AN ACT relating to retail electric suppliers.
SB213 would significantly revise Kentucky’s regulation of retail electric suppliers, with a focus on planning, capacity adequacy, and customer choice for very large new electric loads. The bill declares state policy that most retail electric suppliers regulated by the Public Service Commission must procure enough generation capacity to meet demand through a competitive, open process that emphasizes reliability, resilience, and reasonable cost. It requires integrated resource planning every three years, with utilities disclosing planning models, engaging interested parties, considering demand-side management and third-party resources on equal footing with utility-owned resources, and filing plans with the commission under new regulations.
The bill also changes how certified service territories and utility ownership are treated. It characterizes the exclusive right to serve a certified territory as a property right of the Commonwealth and authorizes the commission, in utility sale or transfer cases, to treat amounts paid above net book value as the value of that privilege and potentially require some or all of that excess to be returned to customers. For large new loads over 50 megawatts at a single site, beginning June 30, 2027, the bill allows certain prospective customers to choose an alternative retail supplier if the incumbent supplier lacks sufficient capacity, and it allows similar choice in cooperative territories with the cooperative’s written consent. The commission must adopt rules to implement these provisions and address cost recovery so existing customers are not harmed.
SB213 would also amend Kentucky’s utility statutes to reinforce that retail electric suppliers must maintain adequate service through ownership or contracts for sufficient generation capacity, and it limits reliance on regional transmission organizations or independent system operators for prolonged capacity or energy purchases to satisfy the new planning requirements. Distribution cooperatives are largely exempt from the integrated resource plan filing requirement if they contract for all energy, capacity, and transmission needs through a generation and transmission cooperative. The bill further authorizes the commission to consider a utility’s adherence to the new planning standards when deciding whether to approve generation-related certificates or certain financing requests.
In addition, the bill revises the PSC’s authority over utility acquisitions and certificates of convenience and necessity. It would allow the commission to evaluate whether public ownership would be more beneficial than private ownership in retail electric supplier transfer cases, based on rates and service quality, and it deems cooperatives organized under Chapter 279 to be publicly owned for this purpose. It also updates existing territorial-service statutes to preserve the general exclusive-service framework while adding a new adequacy-based enforcement mechanism that could permit another supplier or a competitive retail supplier to serve customers if the incumbent fails to correct a service deficiency.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is pro-reliability, pro-planning, and cautiously pro-competition for large industrial loads, while preserving the traditional territorial utility structure for most customers. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials; however, the bill’s structure suggests likely support from parties favoring stronger utility planning and large-load flexibility, and possible concern from incumbent utilities and cooperatives about expanded commission oversight, customer-choice provisions, and limits on long-term market purchases. The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s treatment of utility territory rights as a property interest, the potential customer refunds in sale/transfer cases, and whether large-load customers should be allowed to bypass the designated supplier when local capacity is insufficient.
SB213 would amend multiple provisions of KRS Chapter 278 governing retail electric suppliers, certified territories, certificates of convenience and necessity, utility acquisitions, and utility financing. It would create new statutory duties for integrated resource planning, require PSC rulemaking, and add new standards the commission may use when reviewing generation, acquisition, and debt-related applications. It also creates a new framework for large-load customer choice and could shift some costs, planning obligations, and transfer-value determinations onto utilities and, in some cases, their customers.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative debate or roll-call support in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s provisions, the measure appears to be framed as a reliability and planning bill with a limited competitive opening for large customers, which may attract support from those seeking more transparent utility planning and more options for major economic-development loads. At the same time, the bill likely raises concerns among incumbent utilities and cooperatives about regulatory burden, territorial exclusivity, and commission authority over ownership value and customer refunds.
The most notable points of contention are likely to be the bill’s redefinition of exclusive service rights as a property right of the Commonwealth, the commission’s authority to treat premium sale prices as value belonging to customers, and the new ability for large new loads over 50 megawatts to choose another supplier when the incumbent lacks sufficient capacity. Utilities may also object to the bill’s restrictions on prolonged reliance on regional transmission organizations or independent system operators, while cooperatives may focus on the bill’s exemptions and the conditions under which large-load customer choice can occur in cooperative territories.