Tennessee House Bill HB2390

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Refer: 2/18/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Chaptered: 4/6/26
• Passed: 4/6/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 82, Part 3, relative to utilities.

Summary

HB2390 amends Tennessee law governing utility district commissioners. Under current law, a commissioner generally may not serve more than two consecutive terms, but this bill creates a population-based exception for certain counties. Specifically, in counties with 2020 census populations falling within three narrow ranges, the term-limit restriction would not apply, allowing a commissioner to serve more than two consecutive terms. The bill is a targeted change to Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 82, Part 3, and appears designed to affect only a small number of counties that meet the listed population bands. It does not broadly rewrite utility district governance statewide; instead, it adjusts eligibility rules for commissioner service in narrowly defined local jurisdictions. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill amends Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-82-307(a)(2)(D) to carve out a population-specific exception to the two-consecutive-term limit for utility district commissioners. As a result, in counties within the specified census population ranges, a commissioner may continue serving beyond two consecutive terms, while the general rule remains in place elsewhere. The practical effect is limited to utility districts in those counties and to the commissioners who serve them.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support for the measure at every stage. It passed the House Business and Utilities Subcommittee 6-0, the House Commerce Committee 19-0, and the full House on consent calendar with 94 yeas and no nays. The absence of recorded opposition suggests the bill was viewed as a narrow, noncontroversial local adjustment to utility governance.

Contention

No substantive contention is reflected in the provided record. The bill’s narrow, population-based exception could raise questions about why only certain counties receive relief from the term-limit rule, but no objections, debate, or dissent are shown in the committee or floor votes. The measure appears to have been treated as a technical or local governance fix rather than a contested policy change.