Colorado and Connecticut save residents hundreds of thousands of dollars in utility bills » Yale's climate connection

People across the United States receive growing utility bills not only pay for gasoline and electricity: they can also pay for companies lobbying and advertising.

According to a new report from the U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. Energy and Policy Institute, electricity and gas utilities often charge costs related to political advocacy, and even fees for luxury goods that are offered to executives and employees. These fees total as many as millions of dollars customers pay to boost prices and stagnate the utilities efforts of stagnant climate progress. Lobbying fees are prohibited in federal and state laws, but consumers' advocates say existing policies are almost strictly insufficient to make utilities accountable for utilities.

In some states, this is starting to change. In 2023, Colorado, Connecticut and Maine passed the first comprehensive law to prevent utilities from charging customers for lobbying, advertising and other politically impacting activities. Clients in these states have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars after regulators began enforcing the law last year.

Consumer advocates say that as the impact of these policies becomes clearer — there will be more laws as the utility bill continues to grow. Last year, eight states filed bills to control utility cost recovery. EPI said last month, five states followed suit.

“The momentum behind utility responsibility legislation is growing,” said Karlee Weinmann, a researcher at EPI and co-author of the group’s latest report. “We will hear more and more when we invest numbers in the savings generated by these bills.” Many taxpayers asked: 'How do I do this in my state?'”

Compared to existing federal and state rules, the laws in Colorado, Connecticut and Maine expand and clarify the scope of political activity, from fees to taxpayers. The cost of banning utilities from passing to clients in these states includes dues from trade associations involved in lobbying, donations to political advocacy groups and public relations campaigns. The laws of the three states also introduce restrictions or prohibitions on fees for counsel or hiring lawyers to fight for increased interest rates, and require utilities to provide detailed annual reports on political spending to ensure shareholders (rather than consumers) ) Pay the bill.

It is too early to assess the full impact of these laws, as they apply primarily to interest rate cases, with utilities seeking regulatory approvals to adjust their prices. As part of the process, utilities raise investments and expenses, and state officials decide what fees can be reasonably passed to the utilities’ customers. Only a small number of rates have occurred since the law came into effect, and Maine just approved rules on how to enforce its laws this week. But from the latest lawsuits in Colorado and Connecticut, there are signs of savings commodities that can be expected from these laws.

In Colorado, state regulators rejected more than $775,000 in lobbying fees last year, trading association dues, and investor relations costs that utility Xcel Energy seeks in the gas case, noting that those fees are under the state’s Utilities Responsibility Act Forbidden. Total savings may eventually be higher: The Commissioner also ordered Xcel Energy to resubmit lobbying disclosures and remove all investor relations costs from its rates.

In Connecticut, state officials tried to pay customers $555,000 in industry dues, travel and meals, and investor relations costs in last year's gasoline rate case, according to EPI's review of the expense case. Regulators also cite the reasoning of the new Utilities Responsibility Act.

Early enforcement in these states demonstrated the effectiveness of these guardrails. It's also a disturbing sign that even in illegal states, utilities have repeatedly tried to restore lobbying and political costs, Wimman said. “When we see these savings, we also see fees that are not related to providing utility services and fees that may be detrimental to customers.”

In every state in the United States, regulators listening to rate cases (called the Public Service Commission or the Public Utilities Commission) should make inappropriate fees inappropriate. Without strict legislation, they are not always successful: the burden falls within commissioners and consumer advocacy groups to tease out thousands of pages submitted by utility to make rate recommendations and make and dispute allegations. But even without a comprehensive taxpayer protection law, some utility requests are too incredible to make it pass.

In Virginia, state regulators marked and deleted millions of dollars in tax rate cases in 2021 and 2023. In California, state regulators investigated that utility socalgas is not properly charged to customers to promote natural use of gases. In a particularly blatant example, FirstEnergy, a subsidiary of Ohio Electric Power Company, agreed to refund tens of millions of dollars to customers in various states after they charged a bribe with FirstEnergy to Ohio House Speaker Larry from 2017 to 2017 to 2017 Lobbying fees and fees for bribery fees so far. 2020.

Utilities also spend a lot of advertising to improve their company image. According to the EPI report, 15 of the largest electricity utilities in the U.S. spent $1.1 billion on brand advertising between 2014 and 2023. It is unclear whether these fees have been transferred to customers, but some utilities have tried to do so. : Last year, Chesapeake Utilities in Maryland asked regulators to license taxpayers for their “Gas More” campaigns that use puppies and other cute images to promote fossil fuels. Maryland officials found the request inappropriate and in the public interest.

Utilities even try to get through the expenses of luxury companies like private jets. In last year's speed case, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the Detroit-based utility DTE Energy's request to charge taxpayers for private jet travel, “an insult to customers.” Michigan regulators later rejected the request. According to the Consumer Advocacy Group Citizen Action Coalition, Indiana Duke Energy Inc. Indiana admits that it has charged consumers more than $5 million in private jet costs between 2021 and 2023. Indiana commissioners recently denied another request from Duke Energy Indiana to pass on $1.9 million in private jet fees to customers.

The National Utilities Trade Association is controversial about the findings of the EPI report and highlights their commitment to reducing emissions and providing affordable energy. “The gas industry has long been committed to working with policy makers and regulators to help achieve our nation’s ambitious climate and energy goals,” said Karen Hubert, president and CEO of the American Gas Association, who represents the gas utilities. Karen Harbert) said.

A spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a trading group for investor-owned power companies, believes there is no need for more state taxpayer protection laws. “Electric companies are already subject to strict federal and state laws that ensure lobbying is always funded by shareholders rather than customers,” said spokesman Brian Reil. “With approval of unintentional spending, The mechanisms of the national commissions already exist to ensure accounting changes are made and, if needed, and a refund from the client is obtained.”

But Adria Tinnin, director of racial equity and legislative policy for consumer advocates, said it is impossible to know exactly how many utilities are charging customers without laws and other laws and such, it is impossible to know exactly how many utilities are charging customers without them. Improper fee. Group in California. Tinnin said that under existing California rules, utilities can even classify spending as publicity ads or lobbying in a vague or misleading way.

Meanwhile, in rate cases, utility regulators and advocates are often processing limited information because “utilities don’t provide any legally required information,” Tinnin said. “If we don’t have transparency, we don’t know to what extent taxpayers are being deprived.”

More and more lawmakers are addressing this issue. In January, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon and Utah lawmakers introduced bills to prevent utilities from recovering costs of lobbying and other political activities. In California, Tinnin's group is working with other advocacy groups to launch language similar to the bill later this year. A utility responsibility bill proposed in the state last year failed to withdraw from the commission.

Consumer advocates say that as households are on rising prices, laws can help address the growing crisis of energy affordability. Household Utilities Act debt has risen 8.4% since December 2023, while power closures across the country have soared, according to an estimate. President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Canadian fossil fuels, which could raise energy prices more, while his other tariffs would make various products more expensive.

“It all adds up,” said Wenman. “The impact of any bill savings is significant when we see people across the country struggling with rising cost of living and higher utility bills.”

Originally published by Grist, the story is part of Climate Now, a global news collaboration that enhances the reporting of climate stories.