AN ACT relating to investor-owned electric utilities.
HB 367 would amend Kentucky law governing investor-owned electric utilities by changing how those utilities may recover certain charges from customers. The bill keeps the existing requirement that utilities file schedules of rates and service conditions with the Public Service Commission, but adds a new restriction beginning January 1, 2027: investor-owned electric utilities could no longer collect taxes, fees, or other amounts imposed on customers by another governmental unit. It also bars the commission from approving certain existing surcharge categories, specifically those related to environmental compliance, demand-side management, and voluntary energy cost assistance, and limits customer charges to amounts directly and exclusively related to electric service that the commission has approved.
The bill would require investor-owned electric utilities to file new tariffs within 90 days of the effective date to conform to the new rules. In practical terms, this would narrow the kinds of costs that can be passed through on customer bills and would likely reduce or eliminate several line-item charges that utilities currently use to recover government-imposed costs and program expenses. The act takes effect December 30, 2026, giving utilities and regulators time to adjust before the new restrictions apply.
The overall sentiment available in the record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes attached to the bill. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for limiting utility pass-through charges and increasing bill transparency for customers, while constraining the Public Service Commission’s authority to approve certain surcharges. Because no debate is provided, there is no documented public support or opposition in the available materials.
The main point of contention likely centers on whether investor-owned utilities should be allowed to recover taxes, fees, and program costs through customer bills. Supporters would likely view the bill as a consumer-protection and rate-relief measure, while opponents may argue it interferes with cost recovery, utility regulation, and funding for environmental compliance or energy assistance programs. The bill’s impact would therefore fall most directly on investor-owned electric utilities, the Public Service Commission, and Kentucky ratepayers.
HB 367 would amend KRS 278.160 to prohibit investor-owned electric utilities from collecting from customers taxes, fees, or other amounts imposed by other governmental units, beginning January 1, 2027. It would also restrict the Kentucky Public Service Commission from approving surcharges for environmental compliance, demand-side management, and voluntary energy cost assistance, and would limit recoverable charges to amounts directly and exclusively related to electric service that the commission has approved. Utilities would have 90 days after the effective date to file conforming tariffs, and the act would take effect December 30, 2026.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded sentiment in the materials provided. From the bill text, the measure appears oriented toward reducing customer bills and limiting utility pass-through charges, suggesting a consumer-focused policy approach. At the same time, the restrictions on surcharge approval indicate a significant regulatory change that could draw concern from utilities and advocates for existing utility-funded programs.
The likely contention is over whether investor-owned electric utilities should be allowed to recover government-imposed taxes, fees, and program costs through customer rates. Supporters would likely argue the bill prevents hidden or inflated charges and protects ratepayers from paying for items beyond core electric service. Opponents would likely contend that the bill could prevent utilities from recovering legitimate costs, undermine environmental compliance funding, and reduce support for demand-side management and voluntary energy assistance programs. The Public Service Commission’s reduced authority to approve these surcharges is another likely point of dispute.