Back to Home > 

Friday, Jan 20, 2006

News  

email this

print this

reprint or license this

Posted on Fri, Jan. 20, 2006

Lawmaker says bill wasn't explained fully

Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A House lawmaker says a bill that would prevent utilities from cutting off power when it's extremely hot or cold outside wasn't completely explained before members voted on it.

Rep. James Smith, D-Columbia, said a provision in the bill that limits lawsuits against utilities was "overreaching" and many House members didn't know about it when they voted on it. He wants the bill reconsidered.

The bill limits any liability on the part of utilities and caps actual damages at $200,000.

"It's a little insidious, I would say, the way this has developed," Smith said. "It wasn't part of the explanation. Something like this could have gone through with 99 percent of this body not knowing what they voted on and I have a real problem with that."

But Rep. Harry Cato, R-Travelers Rest, said he supports protecting the utilities.

"The thing that gets lost in the shuffle sometimes is that we're talking about cutting off service for lack of payment," said Cato, who chairs the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee. "I think the utilities deserve some limited liability if they go through all these hoops we're asking them to."

The bill creates protections for those 65 or older, disabled or seriously ill and poor. Utilities would have to notify the customer and, if requested, a friend or relative multiple times before service could be disconnected.

The proposal, which sets temperature guidelines for disconnecting service, comes after 89-year-old Elizabeth Verdin froze to death in her Greenville home in December 2004 after her power was shut off during a cold snap.

The bill was written after lawmakers met with utilities last year.

Duke Power spokesman Tim Pettit said the utility has no opinion about the limited liability clause.

"To this point our review of that legislation has focused on the operational aspects and we support the intent of the bill to provide that uniform safety net," he said.

But Smith wants the language removed.

"What we're talking about is limiting the civil justice rights of people who might be entitled to them," he said.

email this

print this

reprint or license this