Industry, labor and builders warn SB 492 could raise borrowing costs and cost jobs and housing projects

Labor and industry witnesses told the committee that market reactions to SB 492 could raise borrowing costs for investor-owned utilities and produce cascading effects on jobs and housing construction. Scott Wedge, speaking for utility workers, said analysts expect borrowing costs to rise—testimony cited long-term yields climbing north of 10% in stress scenarios—and argued that those financing costs could reduce crews, delay projects and put thousands of jobs at risk.

"We're looking at upwards of 18,000 lost jobs. 18,000 lost jobs," Wedge said during testimony, citing the CEA estimate to underline potential job impacts. Building-industry representative Dan Dunmoyer added the bill, as drafted, risks delaying or preventing utilities from turning on service for newly built homes and said that would pause housing and transmission expansion.

Witnesses described numerical examples to show long-term financing effects: testimony included an illustrative scenario where a 10% debt cost on a $10 billion infrastructure purchase significantly increases lifetime financing costs. Proponents and others on the panel said these financing risks are real but disputed the magnitude and timing, and the bill’s author urged better data collection and analysis to quantify the effect.

Several lawmakers pressed for more rigorous, independent analysis of bond-yield impacts and the distributional effect on ratepayers, including how much higher interest costs would translate into monthly bills. Some members warned that avoiding utility bankruptcy should be a priority, while others said more structural reform would be necessary to reduce exposure without sending destabilizing market signals.

The committee did not take a vote; members requested more modeling and information to understand trade-offs between survivor compensation protections and broader market stability for utilities.