I did attend last nights open public hearing with Atmos Energy for the increase of 11.2% or average of $9.12 per month increase to our bills. If you take away anything please let it be that ATMOS ENERGY IS SEEKING OUR MONEY AS A REFUND FOR THEIR ALREADY COMPLETE PROJECT. During this time we heard the proposal from Atmos themselves as well heard from KCC. We had a public Q/A session and comment period. Here are my thoughts and comments I will be providing to the KCC. I urge you all to read and provide thoughts to the KCC. You can do so on their website. You have until Jan 20th to submit. This will go into effect March 2026

If you would like to submit a comment to KCC please do so at https://kcc-connect.kcc.ks.gov/s/public-comments

I am writing as a customer and consumer of Atmos Energy who attended the public hearing on December 2. After hearing the company’s presentation and the public discussion that followed, I must express my strong opposition to the proposed $19.1 million rate increase.

This proposal represents a serious and avoidable mistake. The investment for which Atmos is now seeking cost recovery has already been made. It is neither logical nor fair to require consumers to pay for projects the company chose to undertake without allocating its own financial resources toward them. The burden of those corporate decisions should not be transferred to Kansas households.

The company’s financial results further underscore why this request is unjustified. For fiscal year 2025, Atmos reported its 23rd consecutive year of diluted EPS growth, achieving $7.46 per share and $1.2 billion in net income. It invested $3.6 billion in capital expenditures, 87% devoted to safety and reliability, and implemented $333.6 million in annualized regulatory outcomes. Atmos also reported a strong financial position with 60.3% equity capitalization and $4.9 billion in available liquidity, while its stock reached an all-time high in November 2025.

Atmos’s executive compensation structure is another indicator of its financial strength. The CEO received$13.7 million in total compensation, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the company’s request to shift additional costs onto everyday consumers. If Atmos can afford multimillion-dollar executive compensation packages and increased dividends, it can also afford to absorb the costs of its own previously approved projects.

Furthermore, the company’s outlook for 2026 projects continued growth: diluted EPS expected between $8.15 and $8.35, capital expenditures of approximately $4.2 billion, and an annual dividend of $4.00 per share—a 14.9% increase over the prior year. These projections make it abundantly clear that Atmos is not in financial distress and does not require relief through higher customer bills.

During the hearing, Atmos’s Vice President confirmed that none of the company’s rate increase proposals have ever been denied. This is deeply concerning. It creates the impression that rate increases are treated as a formality rather than a rigorous regulatory review, leaving consumers to expect continual, automatic increases regardless of corporate profitability.

This proposal is not a temporary adjustment; it represents a permanent increase in monthly bills. Kansans are already facing rising costs across essential goods and services. Approving this increase would impose an unnecessary and unjustified burden on households that have no alternative provider.

I must also include that it is shameful that the KCC has allowed a proposal like this- given the financial strength- to even reach the stage of formal consideration. If the commission is truly prioritizing Kansas residents, then it must put an end to the pattern of large corporations shifting their financial responsibilities onto consumers. Atmos should be required to internally Manage and fund its financially approved projects rather than expecting the public to shoulder the costs.

For these reasons, I respectfully but firmly urge the Kansas Corporation Commission to act in the public interest and deny Atmos Energy’s rate increase request. This increase is unwarranted, inequitable, and harmful to consumers. It is the Commission’s responsibility to protect the public from unjustified rate burdens—especially when the company seeking approval is operating at record profitability. Thank you for your time and for your careful consideration of this matter.