Kansas committee weighs SB 380 to bar utilities from rate‑basing EV fast‑charging costs

A Kansas Senate committee on SB 380 heard more than an hour of testimony and questioning on a proposal to prevent retail electric suppliers from recovering the capital costs of electric vehicle (EV) fast‑charging stations through regulated rate bases.

Assistant Reviser Nick Myers told the panel the bill would require utilities to provide "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates and services" to third‑party EV charging providers and would bar a retail electric supplier from including the cost or expenses of its own EV stations in the utility’s rate base, meaning those costs could not be recovered from retail ratepayers. Myers said the measure would apply to "fast charging stations" as defined in the draft (capable of delivering 50 kW or greater at 200 volts or greater), take effect on 07/01/2026 if enacted, and would exclude stations built before that date and stations used only for a utility’s private fleet or employee use.

Supporters representing independent retailers and convenience‑store operators told the committee the prohibition is needed to protect private investment and competition. Ted Augustine, introduced as president of Triplet Inc., said his company has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in EV charging at travel centers and that proponents removed earlier demands—such as a price structure without demand charges and a separate subsidiary proposal—to reach compromise. Augustine said private investors need legal certainty so a utility cannot use ratepayer funds to subsidize competing charging stations.

Brian Posler, executive director of Fuel True Independent Energy and Convenience, framed the bill as a market‑protection measure. "We cannot allow all ratepayers to subsidize the creation of charging stations so that they are selling charges for cars at retail for less money than my members have to pay," Posler said, arguing the prospect of utility subsidization could deter independent retailers from investing.

Utility and neutral witnesses urged caution and proposed time‑limited provisions. Reagan McLeod of the Kansas Electric Cooperatives and Kimberly Genscher Swati for Kansas Municipal Utilities described the industry as early stage and recommended a five‑year sunset or review to see whether the law spurs private build‑out without creating service gaps. McLeod said a five‑year sunset would give the legislature a way to reassess whether the bill achieved its intended effect for rural and underserved areas. Swati added municipal utilities generally do not deploy fast chargers, and expressed concern that the bill’s blanket ban on rate recovery could leave municipal utilities without a way to comply if a future federal or state mandate required deployment.

Nick Voorhis of Evergy said his company is neutral and that Evergy currently owns about 10 of more than 200 comparable chargers in its service territory. Voorhis described existing rebate programs and said the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) retains prudency and oversight authority; he argued preserving the commission’s ability to consider utility solutions for underserved areas is important. Several witnesses noted that the KCC does not have jurisdiction over some cooperatives and municipal utilities, meaning enforcement or remedies could differ depending on the owner of a disputed charger.

Consumer advocate Joseph Astra told the committee the question is a policy call: if the legislature wants to promote market deployment like private gas stations, the committee should be deliberate about whether and how costs are passed to ratepayers and consider narrow exemptions or carve‑outs for co‑ops and municipalities.

Committee members repeatedly focused on practical questions: how to define "behind the meter," which costs are covered by the prohibition, whether demand charges remain relevant, and how to prevent large entities from undercutting smaller operators. Witnesses said the bill’s drafters removed earlier demand‑charge and separate‑subsidiary provisions to reach agreement, that "behind the meter" refers to equipment on the customer side of the meter (for example, a convenience store site), and that capital equipment behind the meter—switchgear, converters and dispensers—was the primary concern.

The committee did not take a vote. The fiscal note for SB 380 was placed in the committee packet, and the chair closed consideration and adjourned the meeting. The discussion leaves several policy choices for legislators: whether to adopt a near‑absolute bar on rate recovery, to include a sunset or review, or to craft limited exemptions or alternative remedies for cooperatives and municipal utilities serving rural or mandated deployments.