Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Securitization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate adds and trims consumer protections to securitization bill; bill retained on calendar
Summary
Lawmakers debated amendments to HB2679, a securitization bill for electric generation assets. Two Mathis amendments and an Olsen amendment drew competing views on consumer protection, grid reliability and notice. One Mathis amendment passed; another and the Olson/Olsen amendment failed. Sponsor then asked to retain the bill on the calendar.
House members spent an extended period debating changes to HB2679, legislation that would authorize securitization related to electric power generation assets and set conditions for those transactions.
The measure drew floor amendments focused on consumer protections, limits on what costs may be securitized and requirements about retiring assets that are securitized.
Representative Mathis, who offered two floor amendments, said the proposals were intended to add consumer protections: one would require securitized generation facilities to be removed from service and retired rather than sold, and would add prudence review and a consumer advocate role; the second would shorten the financing term for retired assets and bar securitization of existing fuel and purchased power costs. “This amendment requires electric power generation facilities that are securitized to be removed from service and retired, prohibiting the selling to other entities to continue operation of the plant,” Mathis said.
Sponsor Representative Griffin opposed Mathis’s first amendment, saying she had seen it the same day and asked colleagues to vote it down. “I respectfully oppose this amendment. I only saw it this morning and, ask that you vote against it,” Griffin said on the floor.
Representative Mathis’s first amendment failed on voice vote. Mathis’s second amendment passed after a requested division; the clerk recorded 37 ayes and 23 nays on that amendment.
Representative Olsen offered an amendment that he described as a guardrail to ensure securitization would not increase rates and that replacement resources would be dispatchable. Olsen argued that, without such protections, securitization could burden ratepayers. “If you have an existing plant, it's cheaper to operate the existing plant, then you should not terminate or discontinue that plant and securitize the book value of that plant,” Olsen said. Olsen’s amendment failed on a recorded division (13 ayes, 47 nays).
After the amendment votes, sponsor Griffin moved to hold the bill and substitute a motion to retain HB2679 on the calendar so related Olson/Olsen bills could be heard in committee later; that motion passed, and the bill was retained on the calendar rather than advanced to final action.
The floor debate repeatedly returned to two themes: protecting ratepayers from being charged interest on securitized debt for assets that still have commercial value, and ensuring any retirements or replacements maintain grid reliability.
Votes and motions recorded on the floor matched those actions: Mathis amendment number 1 (failed), Mathis amendment number 2 (adopted, 37–23), Olsen amendment (failed, 13–47), and a motion to retain HB2679 on the calendar (adopted).
