Maine House Bill LD1080

Maine 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/14/25
• Refer: 3/14/25
• Engrossed: 5/14/25
• Enrolled: 5/20/25
• Passed: 5/22/25

Caption

An Act Prohibiting Public Utilities from Requiring Deposits Based Solely on a Residential Customer's Income

Summary

LD 1080 amends Maine’s public utility law to prohibit a utility from requiring a deposit from a residential service applicant based solely on the applicant’s income. The bill also clarifies that a utility may require a deposit only when it has proof that a residential customer is likely to be a credit risk or may damage utility property, and it preserves the rule that a lack of prior experience with the utility cannot itself be treated as proof of risk. The measure defines “applicant” for this purpose as a person seeking service who has not been a customer of that utility within the prior 30 days. The bill directs the Public Utilities Commission to adopt rules to implement the amended deposit standard and requires the commission to begin rulemaking within 30 days of the act’s effective date. The rules are designated routine technical rules. In practical terms, the bill changes how utilities may screen residential customers for deposits and limits the use of income as a standalone factor in deposit decisions.

Impact

The bill amends 35-A M.R.S. § 705, subsection 1, which governs deposits for residential utility customers and applicants. It narrows utility discretion by barring deposit requirements based solely on income and by requiring individualized proof of credit risk or property-damage risk before a deposit may be demanded. It also imposes a rulemaking obligation on the Public Utilities Commission to implement the new standard, affecting utility billing and customer intake practices statewide.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received generally favorable support, as reflected by passage in both chambers and final enactment as Public Law chapter 115. The recorded votes show majority support, though not unanimity, suggesting the measure was accepted by a substantial but divided legislature. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote pattern indicates the bill was broadly viewed as a consumer-protection measure.

Contention

The main point of contention is the restriction on utility deposit practices, particularly the prohibition on using income alone as the basis for requiring a deposit. Supporters likely viewed the bill as preventing unfair barriers to utility access for lower-income residents, while opponents may have been concerned that it limits utilities’ ability to manage credit risk and protect against nonpayment. The bill’s requirement that utilities show specific proof of risk, rather than relying on income or lack of prior utility history, is the central policy shift.