Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Board Representation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects amendment to add outside-county seats to municipal power boards
Summary
A committee rejected an amended bill that would have allowed municipally owned local power boards to add seats for ratepayers living outside city limits or in neighboring counties; critics said the change could dilute city representation. The amendment passed but the final bill failed (9–9; 3 present not voting).
Whit Boyd, the bill sponsor, told the State and Local Government Committee the amendment to House Bill 2418 would expand board representation to include ratepayers who live outside of city limits or in neighboring counties, subject to a 3,500-ratepayer threshold and an opt‑in by the county mayor. “This bill is very simple. It will add some board members and give some representation to municipally owned local power companies to ratepayers that live in the county outside of the city limits or in a neighboring county,” Boyd said.
Members pressed the sponsor on how the amendment would affect municipalities that operate electric departments as city departments or as power authorities, and on the fairness of adding seats that could shift policy control. Representative Mitchell warned that a small outside share of ratepayers could gain outsized influence, saying the proposal might give “four board members [to represent] 12% of the ratepayers.” Whit Boyd responded that the amendment is intended to ensure “100% of the board members will represent 100% of the ratepayers.” Representative Dixie described the change as a “knee‑jerk reaction” that could double board sizes and have broad consequences across the state.
The committee placed amendment 016376 on the bill and approved the amendment, but on the final vote to move the amended bill to Government Operations the clerk reported nine ayes, nine noes and three present not voting; the motion failed and HB 2418 did not advance.
The record shows the sponsor’s amendment cleared the committee but the full measure failed to pass out of the committee on a tie vote; there was no further action scheduled in this session.
