Public Utilities - Street Lighting Equipment - Acquisitions and Reporting (County and Municipal Street Lighting Investment Act)
HB 950, the County and Municipal Street Lighting Investment Act, would give counties and municipalities a clearer legal path to take ownership of street lighting equipment currently owned by electric companies. A local government that receives street lighting service under an existing tariff could request to acquire some or all of the equipment, and if the parties cannot agree on price or terms, the local government could proceed by condemnation. After acquisition, the local government could convert service to a customer-owned street lighting tariff and buy electricity from either the electric company or a licensed retail supplier.
The bill also establishes detailed rules for how the purchase price is calculated and how the new tariff must work. The local government would pay the net book value of the equipment, plus the cost of any make-ready work performed by the electric company. Electric companies would be required to file a customer-owned street lighting tariff with the Public Service Commission by October 1, 2026, and that tariff would have to include distribution service costs and make-ready work costs, but not certain maintenance or accessory charges. The bill further allows local governments to contract for maintenance, requires notice of inventory changes, and sets standards for disputes and PSC review.
The bill would amend the Local Government Article and add a new section to the Public Utilities Article, creating a statewide framework for municipal and county acquisition of street lighting assets. It would shift some control over street lighting from electric companies to local governments, while preserving PSC oversight for tariff approval and dispute resolution. It also changes how street lighting rates are structured by requiring a customer-owned tariff and limiting what charges may be included, which could affect electric company revenue, local government operating costs, and maintenance responsibilities.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a generally favorable view toward local control, cost savings, energy efficiency, and improved service. The findings section emphasizes public safety, reduced maintenance costs, climate benefits, and the ability of communities to modernize lighting technology. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded debate or formal vote sentiment available in the materials beyond the bill’s policy framing.
The main points of contention are likely to be the valuation and transfer process, the scope of local government authority, and the financial and operational obligations imposed on electric companies. Potential disputes include the net book value calculation, payment for make-ready work, whether condemnation should be available if negotiations fail, and what maintenance or indemnification requirements can be imposed on local governments. Electric companies may also object to limits on fees and charges in the customer-owned tariff, while counties and municipalities are likely to support the bill’s expanded acquisition rights and tariff flexibility.