Can Chapter 14 Reauthorization Protect Low-Income Utility Customers?

January 30, 2025

The Pennsylvania Senate is once again focusing on the reauthorization and potential amendment of Chapter 14, a law initially designed to protect low-income utility customers from having their services disconnected during the winter months. This law, which had lapsed in December 2024, provided several layers of protection for utility customers, including prohibiting disconnections from December to March and requiring multiple notifications before service discontinuation due to non-payment.

The Original Intent and Provisions of Chapter 14

Chapter 14 was established to offer a safety net for low-income utility customers, particularly during the harsh winter months. The law prohibited utility companies from disconnecting services during the winter months, specifically from December to March, and on Fridays and weekends. Additionally, it mandated multiple notifications before any service disconnection, ensuring that customers had ample warning and opportunity to address their delinquent accounts. Designed to ensure that no family would have to endure the severe cold without power or heat, these protections were seen as crucial for public safety and welfare.

Despite these protections, the law’s reauthorization has sparked significant debate. The primary contention lies between the Democrat-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate, with disagreements on whether the existing protections are sufficient or require enhancement. Advocates argue that while the law shielded customers during the winter months, it failed to address broader issues affecting low-income families throughout the year. The structure of the safety net, they argue, merely postponed financial hardship rather than offering lasting solutions to utility affordability.

Criticisms and Calls for Reform

Consumer advocates and some House Democrats have criticized Chapter 14 for prioritizing the interests of utility companies over vulnerable consumers. They argue that the law facilitated an environment where utility companies could easily disconnect services for low-income customers who fell behind on their bills during other times of the year. The protection mechanisms, while well-intentioned, were seen as fundamentally flawed as they did not provide year-round stability for at-risk families. Elizabeth Marx of the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project highlights that Chapter 14 imposes stringent requirements on payment plans and allows utility companies to charge extra fees, deposits, and reconnection fees, adding a significant financial burden on low-income households.

Advocates are calling for reforms that would give the Public Utility Commission (PUC) greater flexibility to create individualized repayment plans that reflect a customer’s specific financial situation. They argue that the current framework of the law is too rigid, forcing one-size-fits-all solutions on diverse financial situations. Under current conditions, those who fail to make timely utility payments are generally guided towards payment arrangements with their utility companies, which incorporate the debt into their monthly bills. However, Chapter 14 restricts the PUC’s ability to tailor these plans, leaving little room for bespoke resolutions. This inflexibility, according to critics, exacerbates the financial strain on vulnerable families.

Legislative Efforts and Proposals

The PUC temporarily maintained the protections after Chapter 14 expired, allowing legislators time to debate and reach an agreement. The Senate’s current approach, led by Sen. Lisa Boscola (D-Northampton), re-introduced a proposal that mainly preserves the original Chapter 14 with minor modifications. This bill extends the duration of repayment plans for low-income families but fails to incorporate the more substantive changes sought by advocates, such as banning deposits and fees for low-income consumers. It represents a modest attempt to address some concerns but falls short of the comprehensive reforms demanded by consumer rights groups.

Supporters of the Senate bill, including PUC Chair Stephen DeFrank, believe extending the repayment periods is an effective way to help customers manage their bills. They argue that longer repayment plans offer a more realistic pathway for financially-strapped customers to settle their debts while maintaining essential services. However, critics, such as Joline Price of Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, argue that the bill is a missed opportunity to meaningfully enhance consumer protections. Price and other advocates favor a more robust approach, such as that proposed by House Democrats in a previous session, which the Senate had rejected. This version would eliminate additional charges and deposits for low-income customers, ban reconnection fees, allow longer repayment periods, and enable the PUC to set monthly payments capped at 20% of the average bill.

The Debate on Broader Protections

Sen. Patrick Stefano (R-Fayette), chair of the Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee, opposed the House’s more comprehensive bill, arguing that it would extend protections too broadly and unfairly stress other customers, creating a significant financial imbalance. He asserted that the proposed changes would make utility bill assistance programs too accessible, leading to potential abuse by individuals who can afford to pay but choose not to, thereby increasing the financial load on compliant customers. Stefano’s stance underscores a fundamental policy disagreement on how best to balance consumer protection with financial sustainability for utility companies.

Those in favor of more extensive reforms argue that making payment plans more accessible and equitable will ultimately benefit all utility customers. When utility bills go unpaid and are deemed uncollectible, those costs are redistributed among all paying customers. Ensuring that low-income families can remain connected and pay back their dues gradually could mitigate this risk, particularly as rising energy prices leave more households at risk of disconnection. Advocates contend that a more humane and flexible system would have far-reaching benefits, both in reducing systemic inequities and in fostering a healthier economic environment.

Rising Utility Disconnections and the Need for Stronger Protections

Testimonies and data indicate a disturbing rise in utility disconnections in recent years, particularly in 2024, when Pennsylvania saw a 15% increase in involuntary gas and electric shutoffs, affecting 352,533 households. This sharp uptick in shutoffs underscores the urgency of strengthening consumer protection mechanisms. Elizabeth Marx’s testimony highlights how vulnerable communities are disproportionately affected by utility disconnections, often exacerbating existing financial hardships.

Advocates propose proactive measures, such as utility companies collecting income data early from customers who fall behind on payments to determine eligibility for assistance programs. Many customers remain unaware of these programs, and early intervention could prevent many disconnections. They call for a reassessment of the objectives and capabilities of the law in reducing delinquency and assisting families in economic hardship. By optimizing and expanding eligibility criteria, policymakers can better align support with the realities facing low-income households. Robust consumer education campaigns and streamlined application processes are also essential to ensure that assistance reaches those in need before crises arise.

The Path Forward for Chapter 14

The Pennsylvania Senate is revisiting the reauthorization and possible amendment of Chapter 14, a law initially established to protect low-income utility customers from having their services disconnected during the winter months. This legislation had expired in December 2024, but while it was in effect, provided several critical protections for utility customers. Among these were provisions that prevented utility companies from cutting off services from December through March, ensuring residents wouldn’t be left without heat during the coldest part of the year. Additionally, the law mandated that utility companies issue multiple notifications before discontinuing service due to non-payment, ensuring customers had ample warning and opportunities to resolve their accounts. Now, state legislators are once again debating the future of this law, considering how best to balance the needs of vulnerable residents with the operational requirements of utility providers. The outcome of these discussions will determine whether low-income families will continue to receive these vital protections during the harsh winter months. This reevaluation of Chapter 14 signals a renewed commitment to safeguarding those who might otherwise face severe hardships. Lawmakers are weighing the pros and cons to ensure that any amendments or reauthorizations of Chapter 14 will provide balanced, fair, and necessary aid to those in need.

Subscribe to our weekly news digest.

Join now and become a part of our fast-growing community.

Invalid Email Address
Thanks for Subscribing!
We'll be sending you our best soon!
Something went wrong, please try again later