Tennessee House Bill HB2381

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/27/26
• Refer: 3/18/26
• Refer: 4/8/26
• Refer: 4/15/26
• Refer: 4/17/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7; Title 13, Chapter 7; Title 65 and Title 68, relative to utilities.

Summary

HB2381 makes a narrow change to Tennessee’s utility law by amending Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 65-5-114(c). The bill replaces the word “request” with “request in writing,” clarifying that the relevant request under that statute must be made in written form. The bill otherwise does not add new programs, fees, or regulatory structures, and it takes effect immediately upon becoming law. Because the measure is limited to a single wording change, its practical effect is to standardize the process for making the covered utility-related request and reduce ambiguity about whether an oral request would be sufficient. The bill amends provisions within Titles 7, 13, 65, and 68 by caption, but the operative change is confined to Title 65’s utility statute. It may affect utilities, customers, and any state or local entities that rely on the statute’s request procedure.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Section 65-5-114(c) to require that the specified request be made in writing, which changes the legal standard for compliance under that provision. This creates a clearer evidentiary and procedural requirement for utilities and affected parties, while leaving the broader utility regulatory framework intact. The act takes effect upon becoming law, so the change would apply immediately.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received and noncontroversial. It advanced through subcommittee and committee stages with strong support, including unanimous votes in several committees and only one recorded dissenting vote in the House Commerce Committee. No committee transcripts were provided, and there is no indication of significant opposition in the available record.

Contention

The main point of contention, to the extent one existed, appears to have been the procedural requirement added by the bill: whether the statute should expressly require a written request rather than allowing a request in any form. Supporters likely viewed the change as a clarifying, administrative improvement, while any concern would center on whether a written-only requirement could create a burden for requesters. The vote record shows little sustained disagreement, indicating that any concerns were limited.