The Fight
Taking on Goliath
Customers fight an uphill battle against powerful utility interests against all odds.
Across the country, consumer advocates, citizen watchdogs and whistleblowers are spotlighting these abuses of power prompting federal and state governments to begin to take action.
Large-scale utility abuses nationwide
In a petition to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, a coalition of 239 consumer advocates and organizations call out wholesale anti-ratepayer practices by utilities including:
Anti-competitive actions that harm energy competitors
- Protecting monopolies
- Obstructing deployment of renewables
- Blocking consumer protections
Deceptive acts that increase utility profits, drive up rates and harm consumers
- Corrupt dealing, bribery and voting interference to influence policies
- Secret election spending to influence legislators and regulators
- Deploying utility-led shadow campaigns to influence the public
Summary of Actions to Date:
Center for Biological Diversity FERC Petition
View petition (March 2021)
The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to amend the Uniform Systems of Accounts (USofA) requirements for payments to industry associations engaged in lobbying or other influence-related activities.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Inquiry
Docket No. RM22-5-000 (Dec. 2021)
FERC opened a notice of inquiry (NOI) seeking comments on the rate recovery, reporting, and accounting treatment of industry association dues and certain civic, political, and related expenses as well as whether additional transparency or guidance is needed with respect to defining donations for charitable, social, or community welfare purposes.
The comment period closed in February 2022 and FERC received almost 10,000 submissions.
Check out some of the most concerning comments from clean energy, community, and consumer advocate groups and attorneys general nationwide:
“The result is that ratepayers across the country may be bearing hundreds of millions of dollars in higher rates in any given year to pay for utilities to support causes and influence policy issues that are not related to the provision of utility service and, in many cases, may be contrary to ratepayers’ interests.”
“Recent utility corruption scandals highlight how electric and gas utilities fight against the interests of consumers, often on the ratepayers’ dime.”
“There is currently no transparency in how trade associations spend ratepayer funds.”
“Much more importantly to our constituency of low-income customers, trade associations assist utilities in pushing for policies that result in a more favorable outcome of the ratemaking process for the utility and its investors, often at the expense of captive ratepayers and their right to receive utility service at the most.”
“Lessons learned from FirstEnergy’s illicit activities demonstrate it is too easy to hide expenses that should not be collected from customers, such as political and lobbying expenses.”
“In fact, the interests of utility companies and ratepayers are often in conflict with one another – especially given that trade associations advocate for things like higher utility profits, higher fixed charges to customers and work to undermine the competition that would potentially lower customer rates.
“What is troubling is the Utilities’ ability to use ratepayers’ money without their knowledge or consent on activities that benefit themselves, not the ratepayers. Not only do ratepayers not know how much of their money is being moved to trade associations, they also cannot find information on the trade association’s wide variety of political and advocacy activities or its associated costs — this is by design.”
“Such industry association dues and certain civic, political, and related expenses should be excluded from cost of service calculations if they benefit shareholders over customers.”
“EPUC urges the Commission to ensure that ‘the utility, not the consumer, must bear the burden of proof to demonstrate an entitlement to recover expenses from ratepayers.’”
Energy Producers and Users Coalition
“Trade association dues should not generally be recoverable from ratepayers because, at best, they ‘obviously have a doubtful relationship to rendering utility service.’ Ratepayers currently give as much as $100 million to utility trade associations, providing utilities with an unfair advantage over other market participants in the competitive policymaking arena.”
Harvard Electricity Law Initiative
“Because utilities have a captive customer base due to a publicly provided franchise, their spending requires strict scrutiny. Ratepayers should not be obligated to fund advocacy for policies that are anti-competitive, anti-consumer, or otherwise counter to their interests.”
“Utilities with a publicly-granted monopoly franchise have an obligation to disclose their expenses and prove they are spending ratepayer dollars in a worthwhile manner.”
“The use of customer funds for anti-customer advocacy is exacerbated by the unequal access to decision makers. Some proceedings, such as rate cases, limit the number and type of intervenors. Legislative hearings often take place during working hours, with uncertain times for testimony, allowing professional utility lobbyists to participate when their customers cannot.”
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
“Disclosure of all utility donations—whether funded with ratepayer or shareholder dollars—is important for the integrity of the regulatory process for approving just and reasonable rates. The beneficiaries of utility donations frequently participate in commission processes in support of the utilities’ proposals.
“Many trade association conferences and meetings are ocean-side junkets that may do more to promote the individual participants’ interests than the ratepayers’…
“Under this broken system, utilities are recovering costs from ratepayers for political activities that ‘have a doubtful relationship to rendering utility service,’ including ‘on politically controversial matters, the opinions of management and the rate-payer may differ decidedly.’”
“..forcing ratepayers to fund utility trade associations engaged in political activities contravenes their First Amendment rights against compelled subsidy of objectionable speech.”
Kentucky Solar Industries Association
“There has been lack of transparency regarding the detail and itemization of expenses in utility rate case applications in Ohio for collection of association dues from consumers. And there has been a precipitous increase in those expenses in recent years.”
“Utility expenses to enhance their public image should not be funded by captive monopoly customers that do not receive a direct and primary benefit.”
“The PUCO believes that costs of political, charitable, and lobbying activities, whether those are part of industry associations or otherwise, should be borne by shareholders and that it would not be just and reasonable to recover them from ratepayers.”
Public Utility Commission of Ohio
“To date, getting information from the utilities via discovery on industry association activities has been very difficult. The first step is to place the burden on utilities to demonstrate that costs should be recovered from ratepayers. If the burden is shifted to utilities, then stakeholders – and public utility commissions – should start to see better transparency.”
Legislation by State
Benefits:
- Reduce rates for ratepayers by closing loopholes and removing corporate gain costs from customer bills
- Requiring the utility to prove expenses are in the best interest of the ratepayer will shift the burden from the commission and ratepayer advocate to the utility, reducing government and ratepayer costs and resources
- Provide regulators with clear guidelines and authority on enforcement and accountability
- Reduce barriers for customer and competitor engagement in the electric grid and clean energy innovations
Proposed State Legislation
Arizona Legislation
Senate Bill 1514 (Introduced February 2024)
Utilities; contributions; lobbying; nonrecoverable expenses.
Arkansas Legislation
Senate Bill 643 (Introduced April 2025)
SB 643 would prevent public utilities from charging ratepayers for non-service expenses, such as lobbying, promotional advertising, and political influence activities, ensuring customers do not fund legislative agendas. The bill also would mandate that utilities disclose these specific expenditures in detailed reports to the Public Service Commission.
While the bill did not pass during the regular 2025 session, it was recommended for study in the Interim Committee on Insurance & Commerce. This status is a crucial step that allows legislators to refine the language and build broader support for potential reintroduction in the next legislative session.
Federal Legislation
H.R.5075 (Introduced July 2023)
To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to prohibit covered utilities from recovering covered expenses from ratepayers, and for other purposes.
Delaware Legislation
Senate Bill 60 (introduced February 2025)
SB 60 would prevent regulated utilities from using customer funds for lobbying activities, political contributions, charitable contributions, and certain advertising and public relations activities.
Illinois Legislation
Senate Bill 1275 (introduced January 2025)
SB 1275 would prohibit the recovery of trade association dues, chambers of commerce, or other entities working to influence elections, gifts or contributions to political candidates, and promotional/goodwill advertising. The bill also prohibits the recovery of fees for attorneys and technical experts to prepare and litigate general rate case filings.
Indiana Legislation
Senate Bill 434 (introduced January 2025)
SB 434 prohibits the recovery of direct or indirect costs associated with specified expenses and activities related to political activities and requires the utilities to file with the IURC annual reports with specified information concerning these costs.
Louisiana Public Service Commission Investigation
R-36832 (Opened June 2023)
Commission-directed investigation of jurisdictional electric, water, wastewater, and gas utilities’ use of ratepayer funds on political spending.
Maryland Legislation
House Bill 0960 (Introduced January 2025)
HB 0960 would prohibit utilities from recovering the costs of political activities, including trade associations that lobby, promotional advertisements, and investor relations activities unless the costs are “appropriate for the public service company to meet its performance obligations to customers.” It includes strong transparency provisions.
Massachusetts Legislation
Senate Docket 742 & House Docket 1883 (Introduced February 2025)
Proposed legislation would prohibit using ratepayer funds for utility lobbying, political activities, promotions, or perks. The legislation details how the penalties will be assessed for utilities that improperly record prohibited expenses.
Minnesota Legislation
House File 4294 (introduced February 2024)
HF 4292 would prohibit utilities from recovering the costs of political activities, including lobbying, advertising, trade association dues, charitable contributions, and political contributions, as well as executive travel and the use of private aircraft. In the event of a violation, the bill requires that the utility issue a refund to ratepayers that matches the amount of the improper expenditure, plus interest.
New York Legislation
Senate Bill 7637 (Introduced August 2023)
Prohibits public utilities from using funds or being reimbursed by funds raised from ratepayers for certain activities.
North Carolina Legislation
Senate Bill 720 (Introduced March 2025)
Titled the Consumer Protection Act, this bill would prohibit monopoly utilities from charging ratepayers for expenses related to political lobbying, promotional advertising, and charitable contributions. The legislation defines “political influence activities” to ensure that customers are not unknowingly funding legislative agendas or electioneering through their monthly bills. To ensure accountability, the bill mandates detailed annual disclosure reports to the Utilities Commission and establishes significant civil penalties for utilities that attempt to pass these prohibited costs onto consumers.
Ohio Legislation
Senate Bill 149 (Introduced September 2023)
Prohibit certain public utilities from recovering political expenditure costs from their customers.
Oregon Legislation
Senate Bill 88 (introduced January 2025)
SB 88 prohibits utilities from recovering from ratepayers costs associated with advertising, political influence activities, litigation, penalties or fines.
Pennsylvania Legislation
House Bill 782 (Introduced March 2025)
For purposes of rate determinations, no public utility may charge to its consumers as a permissible operating expense for ratemaking purposes any direct or indirect expenditure by the utility for [political advertising] lobbying or political activities or prohibited costs. The commission shall also disallow as operating expense for ratemaking purposes expenditures for other advertising, unless and only to the extent that the commission finds that such advertising is reasonable and meets certain criteria.
Rhode Island Legislation
Senate Bill 2956 (Introduced April 2024)
SB 2956 prohibits public utilities from recovering costs from ratepayers for advertising, lobbying, and trade association memberships, ensuring that customer funds are not used for political influence or promotional activities. Additionally, the bill introduces stricter standards of conduct for electric distribution companies and their affiliates to prevent anti-competitive practices and ensure transparency.
Utah Legislation
Senate Bill 153 (Introduced January 2025)
SB 153 prohibits a utility from recovering in rates expenses related to advertising, lobbying, and political activities.
Virginia Legislation
House Bill 792 (Introduced January 2024)
Prohibit certain public utilities from recovering political expenditure costs from their customers.
Enacted State Legislation
Colorado Legislation
Senate Bill 23-291 (Enacted May 2023)
Utility Regulation Act directs PUC to establish rules limiting IOU charges to customers for lawyers and consultants that argue on behalf of the utility’s efforts to raise rates, phases out ratepayer subsidies for extending gas pipelines to new construction.
Connecticut Legislation
Senate Bill 7 (Enacted May 2023)
Act Strengthening Protections For Connecticut’s Consumers Of Energy uses a more expansive definition of lobbying, prohibiting utilities from charging customers for efforts to influence administrative action by executive agencies as well (including rate increases).
Maine Legislation
LD 325 (Enacted June 2023)
The Act to Improve Consideration of Electricity Rate Increases prohibits IOUs from charging customers for lobbying, trade association and chambers of commerce dues, charitable contributions, and public relations expenses.
New Hampshire Legislation
Senate Bill 206 (Enacted September 2019)
SB 206 prohibited a utility from recovering the costs of lobbying and of political activities
that support or oppose candidates and committees. The law does not consider
advertising, trade associations or charitable contributions and does not include
transparency or enforcement mechanisms.
New York Legislation
Senate Bill 1556 (Enacted Sept. 2021)
Disallows the cost recovery for membership dues of any entity that engages in legislative lobbying activities. Signed into law as Ch. 394.