Energy

Fund Public-Interest Intervenors in Public-Utility Ratepayer Cases

States have the ability to fund individuals and groups to participate in regulatory utility cases. This process is essential to ensure that the public’s interest is represented in cases. Currently, 20 states have authorized intervenor compensation programs designed to provide funding for people to participate in utility proceedings.¹ States should build and/or strengthen these programs.

Remove Barriers to Public Intervention

States can pass laws reforming the public-intervention process, including removing laws that allow private entities to challenge and throw out intervenors before proceedings and removing requirements that intervenors need a lawyer to intervene. States can also institute strong standing principles that allow any organization to participate in the intervention process.

1. Deanna Nussberger, “Intervenor Compensation: Supporting Public Participation in Utility Decisions,” Environmental Defense Fund, May 20, 2025, https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2025/05/20/intervenor-compensation-supporting-public-participation-in-utility-decisions. ↩︎

Private, for-profit monopolies currently provide 70 percent of electricity in the United States. The other 30 percent is provided by publicly or mutually owned utilities. Over the past three years, investor-owned utility (IOU) residential electricity rates have increased 49 percent more than inflation, whereas the rates from publicly owned utilities have increased 44 percent less than inflation.¹ Public power campaigns in Milwaukee,² New York,³ Tucson, and other cities are demanding shifts to democratically controlled power systems to protect against rapidly rising electricity prices.⁴ Legislators can and should support local and national public power campaigns, using federal power to intervene where appropriate.

1. Mark Ellis, Rate of Return Equals Cost of Capital: A Simple, Fair Formula to Stop Investor-Owned Utilities From Overcharging the Public, American Economic Liberties Project, page 2, January 2025, https://www.economicliberties.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/20250102-aelp-ror-v5.pdf. ↩︎
2. Power to the People Milwaukee, https://www.powertothepeoplemke.org. ↩︎
3. Public Power NY, https://publicpowerny.org. ↩︎
4. Derek Seidman, “As Electricity Bills Rise, Activists Are Demanding Public Control of Utilities,” Truthout, January 2, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/as-electricity-bills-rise-activists-are-demanding-public-control-of-utilities. ↩︎

Our energy sector is facing increased consolidation and private takeover, with Big Tech and private-equity companies moving to acquire energy companies, and private equity taking over investor-owned utility companies across the country. Blackstone, one of the world’s largest private-equity firms, recently filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas to acquire Texas‑New Mexico Power’s parent company.¹ In Minnesota, the state’s Public Utilities Commission (MN PUC) approved the $6.2 billion sale of Allete, parent company of Minnesota Power, to a subsidiary of BlackRock and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.²  

Note: The water sector is also facing increased consolidation and threats of private-equity takeover. While this section specifically deals with the energy stack, it is critical for federal policymakers to address private takeover within the utility sector writ large.

Promote a Robust Antitrust Toolkit

Enforce antitrust laws that limit acquisitions and investments in key energy infrastructure that lead to undue corporate influence over public goods. Heightened scrutiny of mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships involving Big Tech hyperscalers and private-equity firms that have an interest in data center development and associated infrastructure.

Prevent Private-Equity Takeover of Investor-Owned Utilities

The federal government can leverage authorities from FERC, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prohibit the private-equity takeover of investor-owned utilities. Where that is not legally feasible, require strict scrutiny of any proposed acquisition where a private-equity firm seeks to acquire at least 10 percent or more of the voting securities of a regulated entity and apply a robust public interest standard to adjudicate the change of control request. 

Note: The 10 percent threshold stems from two 2022 FERC decisions establishing a rebuttable presumption that ownership of more than 10 percent of the voting securities of a regulated entity constitutes a change of control, but that ownership of less than 10 percent may still constitute a change of control if the investor’s own officers or directors are appointed to the board of the regulated entity.³This suggests that 10 percent should be the ceiling.

1. Texas‑New Mexico Power, “Texas‑New Mexico Power Files Acquisition Application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas,” August 25, 2025, https://tnmp.com/about-us/news-media/texas-new-mexico-power-files-acquisition-application-public-utility-commission; Claire Hao, “Who Benefits If Wall Street Buys Your Utility? Texas-New Mexico Power Customers Could Soon Find Out,” MSN, January 30, 2026, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/who-benefits-if-wall-street-buys-your-utility-texas-new-mexico-power-customers-could-soon-find-out/ar-AA1Vk1rR. ↩︎
2. Marc Levy, “Private Equity Sees Profits in Power Utilities as Electric Bills Rise and Big Tech Seeks More Energy,” Associated Press, September  27,  2025, https://apnews.com/article/big-tech-private-equity-electricity-utilities-power-energy-7c5d119142380bb7a83bbe722f69f2a5. ↩︎
3. TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc., 181 FERC ¶ 61,055 (2022); Evergy Kan. Central, Inc., 181 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2022). ↩︎