Kansas hearing on SB 439 pits utilities’ calls for standardized railroad permit timelines against railroads’ safety and property‑rights concerns

A Kansas Senate committee held a public hearing Jan. 29 on Senate Bill 439, the proposed Utility Railroad Crossing Act, hearing proponent testimony from gas, electric, pipeline and broadband companies who said the bill would create predictable timelines and fees for utility work near railroad rights‑of‑way, and opponent testimony from major railroads and a rail workers’ union that warned the measure could endanger safety and private railroad property rights.

Jesse Pringle of the Revisor of Statutes told the committee the bill would define "crossing" and "parallel," require utilities to give 30 days’ written notice before work within public rights‑of‑way and to request permission for work outside public ROW, exempt certain nonexcavation activities and require immediate notice for emergency work. The bill would set a standard permission fee of $1,250 (adjusted annually by the producer price index) and direct disputes to the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) for adjudication, with review available under the Kansas Judicial Review Act.

Proponents described project delays and high costs they attribute to the current, inconsistent railroad permitting process. "The railroad demanded either a one‑time fee of nearly $40,000 or thousands of dollars every year for the life of the agreement," Patrick Vogelsberg of Kansas Gas Service told the committee, adding that in one repair project in Kansas City his company faced more than "$75,000 in flagging costs" that it could not avoid. Broadband and electric representatives said inconsistent approvals threaten grant deadlines and widespread infrastructure deployment; Jay Perez d Carvelo of IdeaTek and Eric Sartorius of the Kansas Communications Coalition said many rural broadband projects have been delayed for months by crossing disputes.

Opponents pushed back on both safety and property grounds. "Senate Bill 439 contains provisions that raise serious operational safety and regulatory compliance risks for railroads," James Hill, director of real estate utilities and contracts for Union Pacific, told lawmakers, arguing the bill could allow installations without FRA‑compliant engineering and could dilute railroad control over privately held right‑of‑way. Melissa Cannon, manager of real estate for BNSF Railway (testifying by Webex), said the railroad’s published utility‑accommodation policy prescribes engineering review and safety measures that could be undercut by automatic authorization timelines in the bill. Ty Dragu of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers union said allowing utilities to work without mutual, railroad‑approved plans or required on‑track protections could put railroad workers and the traveling public at risk.

A central point of dispute was the bill’s proposed timeline and fee cap. Proponents said firm timelines (a 30‑day notice standard for public‑ROW work and permission timelines for nonpublic ROW) and a predictable fee would prevent months‑long delays and downstream costs for ratepayers and grant‑funded projects. Opponents said a $1,250 cap would be insufficient for complex engineering reviews and for railroads’ actual costs, and that different project types—perpendicular crossings versus mile‑long parallels—require different review timeframes and engineering scrutiny. Union Pacific described existing options including a "rush" review (5 or 15 days) and said its typical application‑to‑agreement turnaround is 30–60 days, with much delay attributable to incomplete submissions from applicants.

Lawmakers questioned both sides about practical fixes. Senator Klatt suggested a tiered timeline—shorter for perpendicular crossings and longer for longitudinal parallels—and asked when a statutory clock should start; Union Pacific said its clock starts when an applicant submits an online application. Committee members also discussed whether KCC is the appropriate forum for resolving disputes that implicate FRA standards, with opponents arguing KDOT or federal regulators should be involved for safety oversight.

The committee closed the hearing without taking a vote on SB 439. Committee staff recorded additional written proponent testimony from Mid‑West Energy, AT&T Kansas, the American Petroleum Institute, Kansas Municipal Utilities, and the Kansas/Colorado division of Atmos Energy. The committee later approved a substitution to the Jan. 29 minutes and adjourned.

Next steps: the committee did not vote on the bill at the hearing; lawmakers may choose to draft amendments addressing tiered timelines, fee structure, and explicit safety or training requirements before advancing or rejecting the proposal.