Kansas Tax Authority Confirms Only a Utility May Sell Power in Kansas

Feb 2, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

As the request was addressed to the DOR, the question presented was phrased as a sales tax question; however, it effectively raises a question or utility law and policy.  The residential solar company asked how the Kansas sales tax rules would be applied to a power purchase agreement (PPA) between the solar company and a residential customer.  The DOR declines to answer the question because the “company cannot lawfully enter into a PPA with a Kansas resident, [the] question about the taxability of the charges that you will bill to a Kansas customer under a PPA presents a question that cannot currently arise under current Kansas law, and therefore has no practical significance.” 

In an incongruity in Kansas law, net metering up to one percent of a utility’s peak demand is allowed, including for residential customers.2 It would seem likely that if Kansas energy policy was sufficiently sophisticated to embrace net metering that it would also embrace solar companies providing PPAs.  Without the PPA option, Kansas customers are left having to own or lease solar power systems.  This situation is not unique to Kansas; Arizona and Los Angeles County have similar regulatory prohibitions regarding PPAs and consumers.

The ruling turns on a point of Kansas utility law that seems relatively clear: only a regulated utility in Kansas is authorized to sell electricity to a consumer, which invites the question as to why the solar company went through the effort to submit the request to the DOR.  One possibility is that the solar company may be seeking to publicize the fact only a utility can enter into a PPA to provide solar, or any other kind of power, to a residential customer in Kansas.  Thus, the ruling may be a component of a political strategy to urge the Kansas legislature to change the pertinent statute.  The ruling refers to this possibility with “If the Kansas legislature acts to legalize such PPA agreements, please resubmit your question if it has not been directly answered by the new legislation, and the department will attempt to answer it.” 

One oddity in the ruling is that the author included a gratuitous reference to the sales tax treatment of PPAs under New York law: “New York state law allows PPAs to be entered into by New York homeowners and third-party developers like your company. New York Technical Memorandum TSB-M-15(5)S discusses how New York sales tax applies to electricity that is billed to a homeowner under a such PPA agreement.”  It is possible that the solar company that requested this ruling persuaded the DOR to include that language to highlight the fact that PPAs are permitted elsewhere in the country.

*This blog post was originally on Tax Equity Telegraph


1 Kan. Dept. of Revenue, Opinion Letter 0-2016-001 (Jan. 25, 2016).

2 See NC Clean Energy Technology Center, DSIRE (Jan. 29, 016, 9:40 AM), http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program?state=KS.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.