HB922, titled the North Carolina Consumer Protection Act, would substantially revise North Carolina public utility law to bar utilities from recovering certain categories of expenses from ratepayers. The bill amends the Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard statute and the general rate-setting statute to define and exclude from rates costs tied to advertising, lobbying, political influence activities, campaign-related spending, trade association dues, investor relations, certain legal and litigation expenses, board travel and entertainment, aircraft costs, and compensation for employees engaged in those activities. It also tightens definitions related to clean energy, renewable energy, nuclear energy, fusion energy, and related certificates and resources.
The bill creates a new annual reporting and disclosure regime for regulated public utilities. Utilities would have to file detailed reports with the Utilities Commission identifying prohibited expenses, third-party spending, affected employee groups, job titles, duties, compensation, and the share of compensation attributable to prohibited activities. Utilities would also have to disclose in public messaging whether advertising is paid by shareholders or ratepayers, and post the filed materials on their websites. The Commission would be required to review the reports, enforce compliance, and impose refunds and civil penalties for improper cost recovery.
HB922 would also establish an Energy Equity Fund in the State Treasury. Most settlement or penalty money collected for violations would go into that fund, with a smaller portion reserved for Commission enforcement, subject to appropriation. The fund could later be used for disaster recovery, relief, and assistance for low-income households transitioning to zero-emission appliances. The bill further directs the Utilities Commission to begin rulemaking to implement the new requirements and limits the Commission to one annual report related to advertising and political activities, with a narrow exception.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is consumer-protection oriented and skeptical of utility spending that could be passed on to customers. The measure is framed as protecting ratepayers from unjust or unreasonable fees and ensuring that utility rates reflect actual service costs rather than corporate advocacy or political activity. No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from legislative discussion.
The main points of contention likely concern the breadth of the prohibited-cost definitions and the administrative burden of the reporting requirements. Utilities and their affiliates may object to the bill’s treatment of lobbying, political influence, trade association dues, legal expenses, and employee compensation as nonrecoverable costs, as well as the detailed disclosure obligations and penalties. Supporters would likely emphasize ratepayer protection, transparency, and preventing customers from subsidizing corporate political or promotional activity.
HB922 would amend Chapter 62 of the North Carolina General Statutes, especially G.S. 62-131 and G.S. 62-133.8, to restrict what public utilities may include in rates and to expand Utilities Commission oversight of utility spending. It would create new statutory reporting, disclosure, refund, and penalty obligations for regulated electric, gas, water, and telecommunications utilities, and it would establish the Energy Equity Fund in the State Treasury. The bill would also require Commission rulemaking to implement the new framework and could affect utility rate cases, cost recovery practices, and compliance systems across regulated utilities and their affiliates.
The bill’s tone and structure indicate strong support for ratepayer protection, transparency, and limiting utility recovery of political and promotional expenses. Because no committee transcript or vote record was provided, there is no documented legislative debate to measure support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to appeal to consumer advocates and critics of utility spending, while likely drawing resistance from utilities and industry groups affected by the restrictions.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s expansive definitions of prohibited activities and the extent to which utilities could be barred from recovering costs associated with lobbying, advertising, trade association membership, legal challenges, and political or regulatory engagement. Utilities may also contest the detailed employee-level reporting requirements, the public disclosure mandate, and the size and structure of the civil penalties. Supporters would likely argue these provisions are necessary to prevent ratepayers from subsidizing non-service-related corporate activity, while opponents may argue the bill is overbroad, burdensome, and could chill legitimate participation in regulatory and legislative processes.