Senate Judiciary committee hears bill to expand Kansas 'critical infrastructure' definition to include telecom lines and equipment

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 2061, which would expand the state's definition of “critical infrastructure facility” to explicitly include above- and below-ground telecommunications lines, cables, antennas, towers, small cell facilities and associated equipment, a reviser told the committee.

The measure would amend KSA 21-58-18, the statute that defines the crimes of trespassing on and criminal damage to a critical infrastructure facility, by widening the list of examples of covered facilities without changing the statutory elements or penalties, the committee reviser said.

Supporters including Charter Communications told the committee the change is intended to help prosecutors treat intentional damage to broadband infrastructure as damage to critical infrastructure rather than ordinary property crimes. Dayton Murti, senior manager of government affairs for Charter Communications (Spectrum), said the company has about 118,000 customers in 25 Kansas communities, employs about 850 Kansans, invested roughly $37,000,000 last year to expand infrastructure and connected about 3,000 homes and small businesses. “We support HB 2061, because it specifically classifies our cables and wires as critical infrastructure,” Murti said. He told senators his company has tracked four recent intentional-damage incidents in Kansas, with outages affecting from a few hundred to more than 10,000 customers; he said other attacks nationwide have affected more than 100,000 customers.

Natalie Scott, the committee reviser, told the panel the bill adds language so the statutory definition of critical infrastructure includes “any above ground and below ground lines, cable, or wires” and — as amended in the House Judiciary Committee — expressly lists antennas, radio transceivers, towers, wireless support structures, small cell facilities and equipment buildings, cabinets and shelters among the examples. Scott said the bill “doesn't change any of the elements of the crime or the criminal penalties for the crime, just those definitions.”

Committee members pressed proponents and the reviser on practical effects and scope. Several senators asked whether the change would cover private property equipment such as a satellite dish on a residence or underground lines that run under a private yard. Scott said the statutory language targets facilities “used for wireline, broadband, or wireless telecommunications or video services infrastructure” and that whether a particular device or buried line qualifies would turn on whether it constitutes such a facility. She added, “I'm not sure if a cyber attack would really meet the definition of this crime,” when asked whether nonphysical attacks would be covered.

Senator Titus expressed concern that adding language covering facilities “whether that facility is located within or outside of any public, or highway right of way” could criminalize ordinary conduct near buried lines or in rights-of-way. Titus asked whether a motorist or a person taking a photograph in a highway right-of-way could inadvertently commit the offense; proponents and the reviser said the statute's trespass elements (without consent, knowingly entering or remaining) and existing definitions of trespass would limit application, and they did not intend to criminalize routine yard work or lawful presence where permission exists.

Senator Bowser asked whether the bill would reach damage caused by cyberattacks; Scott and Murti said the draft appears focused on unauthorized physical entry or physical damage and that cyber conduct might instead be covered under other statutes. Senator Schmidt asked whether the 2022 Moore County substation attack or other incidents informed the bill; Scott directed questions about motivating incidents to bill proponents, and Murti said the company had experienced multiple attacks on trunk and aerial lines, often by people mistaking fiber for copper and cutting lines.

Several senators asked how this change would aid prosecution, since trespass and property-damage statutes already exist. Murti said the industry hopes the classification will help prosecutors decide to bring charges and will act as a deterrent, but he conceded it is “one piece of the puzzle” and that law enforcement and prosecutors must still investigate and pursue suspects.

The committee received written proponent testimony from Darren Miller, vice president and state director for AT&T Kansas, and Patrick Fucic, director of government affairs for T-Mobile; both were listed as written-only conferees at the hearing.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 2061 without taking a committee vote on the bill. The committee then considered and approved its meeting minutes by voice vote after Senator Titus moved approval and Senator Bowser seconded; the committee chair announced “the motion carries.”

What was not decided: the committee did not vote on HB 2061 during the hearing, and senators asked proponents to return with clarifications about how the bill would affect easements, right-of-way scenarios and whether the change would materially improve prosecution outcomes. Proponents offered to provide further information to the committee.