An act relating to utility service disconnections and ratepayer protections
H.753, titled the “Vermont Energy Equity Law,” would direct the Public Utility Commission to strengthen protections for residential utility customers facing involuntary disconnection of gas, electric, or water service. The bill requires the Commission to adopt or amend rules governing when utilities may disconnect or refuse to reconnect service, including clearer procedures for deposits, billing, and reconnection. It also specifically requires that a physician’s certificate, or certification from another licensed health care provider, block disconnection or require reconnection when loss of service would create an immediate and serious health hazard for someone in the household.
The bill further prohibits involuntary residential disconnections during periods of extreme heat, as defined by the Commission, and directs utilities to create strategic plans to reduce the number of monthly and annual involuntary disconnections to the lowest prudently feasible level. It also requires the Commissioner of Public Service to conduct an annual assessment of involuntary residential disconnections and report findings and recommendations to legislative committees beginning in 2027. In addition, the bill amends the state’s alternative regulation framework for electric and natural gas companies, reinforcing goals such as just and reasonable rates, reliability, innovation, and reduced disconnections.
The bill would amend 30 V.S.A. §§ 209 and 218d and require new or revised Public Utility Commission rules governing utility shutoffs, reconnections, and customer protections. It would expand the role of medical certifications in preventing disconnection, bar shutoffs during extreme heat, and require utility service-quality plans to address disconnection reduction. It also adds a recurring reporting obligation for the Commissioner of Public Service and may affect electric, gas, and water utilities, as well as residential ratepayers, especially households with medical vulnerabilities or older residents.
The available record suggests a generally protective, consumer-focused policy approach, with the bill framed around energy equity, public health, and reducing hardship from utility shutoffs. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no documented opposition or recorded vote pattern to gauge formal support or resistance. The bill text itself emphasizes safeguarding welfare, reliability, and affordability, indicating a strong pro-ratepayer orientation.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the operational and financial burdens on utilities, the scope of Commission authority, and the limits placed on disconnections during extreme weather. Utilities may be concerned about mandatory reconnection standards, expanded medical certification rules, and requirements to reduce disconnections to the lowest prudently feasible level. Another possible issue is how the Commission defines “extreme heat,” how long medical protections last, and whether the bill’s protections should extend differently to older households or other vulnerable populations.