, which lengthens the Kansas Corporation Commission's statutory deadline to act on certain electric transmission‑line siting applications from 120 days to 180 days and adds language encouraging earlier decisions when feasible.
A House committee on Wednesday voted to advance Senate Bill 92, a measure that would extend the Kansas Corporation Commission's (KCC) deadline to issue final orders on certain transmission‑line siting permit applications from 120 days to 180 days and add language stating the commission should issue orders sooner when circumstances allow.
The measure, described by committee staff as identical to House Bill 2,040, covers transmission lines of 230 kilovolts (kV) or greater that are five miles or longer. Committee chair opened the hearing for the bill and noted there were no in‑person opponents; submitted written proponents included Kansas Livestock, the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas Corporation Commission and Curb, and Evergy filed a written neutral comment.
Committee staff member Nick summarized the bill: “This is dealing with the KCC's authority to site transmission lines that are constructed in the state. These are transmission lines that are 230 kV or above and 5 miles or more in length,” and said the bill changes the statutory review period from 120 days to 180 days.
Representative Neighbour moved to pass the bill favorably; Representative Holheisel seconded the motion. During discussion an amendment was offered to add language clarifying legislative intent that the KCC should act “in an expeditious manner” and, when possible, issue a final order in fewer than the allotted 180 days.
Representative Carmichael objected to the amendment, saying it undercuts the bill's purpose to give the KCC and affected landowners more time to participate in a docketed process. “It looks to me like this in part at least vitiates the intent of this bill,” Carmichael said, arguing the bill’s purpose is to slow down applications to allow more opportunity for affected landowners to be heard.
Committee members who spoke characterized the amendment as largely aspirational language that preserves the 180‑day deadline but expresses a preference for earlier decisions if practicable; one member said Evergy asked that the commission be able to complete review sooner when possible.
The committee voted to adopt the amendment. During the amendment roll call the committee clerk recorded Representative Carmichael and a member identified in the record as “Mister Slingen Seepin” as voting no; other recorded votes on the amendment were not provided in the transcript. After returning to the bill, Representative Neighbour moved and Holheisel seconded to pass Senate Bill 92 as amended favorably for passage. The chair announced the bill passed as amended; no detailed final roll call tally was recorded in the transcript.
Committee members set a follow‑up presentation by Evergy for the committee's next meeting; Evergy representative Laura Lutz said the utility preferred a later presentation date so it could share information after its earnings call.
The committee took no other formal actions during the short session and adjourned.
Votes at a glance: Senate Bill 92 — motion to pass as amended favorably carried; amendment adopted. Recorded no votes on the amendment included Representative Carmichael and a member recorded as “Mister Slingen Seepin.” The transcript does not include a full roll call tally for the final passage.
