Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rate Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee declines to advance time‑of‑use framework; debate focuses on vulnerable residential customers and PUC notice requirements
Summary
A proposed amendment to LD 186 would have required the PUC to notify the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee and explain how it will consider impacts of time‑of‑use rates on medically dependent, elderly and economically vulnerable residential customers.
Representative Warren offered an amendment to LD 186 that would require the Public Utilities Commission, when initiating a docket or issuing a report about time‑of‑use (TOU) rates for standard offer service, to provide the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee with a statement describing how the Commission will consider impacts on vulnerable residential customers. The amendment also asked the PUC to consider how to avoid adverse effects on customers dependent on life‑support systems, participants in Lifeline or other medical‑benefit programs, seniors and economically vulnerable customers.
The PUC and Public Advocate participated in the discussion; GEO representatives and advocates urged the PUC to ensure TOU proposals include analysis of cost‑shift and affordability effects as part of any rate design docket. Representative Warren said the amendment was intended to require notice and a focused assessment of potential consequences prior to initiating an adjudicatory proceeding to adopt TOU rates.
At the work session the committee considered procedural motions and ultimately recorded a motion of Ought Not to Pass as the committee disposition (transcript work session tally recorded 5 in favor, 4 opposed at time of roll call). Some members said the committee should not block a PUC‑led process that examines TOU design; others said the amendment was needed to protect vulnerable households and to require clearer notice and analysis. The PUC indicated earlier in the hearing that it would not object to providing the committee with information on how it will consider vulnerable customers, but the committee could not agree on statutory language and a path forward.
Ending: The committee recorded Ought Not to Pass in work session but asked PUC and GEO to continue engagement and to consider mechanisms to ensure vulnerable residential customers are identified and evaluated in any future TOU rate-making docket.
