House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB312 - Committee on Local Government
Short Title
Requiring the approval of the board of county commissioners prior to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by certain public utilities.
Minutes Content for Thu, Mar 23, 2023
Chairperson McGinn opened the hearing on SB312. Jason Long of the Office of Revisor of Statutes explained the bill and stood for questions.
Those speaking in support of the bill began with Representative Carrie Barth (Attachment 1). She believes that property owners need more protections in place regarding energy projects. This bill would add a layer of approval in relation to eminent domain concerns and projects that take advantage of the people and the land of Kansas without benefiting Kansans. Marci Laffen (Attachment 2) is another proponent of the bill. Her concern is that green energy is being pushed down from the federal level which offers money and tax credits for its development at the expense of private land. It is an issue that needs to be brought down to the local level for decision making by elected officials rather than a private committee. Rochelle McGhee Smart (Attachment 3) also spoke for approval of the bill. Her family has been farming and ranching for four generations. She thinks that the Kansas Corporation Commission and NextEra have been ignoring laws governing utilities. Specifically, NextEra had been conducting business, taking property interest in land, and beginning site preparation before obtaining legal permission to do so. They have also used deceptive and bullying practices to gain access to private land or done so without permission. Property owners are threatened with eminent domain if they do not agree to NextEra's terms. Virginia Macha (Attachment 4) also testified as a proponent. She expressed that the system involving eminent domain does not work for the regular person. The way to make the system work better is to bring it down to the local level. The current transmission line that is planned will not be the end but the beginning of more energy developments. Dean David (Attachment 5) joined via WebEx to support the bill. He is one of the many who is impacted by the current transmission line placement. He is frustrated by the fact that Next Era used outdated maps that did not take into account new structures on the land and that NextEra also trespassed on properties to conduct their studies. Landowners are not treated with respect as to the costs they will incur upon their land, land production and quality of life. The process for a landowner to fight eminent domain against a billion dollar company who have attorneys on staff is unfair in itself. Jackie Garagiola (Attachment 6) of the Kansas Livestock Association was in favor of the bill also. Their members support legislative, judicial, and administrative initiatives that limits the use of eminent domain. They support putting power back into the hands of private landowners. John Donley (Attachment 7) with the Kansas Farm Bureau spoke as the final proponent of the bill. He stated that under the U.S. Constitution, private property cannot be taken for public purpose unless it is for legitimate public purposes. This bill would help to further define and ensure such actions are for true public purposes. Proponents of the bill answered questions from the committee.
Further proponent, written testimony was received from:
John Parsons, Mid America Pipe (Attachment 8)
Lorie Johnson, Cherokee County Commissioner (Attachment 9)
Lauri Shuck, private citizen (Attachment 10)
Martin Tinker, private citizen (Attachment 11)
Charlotte O'Hara, private citizen (Attachment 12)
Benee Hudson, private citizen (Attachment 13)
Stephen Snitz, private citizen (Attachment 14)
Those speaking against the bill started with Brett Leopold (Attachment 15) of ITC Great Plains. He understands the concerns that people have expressed and noted that eminent domain is a last resort of responsible utilities like ITC Great Plain and Sunflower Electric. This bill would profoundly impact eminent domain laws in Kansas and already creates a fair process. Ultimately to enact it would drive up costs, reduce reliability and negatively impact rate payers. Alan Claus Anderson (Attachment 16) of Polsinelli Energy Practice Group was also an opponent of the bill. He stated that if this bill were to become law, it would allow any individual county to effectively veto what the Kansas Corporation Commission has determined is necessary and good for the whole state. This bill also lacks a study that would demonstrate its impact on grid reliability and rates. Lastly, Kimberly Svaty (Attachment 17) with Kansas Power Alliance spoke as to why they were against the bill since eminent domain does not apply to any of their clean energy projects. They understand that many of the supporters of the bill conflate transmission lines and clean energy. By which they mistakenly think that it would stop the development of clean energy. Ultimately this bill would create a litany of unintended consequences for the state. Speakers stood for questions from the committee.
Additional opponent, written testimony was received from:
Randy Leis, President, Kansas Legislative Policy Group (Attachment 18)
Laura Lutz, Senior Manager, Government Affairs Evergy (Attachment 19)
Reagan McCloud, Manager Government Relations, Kansas Electric Cooperative (Attachment 20)
Neutral written testimony was received from:
Jay Hall, Deputy Director and General Counsel, Kansas Association of Counties (Attachment 21)
Jeff McClanahan, Director, Utilities Division, Kansas Corporation Commission (Attachment 22)
Hearing closed on SB312.
Meeting adjourned at 10:28 a.m.
