Committee debates H.753 rule changes on utility disconnections; members urge PUC rule update or targeted directive

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee turned to H.753 on Feb. 18, a bill aimed at updating Public Utility Commission (PUC) rule 3.300 on utility disconnections and customer protections. Victoria, speaking for the bill’s sponsors, said the measure grew from Act 142 and would address medical‑certificate procedures, add hot‑weather disconnect protections and consider performance metrics around disconnections.

Why it matters: members said protections for medically vulnerable customers and clear hot‑weather safeguards are important as electrification increases household electric bills. At the same time, several members said utilities already work with customers and that data presented by utilities showed disconnections have not risen markedly over the last decade.

Key discussion points and evidence Victoria (committee member) recommended softening a statutory ‘‘shall amend’’ directive so ideas could be fed into a formal PUC rulemaking process (Rule 3.300) with a date‑certain timeline, rather than imposing immediate statutory mandates that could be slow or ineffective. Committee members also discussed removing water utilities from the bill’s applicability and fleshing out language on hot‑weather protections.

Committee members raised operational concerns about the current disconnect timeline after testimony from utilities: a billed account may receive a bill (due ~27 days after issuance), followed by a duplicate/disconnect notice about five days later, and then potential disconnection roughly 15 days after that — a cadence several members said felt rapid and warranted clearer rule language.

Members suggested two plausible paths forward: strip the bill and include directed PUC rulemaking with a reasonable timeline and clearer reporting requirements; or send a committee letter recommending targeted PUC action and improved transparency on disconnection metrics. Supporters of a PUC directive argued that rule changes give teeth and timelines; supporters of a letter argued a letter is a pragmatic first step that may be effective and less disruptive.

What the committee decided: there was no vote. The committee paused H.753 to allow sponsors and staff to craft revised language addressing timing, hot‑weather protections, medical‑certificate processes, and reporting, and to clarify whether the committee will direct PUC rulemaking or transmit a letter of recommendation.

Ending: the committee moved to other bills and asked staff to return with revised language and additional testimony on data and rulemaking timelines.