Bill Summary
SB26-002 creates a “first allotment of residential electricity service” (FARE service) program. It requires investor-owned electric utilities (not co-ops and not municipal utilities) to provide income-qualified customers a minimum level of electricity at a “marginal cost rate,” subject to Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approval.
- Requires investor-owned utilities to offer FARE service to income-qualified utility customers.
- Requires a utility proposal to define a “minimum level of electricity” (in kilowatt-hours) to support basic living needs, with PUC approval.
- Requires the FARE marginal cost rate to be lower than the residential rate the customer would otherwise pay.
- Allows the normal residential rate for usage above the minimum level.
- States implementation must not directly increase costs for other customers, and directs the PUC to reduce anticipated profit if the utility’s analyses show other customers’ costs will increase as a direct result.
- States FARE rates are not deemed unfair, unjust, or discriminatory under current law.
Position: Oppose
Affordable, reliable energy matters. But SB26-002 tries to get there by mandating a new discounted rate structure and then handing the hardest decisions to the PUC to sort out later.
That is regulation-first policymaking. It rarely stays cheap, simple, or limited. It also makes it harder for the public to see what things actually cost and who ends up paying.
Why I Am Taking This Position
1) It is a mandate, not targeted help.
The bill says an investor-owned utility “shall provide” FARE service. That is a permanent directive, not a pilot and not emergency assistance. The legislature orders the product and then asks the PUC to decide whether each plan is in the “public interest.” That phrase is not a substitute for clear limits.
2) The key definition is subjective.
“Minimum level of electricity” is whatever an average income-qualified customer would likely use to support “basic living needs,” as proposed by the utility and approved by the PUC. That leaves big questions unanswered, and when the statute is unclear, regulators fill the gap. Regulators do not send you a refund.
3) It promises “no cost increase,” then quietly prepares for cost increases.
The bill says FARE implementation “must not directly increase” costs for other customers. But it also instructs the PUC to reduce the utility’s anticipated profit if the utility’s calculations show other customers’ costs will increase as a direct result. That is essentially admitting rate impacts are possible, then trying to fix it by squeezing profits. If you cap recovery in one place, pressure usually shows up somewhere else later.
4) It applies to some utilities, not others.
Co-ops and municipal utilities are carved out. Investor-owned utility customers get one set of rules, and everyone else gets another. If this is truly a statewide affordability priority, the bill should be able to explain and defend that uneven treatment.
5) It preemptively shields preferential pricing from normal standards.
The bill states the discounted rates “shall not be deemed unfair, unjust, or discriminatory.” If a program needs special legal armor on day one, that is a warning label.
6) The timeline pushes accountability into future proceedings.
Utilities do not submit proposals until their first rate case filed on or after January 1, 2027. That means a mandate now, with the real choices pushed into later PUC cases. That is not transparent or accountable government.
Bottom line: if we want to help low-income households keep the lights on, do it transparently, with clear eligibility, and with honest accounting about costs. Do not hide the ball inside utility rate design and call it “affordability.”
Call to Action – What You Should Do!
Contact your state senator and state representative. Ask them to reject SB26-002 as written and come back with a plan that is transparent about costs, keeps accountability with elected lawmakers, and does not offload major policy choices into the PUC.
