Jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission Relating to Water and Wastewater Systems:
HB 1319 would narrow and clarify when certain nonprofit water and wastewater providers are exempt from regulation by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). The bill creates the term “qualifying nonprofit organization” and sets governance-based criteria for exemption, including service only to member-owners, annual elections, limits on board terms, a board composed mostly of members, and a member petition process for board nominations. It also revises the existing exemption language in chapter 367 to apply only to organizations meeting those standards.
The bill creates a new PSC process for determining whether an organization qualifies for exempt status. The commission could initiate a review on its own or after a petition, consider the organization’s governing documents and conduct, and, if it finds the organization does not qualify, give the organization 90 days to respond before issuing an order bringing it under PSC utility regulation. An organization found nonexempt could later petition to regain qualifying status after 24 months, with another 24-month waiting period if the petition is denied. The PSC would be required to adopt implementing rules by shortly after July 1, 2026. The bill also makes conforming changes to related statutes governing rural infrastructure funding and customer liability waivers.
In addition to the PSC jurisdiction changes, HB 1319 updates cross-references in the Rural Infrastructure Fund statute and in the insurance code’s customer liability waiver provision to reflect the revised water and wastewater utility definitions. These changes are technical but important because they align other laws with the new exemption framework for nonprofit water and wastewater systems. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, and the bill ultimately died in the Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee. That procedural outcome suggests the measure did not advance, but the record does not show explicit support or opposition statements. The bill’s structure indicates an effort to protect member-controlled nonprofit utilities from PSC oversight while giving the commission a clearer enforcement mechanism when an organization no longer operates as a true member-owned nonprofit.
The main point of contention likely would have been the balance between nonprofit autonomy and regulatory oversight. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s attempt to preserve exemption for genuine member-owned systems and to prevent abuse of nonprofit status, while opponents might object to the PSC’s expanded authority to review governance, disqualify organizations, and impose utility regulation. The waiting periods and nomination requirements also suggest possible debate over how burdensome the new standards would be for small water and wastewater associations.
HB 1319 would amend chapter 367, Florida Statutes, by redefining exempt nonprofit water and wastewater providers and creating a formal PSC disqualification and reinstatement process. It would affect nonprofit corporations, associations, and cooperatives that provide service only to their member-owners, and it would give the PSC explicit authority to determine whether such entities remain outside utility regulation. The bill also makes conforming changes to the Rural Infrastructure Fund statute and the customer liability waiver statute to match the revised utility definitions.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate. The bill died in the Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee, indicating it did not receive enough support to advance. Based on the text, the measure appears to be a regulatory clarification bill aimed at member-controlled nonprofit utilities, with an underlying policy preference for tighter standards and PSC review when exemption status is questioned.
The likely controversy centers on whether the PSC should have broader authority to scrutinize nonprofit water and wastewater systems and potentially bring them under utility regulation. Supporters would likely argue that the bill protects consumers and preserves the exemption only for genuinely member-controlled organizations, while critics may view the governance tests, petition procedures, and waiting periods as intrusive or burdensome for nonprofit systems. Another possible point of contention is the 1 percent member petition threshold for board nominations and the requirement that at least 75 percent of the board be members, which could be seen as either promoting accountability or limiting organizational flexibility.