Stop Shut-Offs During Shutdowns Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 19, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect consumers from losing essential utility services during federal government shutdowns by mandating moratoriums on electric disconnections and recommending them for natural gas, with a framework for electric utility cost recovery.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a sense of Congress for a nationwide moratorium on electric and natural gas utility disconnections during federal government shutdowns. More concretely, it amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to prohibit electric service terminations for consumers during any lapse in appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services, while also allowing state regulatory authorities to establish mechanisms for electric utilities to recover substantial, prudently incurred costs associated with this mandate.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical measure to protect vulnerable consumers, including federal workers and those reliant on federal assistance, from losing essential utility services during federal government shutdowns, which are often beyond their control. They assert it prevents undue hardship, public health risks, and ensures basic necessities are maintained during periods of federal instability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that mandating service without immediate payment could place an undue financial burden on utility companies, potentially leading to higher rates for all consumers or impacting utility solvency. They may also argue that this represents an overreach of federal authority into state-regulated utility matters, even with the cost recovery provisions.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation by an informed reader.
Section 2
Sense of Congress on Nationwide Moratorium on Utility Disconnections
This section expresses the sense of Congress that, during any lapse in appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services, state regulatory authorities and electric or natural gas utilities should ensure that no service is terminated due to inability to pay. It also recommends reasonable efforts for reconnection, waiver of reconnection fees and late penalties, and no increases in cost-of-service for affected consumers. This provision is a non-binding statement of intent.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision highlights the moral imperative to protect vulnerable populations from losing essential services during federal government shutdowns, which can disrupt income and assistance programs. It sets a clear expectation for utilities and regulators.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a 'sense of Congress' is largely symbolic and lacks direct enforcement power, potentially creating false expectations without providing concrete, legally enforceable protections for natural gas consumers.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to protect consumers with the federal government's limited direct authority over state-regulated utility practices, opting for a recommendation rather than a mandate for natural gas.
Section 3(1)-(5)
Prohibition on Electric Service Termination During HHS Appropriations Lapses
This provision amends Section 115(g) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to explicitly prohibit electric utilities from terminating service to an electric consumer during any period when interim continuing appropriations or full-year appropriations are not in effect for the Department of Health and Human Services. This makes the moratorium for electric service legally binding under federal law, unlike the 'sense of Congress' for natural gas services.
Section 3(6)
Cost Recovery Mechanism for Electric Utilities
This provision allows State regulatory authorities to establish alternative mechanisms for electric utilities to recover costs incurred due to the mandated non-termination of service during HHS appropriations lapses. Such recovery cannot be retroactively assessed on the specific consumers who benefited from the moratorium. For costs to be recoverable, they must be determined by the State regulatory authority to be substantial, prudently incurred, and not reasonably recoverable through regulated rates, market prices, or supplemental funding.
Section 2 expresses a non-binding 'sense of Congress' for a nationwide moratorium on both electric and natural gas disconnections. Section 3, however, enacts a legally binding prohibition *only* for electric service disconnections by amending federal law. This means the protections for natural gas consumers are advisory, while those for electric consumers are mandatory.
Section 2 (Sense of Congress) vs. Section 3 (PURPA amendment)
Why it matters:This distinction likely reflects differing federal regulatory authorities over electric versus natural gas utilities, with PURPA providing a clear hook for electric but less direct federal control over natural gas distribution. It's standard legislative practice to use different mechanisms based on jurisdictional reach, rather than an attempt to obscure.
Case for: Proponents would argue that using a 'sense of Congress' for natural gas is the strongest federal statement possible given current jurisdictional limits, while the PURPA amendment leverages existing federal authority where it exists, providing the maximum feasible protection.
Case against: Critics might argue that the differing enforceability creates an uneven playing field, potentially leaving natural gas consumers less protected than electric consumers during shutdowns, despite the stated intent of comprehensive protection.
Estimated impact: Affects the legal recourse and protections available to millions of natural gas consumers compared to electric consumers during federal government shutdowns, potentially leading to disparate outcomes.