House bill would require monthly bill discounts for low‑income households; utilities warn of costs

Representative Charlotte Mena, sponsor of HB 2,373, told the committee the bill builds on the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) to reduce the disproportionate energy burden on low‑income households by requiring a monthly bill discount program, tiered benefits, streamlined enrollment and expanded outreach. “The intent of the bill … is to build on the Clean Energy Transformation Act by clarifying expectations in a way that reduces disproportionate energy burden faced by limited income households,” Mena said.

Department of Commerce staff and supportive advocates described Washington’s current energy‑assistance landscape as a patchwork in which eligibility, benefit levels and access vary by utility. Commerce analysis cited in committee testimony estimated an unmet need of roughly $270,000,000 for low‑income households spending more than 6% of income on energy.

Utilities, PUD associations and small rural cooperatives warned the bill, as written, would likely require utilities to increase funds for assistance drawn from utility operations and could shift costs to non‑low‑income ratepayers. Nicholas Garcia of the Washington Public Utility District Association said recent analysis suggests that several PUDs could see non‑low‑income customers face rate increases on the order of hundreds of dollars per year to meet the expanded need. Grays Harbor PUD testified it would require roughly $9,000,000 in additional revenue in 2028 under the bill’s language, a potential 10% rate increase for other customers.

Advocates including the Washington State Community Action Partnership and the Northwest Energy Coalition supported the bill’s goals but urged clear funding solutions. Some witnesses urged directing a portion of Climate Commitment Act proceeds or state funding toward a statewide program; Front and Tender Coalition and community action network representatives cited the governor’s budget proposals as possible starting points.

Rural cooperative and small PUD witnesses stressed administrative burdens for utilities with only a few thousand customers and documented estimates showing the same program would cost substantially more per household in low‑population counties: one submitted study projected annual per‑household impacts of about $61 in King County versus $742 in Ferry County.

The committee closed the hearing after extensive testimony and asked staff and stakeholders to continue technical discussions, including clarifying funding sources and whether Commerce or the state should play a larger role in financing assistance programs.