Texas House Bill HB496

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 1/3/11
• Refer: 2/17/11

Caption

Relating to the frequency with which water or sewer utilities must file a statement of intent to increase rates.

Impact

The modification brought forth by HB 496 would have direct implications on how water and sewer utilities handle rate changes. By increasing the interval between rate increase filings, the bill could protect consumers from frequent rate hikes while still allowing utility companies the ability to adjust rates under specific conditions. This balance seeks to address potential financial burdens faced by residents while ensuring that utilities remain viable in the long run.

Summary

House Bill 496 aims to amend the Texas Water Code, specifically Section 13.187(p), to regulate the frequency with which water or sewer utilities can file a statement of intent to increase their rates. The bill proposes limiting these filings to once every 36 months unless the regulatory authority identifies a financial hardship that compels more frequent adjustments. This significant alteration is meant to provide stability for consumers while ensuring that utilities can manage their financial circumstances effectively.

Sentiment

Discussion around HB 496 has been relatively straightforward with a generally positive sentiment expressed by both legislators and advocacy groups who focus on consumer protection. Many supporters view the bill as a necessary measure to prevent sudden increases in utility rates, particularly in times of economic stress. Nonetheless, there may be concerns from utilities about the potential strain this could place on their operational budgets over time, should they face financial challenges without the ability to adjust rates promptly.

Contention

Though the bill has faced little in the way of significant opposition, there are lingering concerns from some stakeholders regarding the potential for utilities to experience financial strain if their rate increase capabilities are unduly restricted. This tension highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing consumer protection with the financial health of critical public service providers.