Relating to the charging of exorbitant or excessive prices for natural gas during a declared disaster.
Impact
The proposed changes in HB 2128 would update existing laws to afford greater protections to Texas residents by clearly defining what constitutes price gouging in the context of natural gas sales. Under the bill, entities would be held accountable for charging excessive prices during emergencies, providing a safety net for consumers who might otherwise be at a disadvantage. The bill aims to prevent a repeat of the dramatic price increases experienced during past crises, thereby aiming to stabilize natural gas pricing during emergencies.
Summary
House Bill 2128 addresses the issue of exorbitant pricing for natural gas during declared disasters in Texas. This legislation was primarily motivated by the financial burdens that certain communities faced during events like Winter Storm Uri, where some municipalities reported dramatically increased gas bills. By amending the Business & Commerce Code, the bill aims to prohibit excessive charges for natural gas in intrastate commerce when a disaster has been declared. The sponsors of the bill believe that it is necessary to protect consumers from potential exploitation during vulnerable times.
Sentiment
Discussions surrounding HB 2128 reveal a mixed sentiment among various stakeholders. Supporters, including consumer advocacy groups and some environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, are in favor of the bill, viewing it as a necessary measure to ensure fairness in pricing during disasters. Conversely, industry representatives, including those from the Texas Pipeline Association and the Texas Oil and Gas Association, have expressed opposition. They argue that the bill could disrupt operational practices and lead to unforeseen complications for businesses engaged in the sale and distribution of natural gas.
Contention
Notable points of contention primarily revolve around the balance between protecting consumers and maintaining business viability during emergencies. Critics of the bill worry about its potential to impact market dynamics and argue that existing regulations are already sufficient. Proponents, however, cite specific instances where small communities were significantly burdened by high prices during declared disasters. The debate highlights the broader discourse on regulatory measures aimed at consumer protection versus the economic implications for the energy sector.
Relating to the charging of exorbitant or excessive prices for disinfectant cleaning supplies or personal protective equipment during a declared disaster.
Relating to the deceptive trade practice of failure to disclose information regarding the use of artificial intelligence system or algorithmic pricing systems for setting of price.