Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Deposits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maine lawmakers hear bill to bar utilities from requiring deposits based only on income
Summary
Representative Melanie Sachs and a coalition of public-health and anti-poverty groups urged lawmakers to remove a PUC rule that lets utilities demand deposits from new residential applicants who report no income, saying the policy burdens a small number of vulnerable people while offering little protection to ratepayers.
Representative Melanie Sachs, sponsor of LD 10 80, opened the public hearing by asking the Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology to remove a single provision in Public Utilities Commission rule Chapter 815 that allows a utility to require a security deposit when a new residential applicant reports having “no income.”
Sachs said she encountered the issue during research into economic security and public-health screening and described examples — recent graduates, asylum seekers, gig workers and survivors of abuse — who might say they have “no income” despite having some means to pay bills. “Out of 89,000 new residential contract accounts created in 2024, only 300 declared no income and required deposits,” Sachs told the committee, quoting data supplied by Central Maine Power (CMP).
The hearing centered on whether the practice is justified as a credit- risk safeguard, and on its practical effect on people newly establishing service. Heather Sanborn, Maine’s public advocate, said existing Maine statutes presume residential customers should not be charged a deposit unless the utility can show particularized evidence that the customer is a credit risk. Sanborn said using lack of a regular source of income alone as proof of credit risk can punish people who have recently secured housing and are getting back on their feet. “These are not just hypotheticals,” she said, citing nonprofit caseworkers who report clients could not afford such deposits.
Representatives of low-income and immigrant-service groups supported the bill. Will Hayward of the Maine Community Action Partnership described deposits of “up to the two highest consecutive billing periods” as an “exorbitant cost” that can derail housing stabilization. Zoe Salul of the New England Arab American Organization said some refugee families paid “up to $700” in deposits and were confused by how the charge was explained.
Consumer-owned utilities and investor-owned utilities offered neutral or cautious testimony. Deirdre Schneider, speaking for the Public Utilities Commission, called the proof-of-income provision “rarely used” and said the commission supports rulemaking to address timing language in the bill. Deborah Hart, representing consumer-owned electric utilities, said small, rural utilities need ways to assess an applicant’s ability to pay and asked the committee to be precise about whether the statute applies only to “applicants” for a single location or includes repeat applicants who move frequently.
Representatives of CMP and Versant Power said the provision appears infrequently in practice. Kathleen Newman of CMP confirmed CMP’s data: roughly 1,600 deposits were required under any of the rule’s criteria in 2024, and about 300 were required only because an applicant reported no income. Newman said CMP is exploring staff training to ask clarifying questions so callers who mean to report Social Security or a stipend are not mistakenly recorded as having “no income.” She also explained the utility’s current deposit options, including single payments, installment plans and third-party guarantors, and noted that deposits are returned after 12 months with 4% interest when rules apply.
Several committee members pressed for more detail on outcomes for the 300 deposit payers — how many repaid, how many later faced disconnection — and asked for geographic or zip-code detail. CMP and other utilities agreed to provide follow-up data at the work session. No formal vote was taken at the hearing.
Why it matters: The proposal would remove a single ground for charging a deposit that advocates say hits a narrow set of people — new applicants without conventional pay stubs or credit histories — but that can impose a meaningful short-term cost when utilities may charge up to two months’ worth of the previous occupant’s highest bills.
What's next: Committee members requested additional data from CMP, Versant and consumer-owned utilities about how many of the deposit-required accounts ultimately became delinquent or were disconnected, and whether customer-service staff currently probe callers who say they have “no income.” The committee will consider those data and possible rule-language changes in a work session.
Speakers quoted in this article are listed among the article’s speakers and were present in the committee hearing transcript.
