Opinion: When the state orders discounts and sends you the bill

Nancy Churchill argues that HB 2373 would raise electric rates by shifting the cost of mandated low-income utility discounts onto local ratepayers, particularly in rural Washington counties.

Nancy Churchill explains why HB 2373 will raise electric rates

Nancy Churchill
Dangerous Rhetoric

Winter in Ferry County and surrounding areas is unforgiving. Bitter cold and deep snow are part of daily life, and families feel it when they open their electric bills. State climate mandates like the Climate Commitment Act and the Clean Energy Transformation Act have already driven up the cost of delivering electricity. Now, a new bill, HB 2373, would require electric utilities to provide larger, locally funded monthly bill discounts for low-income households, with tiered assistance and expanded outreach, all by 2028.

The bill moves the goalposts set by the Clean Energy Transformation Act of 2019, forcing utilities to fully implement assistance programs years earlier than planned. The state imposed this requirement without providing a single dollar to pay for it, leaving local public utility districts to absorb the cost.

At the center of this fight are the Ferry County PUD Commissioners, with Dan Fagerlie taking the lead in voicing their shared concerns. For years, he has worked to educate legislators, other PUDs, and advocacy groups about the real-world impacts of these unfunded mandates. He supported legislative fixes like HB 1903 in 2025, which sought to fund the CETA mandates at the state level, and he has consistently warned that mandates without funding hit rural ratepayers hardest.

Commissioner Fagerlie regularly answers questions, corrects misunderstandings, and educates through public testimony. And when asked, he will explain how unfunded state mandates fall hardest on rural counties like Ferry County, which face higher service costs due to geography, weather, and a higher share of households that qualify for assistance.

Unfortunately, the relief proposed in HB 1903 now appears unlikely, as HB 2373 has emerged instead. Rather than easing the burden, this new bill expands state mandates and increases costs for local ratepayers.

The truth exposed

HB 2373 is sold as compassion, promising “equity” through mandatory discounts and easier enrollment. But the reality is far more costly. Utilities must fund the entire program through their own operations, with no state funding and no flexibility. The bill adds third-party assessments, reporting requirements, multilingual outreach, and partnerships with select groups. Each requirement adds paperwork and expense, shifting costs onto neighbors who do not qualify or choose not to participate. Those neighbors pay through higher electric rates. Every additional requirement makes electricity more expensive to deliver.

Small rural PUDs, where many customers already qualify for some form of assistance, will be hit hardest. In Ferry County, a shrinking pool of paying customers would carry a growing financial load. Estimates based on Department of Commerce participation data suggest remaining customers could face increases of more than $700 per year. As rates rise, more households qualify for assistance, leaving fewer people paying full costs and pushing rates even higher. This creates an upward rate spiral that rural utilities, ratepayers, and small businesses may not be able to afford.

Another major flaw in HB 2373 is the lack of meaningful eligibility verification. Applicants may be automatically included or allowed to self-attest need without proof. Supporters argue that verification slows aid, but that presents a false choice. Basic verification can be efficient and fair. Without it, limited resources are misdirected, abuse becomes more likely, and public trust erodes. Experience in other deep-blue states shows that informal, unverified systems like this incentivize fraud.

The consequences go beyond higher bills. Rising energy costs strain working families, state mandates weaken local control, and rural communities become less affordable. Property values suffer, small businesses struggle, and the next generation inherits heavier burdens instead of opportunity.

A thought experiment

Imagine if food assistance worked this way. Instead of state funding, grocery stores were ordered to provide discounts or free food and pay for the program themselves. In our area, close to 50% of the population might qualify for assistance. Prices would rise to cover both the benefit and the administrative workload. Customers who did not qualify or choose not to enroll would pay more to subsidize those who did. Higher prices would push even more people into eligibility.

That is precisely how low-income utility assistance works under the original Clean Energy Transformation Act and the updated framework in HB 2373. The state mandates the benefit but shifts the cost and administration onto the customer-owned utilities, forcing ratepayers to fund a public assistance program through higher electric bills.

Possible solutions

Our PUD Commissioners are working tirelessly in educating lawmakers about the unintended consequences of statewide mandates. HB 2373 can be fixed. Lawmakers could restore the state-funded framework proposed in HB 1903 and allow rural PUDs to use Climate Commitment Act revenues to cover assistance costs. Voluntary, locally tailored programs should replace one-size-fits-all mandates.

At a minimum, the bill should be amended to create a state-funded, state-run pilot program for high-poverty areas. This would reduce costs and administrative burdens for rural and frontier PUDs. Legislators should also require full cost estimates from the Department of Commerce so voters can see the true impact.

Take action now

Our PUD Commissioners have done the work of studying the impacts and presenting the facts. Now it falls to you, everyday rural Washingtonians facing radically higher power bills.

Visit leg.wa.gov. Look up HB 2373 and send a comment to your legislators. Ask them to work to stop the bill in committee or to amend it to include real state funding. Explain how HB 2373 will raise rates in rural counties like Ferry County hurting families who can least afford it. Share this column with neighbors, at the grocery store, or online.

This bill has a public hearing on Tuesday (Jan. 20). If you cannot testify in person, submit written testimony using the “Testify” button on the bill’s information page. Your electric bill, your local economy, and your local control are at stake. Stand up now.

Nancy Churchill is a writer, educator, and conservative activist in rural eastern Washington state. She chairs the Ferry County Republican Party and advocates for effective citizen influence through Influencing Olympia Effectively. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack and X.

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

In this opinion column, Nancy Churchill criticizes House Bill 2373, which would require electric utilities to expand low‑income bill discounts and outreach by 2028 without direct state funding, according to the author. She argues the mandate would increase rates for non‑qualifying customers—especially rural ratepayers—by shifting public‑assistance costs onto local utilities and creating what she describes as an unsustainable subsidy cycle.

What Grok notices

Describes HB 2373’s requirements as including tiered assistance and expanded outreach (including multilingual communication), and argues the costs would be absorbed by utilities rather than funded by the state.
Connects the bill to prior clean‑energy mandates, portraying it as another requirement that adds administrative and operating costs while limiting utilities’ flexibility in how they budget and plan.
Emphasizes rural‑service challenges—such as higher per‑customer infrastructure and maintenance costs in frontier counties—and argues those realities make cross‑subsidies more burdensome outside urban areas.
Uses specific impact claims (including a cited possibility of $700+ in annual increases for some non‑qualifying customers) to illustrate how the author believes costs would shift across the rate base.
Encourages readers to look at primary sources (the bill text and hearing record) and references local utility leaders’ efforts and concerns as part of the argument against the mandate.

Questions worth asking

How would utilities balance required discounts and outreach with maintaining reliable service—especially in rural systems with high fixed costs?
If eligibility can be self‑attested (as some assistance programs allow), what verification and audit processes would be used to reduce errors or abuse while protecting privacy?
What state‑funding alternatives—appropriations, tax credits, or a statewide assistance pool—could reduce rate impacts on non‑qualifying customers?
In other states with similar low‑income energy assistance requirements, what have been the observed impacts on average rates and on arrearage or disconnection levels?
What long‑term effects could rising electricity costs have on household stability and economic viability in frontier counties where incomes may be lower and heating loads higher?