Tennessee Senate Bill SB2659

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 47, Chapter 18; Title 65 and Title 67, relative to communications over a telephone.

Summary

SB2659 is a narrow administrative bill affecting Tennessee’s utility regulation framework. The bill amends Title 65, Chapter 4, Part 4 to require the Tennessee Public Utility Commission to include, as part of its annual report under § 65-1-111, a separate report on compliance with that part of the code. The separate report must be delivered to the House committee chair with jurisdiction over commerce and the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee chair. Although the caption references communications over a telephone and amendments to Titles 47, 65, and 67, the operative text provided only adds a reporting requirement. In practical terms, the bill does not appear to create new consumer rights or penalties in the text shown; instead, it increases legislative oversight by directing the commission to provide a dedicated compliance report.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee law in Title 65 by adding a new reporting obligation for the commission, supplementing the existing annual report requirement. Its effect is procedural rather than substantive: it changes how compliance information is communicated to legislative committees and may improve monitoring of regulated utility-related activities under the referenced part. No direct changes to private rights, enforcement standards, or tax provisions are evident in the text provided.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, passing the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee unanimously 9-0 with an amendment and referral to the Senate Calendar Committee. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded debate in the provided materials, but the vote indicates broad support and little visible opposition at the committee stage.

Contention

There is little evidence of controversy in the materials provided. The only notable issue is that the bill caption is broader than the operative text, referencing telephone communications and multiple titles of the code, while the actual amendment is limited to a reporting requirement in Title 65. If there was any concern, it would likely relate to the scope or clarity of the bill’s title versus its narrow substantive effect, but no specific objections are shown in the transcript or vote record.