Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The Stop Shut-Offs During Shutdowns Act expresses the Sense of Congress that during any lapse in interim continuing appropriations or full-year appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services (i.e., a government shutdown), state regulators and electric and natural gas utilities should not terminate service for inability to pay, should make reasonable efforts to reconnect customers safely, should not charge reconnection fees, should waive late fees and penalties, and should not increase consumer costs because of the moratorium. The bill amends Section 115(g) of PURPA to add a statutory prohibition on terminating electric service during periods when appropriations for HHS are not in effect, and it bars retroactive recovery of costs from customers who retain service because of that prohibition.
Scope and statutory reach: liberals want protections extended/clarified for natural gas and possibly other utilities; conservatives resist expanding federal mandates.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly states its goal and integrates with an existing statutory provision (PU RPA §115(g)) to prohibit certain electric service terminations during specified lapses in appropriations.
The Stop Shut-Offs During Shutdowns Act expresses the Sense of Congress that during any lapse in interim continuing appropriations or full-year appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services (i.e., a government shutdown), state regulators and electric and natural gas utilities should not terminate service for inability to pay, should make reasonable efforts to reconnect customers safely, should not charge reconnection fees, should waive late fees and penalties, and should not increase consumer costs because of the moratorium.
The bill amends Section 115(g) of PURPA to add a statutory prohibition on terminating electric service during periods when appropriations for HHS are not in effect, and it bars retroactive recovery of costs from customers who retain service because of that prohibition.
A state regulatory authority may nevertheless establish an alternative cost-recovery mechanism — after notice and comment — if it finds those costs are substantial, prudently incurred, and cannot reasonably be recovered through rates, market prices, or supplemental funding tied to the lapse in appropriations.
On content alone the bill is a modest, targeted intervention aimed at preventing shut-offs during shutdowns — a sympathetic public-safety framing with limited fiscal footprint and a mechanism for state regulators to authorize recovery. Those features increase plausibility of passage. However, it nonetheless imposes a federal prohibition affecting regulated utilities, leaves ambiguous some cost and implementation details, and ties the rule to a politically charged trigger (funding lapses), which raises the likelihood of procedural objections or amendment demands in the Senate. The absence of explicit federal funding to offset utility costs and the odd specificity to HHS appropriations create additional friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly states its goal and integrates with an existing statutory provision (PU RPA §115(g)) to prohibit certain electric service terminations during specified lapses in appropriations. It includes limited procedural provisions for state cost-recovery mechanisms and nonbinding guidance for gas utilities.
Scope and statutory reach: liberals want protections extended/clarified for natural gas and possibly other utilities; conservatives resist expanding federal mandates.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and statutory reach: liberals want protections extended/clarified for natural gas and possibly other utilities; conservatives resist expanding federal mandates.
A mainstream liberal would likely view the bill favorably as a consumer-protection and public-health safeguard during federal shutdowns.
They would praise the moratorium on shut-offs, reconnection requirements, and waivers of fees as protections for low-income households and medically vulnerable people.
They would note that preventing utility disconnections during shutdowns reduces immediate harms and aligns with social justice and public-health priorities.
A centrist/ moderate would generally view the bill as a pragmatic, targeted consumer-protection measure for the specific circumstance of a federal funding lapse, but would be attentive to cost, implementation details, and federal-state balance.
They would welcome protections for vulnerable households while seeking mechanisms to ensure utilities remain solvent and service quality is not degraded.
They would appreciate the state-regulator cost-recovery provision but want clearer rules and contingency funding to avoid unintended side effects.
A mainstream conservative would likely be skeptical of a federal requirement that effectively limits a utility’s ability to terminate unpaid service, viewing it as federal overreach into matters traditionally managed by states and regulated utilities.
They would be concerned about compelling utilities to provide service without assured payment and the potential for cost-shifting onto other ratepayers or shareholders.
The provision that prevents retroactive recovery of costs could be especially objectionable unless robust state-level or private recovery mechanisms are available.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone the bill is a modest, targeted intervention aimed at preventing shut-offs during shutdowns — a sympathetic public-safety framing with limited fiscal footprint and a mechanism for state regulators to authorize recovery. Those features increase plausibility of passage. However, it nonetheless imposes a federal prohibition affecting regulated utilities, leaves ambiguous some cost and implementation details, and ties the rule to a politically charged trigger (funding lapses), which raises the likelihood of procedural objections or amendment demands in the Senate. The absence of explicit federal funding to offset utility costs and the odd specificity to HHS appropriations create additional friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and statutory reach: liberals want protections extended/clarified for natural gas and possibly other utilities; conservatives resist…
On content alone the bill is a modest, targeted intervention aimed at preventing shut-offs during shutdowns — a sympathetic public-safety f…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly states its goal and integrates with an existing statutory provision (PU RPA §115(g)) to prohibit certain electric se…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.