House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2597 - Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications
Short Title
Extending the timelines for the state corporation commission to make a determination regarding rate-making treatment for electric generating or transmission facilities.
Minutes Content for Thu, Feb 8, 2024
Chairperson Delperdang opened the hearing on HB2597.
Nick Myers provided an overview of the bill. (Attachment11) Mr. Myers responded to questions from committee members.
Chair recognized proponents as follows:
Paul Snider, Kansans for Lower Electric Rates, KLER, and Kansas Industrial Consumers, KIC,(Attachment12) who testified in support of the bill. Mr. Snider explained the bill changes the regulatory review time frame, or the timeline the Kansas Corporation Commission, KCC, must act within, from 180 days to 240 days. He added energy generation investments, large plant additions and plant retirements are increasingly complex and more time at the KCC is warranted.
The conferee responded to questions from committee members.
Proponent Written Only testimony as follows:
David Nickel, CURB (Attachment13)
Chair recognized opponent testimony as follows:
Chuck Caisley, Evergy (Attachment14) who testified as opponent of the bill. Mr. Caisley explained predetermination is a beneficial statute that is consistent with regulatory police in neighboring states and has served Kansas well over the years. He added Evergy's primary concern is that this bill unnecessarily mandates the one-size-fits all extension of the timeline that exists when the KCC considers predetermination of rate making treatment for a utility's generation or transmission facilities, therefore would request the opportunity to work with parties on this legislation as part of the discussion that is on going regarding the bill.
The conferee responded to questions from the committee members.
Chair recognized neutral testimony as follows:
Jeff McClanahan, Kansas Corporation Commission, KCC, (Attachment15) (Attachment16) who testified as a neutral on the bill. Mr. McClanahan explained each Predetermination Filing should be based on a case by case determination of the complexity of the application, more specifically, for less complex Predetermination Filing applications, parties could consider a procedural schedule that is less than 240 days, while larger and more complex applications can utilize the full 240 days. He added, therefore, the legislature would be providing more flexibility for parties if it determines that 240 days is a more appropriate timeline.
The conferee responded to questions from the committee members.
Chairperson Delperdang asked the committee for any further questions.
Chair Delperdang closed the hearing on HB2597.
The next committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday Feb. 13.
Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:26am.
