Relating To Electric Utilities.
HB978 would expand the Public Utilities Commission’s emergency receivership authority to include regulated investor-owned electric utilities, not just regulated water and sewer utilities. Under the bill, if the commission finds that an electric utility is failing, is about to fail, or is consistently providing inadequate and unreasonable service in a way that poses a serious and imminent threat to health, safety, and welfare, it may appoint a receiver to take temporary action to restore or maintain service. The receiver would have access to utility assets and records and could manage operations, spend existing revenues for labor and materials, and commit additional resources as needed to bring service up to acceptable standards.
The bill also states that receivership costs incurred by the commission, its staff, or the receiver would be borne by the utility in receivership or by ratepayers, consistent with generally accepted ratemaking practices. Control of the utility would remain with the receiver until the commission determines the utility can be returned to its owners, transferred to new owners, or liquidated in the public interest. The measure is framed as a consumer-protection and continuity-of-service tool for situations where an investor-owned electric utility’s financial condition or underinvestment threatens reliable electric service.
The bill’s impact on state law is to amend section 269-14.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by expressly adding regulated investor-owned electric utilities to the list of utilities for which the PUC may appoint a receiver. It would give the commission clearer statutory authority to intervene in an electric utility emergency and would broaden the scope of temporary control, operational access, and spending authority available during receivership. The bill also references wildfire mitigation, grid modernization, and infrastructure investment concerns as part of the justification for the change.
Overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger regulatory authority to protect customers, with the bill presented as a proactive safeguard for public health, safety, welfare, and service reliability. The text emphasizes that receivership is intended to stabilize a troubled utility, preserve operations, and protect employees and customers rather than punish the company. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded opposition or formal vote history in the materials supplied.
The main point of contention suggested by the bill itself is the breadth of the PUC’s emergency power and the financial consequences of receivership, especially the provision allowing costs to be charged to the utility or its ratepayers. Another likely issue is the bill’s focus on a large investor-owned electric utility and whether the state should intervene more aggressively in utility management when financial distress or undercapitalization threatens service. The delayed effective date of July 1, 3000 also stands out as unusual, though no explanation is provided in the text.
HB978 would amend Hawaii’s utility receivership statute, section 269-14.5, HRS, to expressly authorize the Public Utilities Commission to appoint a receiver for a regulated investor-owned electric utility when the utility is failing, imminently failing, or consistently providing inadequate service that threatens health, safety, and welfare. It would expand the commission’s emergency oversight tools, allow a receiver to access and manage utility assets and records, and permit expenditures for operations under ratemaking principles, with costs ultimately assigned to the utility in receivership or its ratepayers.
The bill is presented in a strongly protective, intervention-oriented tone, reflecting concern about utility financial instability, wildfire mitigation underinvestment, and the risk of service disruption. The available materials show no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no direct evidence of organized support or opposition in the provided record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to consumer protection and reliability concerns rather than to deregulation or utility autonomy.
The most notable potential controversy is whether the PUC should have authority to place an investor-owned electric utility into receivership, since that is a significant intrusion into private utility management. Related concerns include who bears the cost of receivership, because the bill allows expenses to be charged to the utility or its ratepayers, which could raise ratepayer and fairness objections. The bill’s focus on a specific class of investor-owned electric utilities and its reference to wildfire mitigation and infrastructure undercapitalization may also prompt debate over whether the state is responding to a company-specific crisis or creating a broader regulatory precedent.