HR-10466-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Paul Tonko (D-NY)
What it does
The bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to run a program that gives competitive funding to electric and natural gas distribution utilities, up to the total unpaid residential balances each utility is owed, solely to erase those balances. A utility taking the funds would have to run an income-based payment program (or a similar approved program) for at least 60 months, stop late fees, debt collection and disconnections for the erased balances, and not recover those costs from other ratepayers. Any leftover money would later go to utilities as equal credits for all residential customers. The bill also would authorize $25 billion for these two phases and $1 billion per year for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 for technical assistance, program-cost support, and data collection, and would require repayment from utilities that do not comply. Spending depends on future appropriations.
Who benefits
Residential electric and gas customers with overdue balances, especially households at or below the greater of 150 percent of the poverty level or 60 percent of state median income, and households with seniors, people with disabilities, young children, or medical needs. Enrolled low-income customers would have bills capped at a set share of income and protection from disconnection if they pay on time. Utilities could clear uncollectible debt and reduce collection costs. Other ratepayers would not be charged for the erased debt. State agencies, nonprofits, and Tribes could receive technical assistance, and researchers and regulators would gain new arrears and disconnection data.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers would bear the authorized $25 billion plus up to $5 billion more in program funding, which would add to federal spending unless offset. Customers who paid their bills on time would receive no debt relief, though they could get a small equal credit if funds remain. Utilities would take on new compliance, reporting, and data-sharing duties, a 60-month program commitment, and repayment risk. For-profit utilities would have to match 10 percent of program-support funding with owner money. Utilities may also lose late-fee and collection revenue. State regulators would face tariff filings and program design work, and customers just above the income cutoff may see no help.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that unpaid utility bills and shutoffs put low-income, elderly, disabled, and medically vulnerable households at risk, and that clearing old debt while capping future bills at a share of income addresses both the backlog and the cause. They contend that tying funds to a 60-month income-based program, a ban on double recovery from ratepayers, and mandatory reporting and repayment requirements keeps the money targeted and accountable.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a one-time federal payment of up to $25 billion pays down debt without fixing the energy prices and utility costs that create it, and may reward utilities for uncollected bills. They contend that income-based billing caps set nationally could shift costs to other ratepayers or taxpayers, override state rate-setting judgment, and add compliance burdens for utilities, while customers who paid on time receive little.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under its Spending Clause power (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and Commerce Clause power over interstate energy markets, attaching conditions to funds paid to utilities, which are generally private or state-regulated entities. South Dakota v. Dole (1987) allows conditions on federal funds if they are clearly stated and related to the program's purpose; the bill relies on voluntary participation in a competitive grant, so Tenth Amendment commandeering concerns appear limited, though the interaction with state ratemaking authority could raise questions.
Checks and balances
The bill gives the Energy Department (executive branch) discretion over competitive awards and program approvals, while Congress controls actual funding through appropriations, receives a six-year report, and state utility regulators keep ratemaking authority.
Historical precedent
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (1981) and pandemic-era federal utility arrears relief, such as the Low Income Household Water Assistance Program and the American Rescue Plan's emergency assistance, are partial analogues, though this bill funds utilities directly and ties them to income-based billing.