An act relating to a prohibition on utility disconnections during periods of extreme heat
H.88 would require the Vermont Public Utility Commission to adopt a rule by June 1, 2026 prohibiting electric, water, and wastewater utilities from involuntarily disconnecting residential service for nonpayment during periods of extreme heat. The bill defines “period of extreme heat” using either a forecast of 92 degrees Fahrenheit or higher within 24 hours of the scheduled disconnection, or the issuance of a heat-related National Weather Service alert. It also requires utilities to provide a reconnection process for customers whose service was disconnected, allows utilities to condition reconnection on a reasonable repayment plan, and requires utilities to inform residents of their rights and keep records of reconnection requests and heat-related disconnection rescheduling.
The bill also amends existing municipal disconnection law in 24 V.S.A. § 5143 to add extreme-heat protections for municipal service disconnections. Under the amended statute, municipalities could not disconnect service during a period of extreme heat, and the bill preserves existing limits on disconnection for small balances, disputed charges, nonrecurring charges, and health-related hardship. It also retains tenant protections for rental dwellings when the ratepayer is delinquent, including the right to request and pay for continued water and sewer service and to deduct certain charges from rent under existing law.
For reconnection after an extreme-heat disconnection, the bill allows utilities to require a repayment plan, but caps monthly payments at six percent of the resident’s monthly income unless the resident agrees to pay more. If a resident later receives assistance payments, the plan must be reformulated. The bill applies to residential service, including tenants in metered apartment buildings and residents of mobile home parks, and it would take effect July 1, 2025.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill’s text and stated purpose, its overall thrust is consumer- and public-health-oriented, aiming to prevent utility shutoffs during dangerous heat events. The main likely area of contention is the balance between protecting vulnerable residents and preserving utility and municipal authority to collect unpaid bills, especially the repayment-plan requirements and the operational burden of monitoring weather-triggered disconnection bans and reconnection requests.
The bill would add a new statewide regulatory requirement for the Public Utility Commission to bar certain utility shutoffs during extreme heat and would directly amend municipal disconnection rules in 24 V.S.A. § 5143. It would affect electric, water, and wastewater utilities under PUC jurisdiction, as well as municipalities that disconnect service for delinquency, and it would create new obligations for notice, recordkeeping, and reconnection procedures. It also expands practical protections for tenants, mobile home park residents, and other residential customers facing utility arrears.
The bill appears generally favorable to consumer protection and public health, with its stated purpose focused on protecting Vermonters from dangerous heat-related harms. In the absence of recorded testimony or votes, no formal opposition is documented in the provided materials. The structure of the bill suggests a policy compromise: it prohibits shutoffs during extreme heat while still allowing repayment plans and preserving utility collection mechanisms outside those periods.
The most likely points of contention are the scope of the shutoff ban, the weather-based trigger for an “extreme heat” period, and the administrative burden on utilities and municipalities. Utilities may object to limits on disconnection authority, mandatory reconnection procedures, and recordkeeping requirements, while consumer advocates are likely to support the protections for low-income and medically vulnerable residents. Another possible issue is the six-percent-of-income cap on repayment plans, which could be viewed as either an important affordability safeguard or an operational constraint on collections.