This 1984 Wisconsin law makes me less worried about paying my bills on time
How we can think differently about financial commitments and “earning a living”
In a few weeks, low-income residents around Wisconsin will be making their annual deals with utility companies to keep the lights on.
As in many states with cold winters, Wisconsin state law prohibits utility companies from disconnecting power to most households during winter months. The so-called cold-weather rule, passed in 1984 and enforced by our Public Service Commission, creates a moratorium on disconnections of any utility powering or effecting a home’s primary heat source from Nov. 1 to April 15 each year.
The law includes some exceptions, if you make a certain amount money, for example. But they’re limited, and it also puts the burden of proof on the utility company, which effectively means no one is getting their power shut off between Nov. 1 and April 15.
This is a vital, lifesaving measure in a state where average temperatures run between 15 degrees and 30 degrees during that period.
As far as I can tell, Wisconsinites are well aware of this rule. News outlets report on the moratorium before it ends each year, reminding folks where to find additional help paying utility bills and how to negotiate payment plans with providers. I learned about the rule almost as soon as I started renting, sometime in early adulthood in Madison, Wisconsin, where a robust tenant rights community is great at disseminating information about residents’ rights.
I also got a chance to see those rights in action one year, when I moved in March into an apartment with friends who’d stopped paying their electric bills in November to see what would happen. The rule held; utilities remained on through the winter but were disconnected pretty quickly after April 15. We divvied up and paid off the six-month bill to have them restored within a day, but it was — to my 20-something curiosity — a fun experiment in testing the true consequences of financial commitments.
I think about this rule constantly.
I’ve never had to take advantage of it because of an inability to pay utility bills. I’ve always lived in tiny spaces and used well below the average electricity in them (BTW what is using so much electricity in people’s lives..?). But I’m grateful the rule exists, and it forms the foundation for the entire way I think about financial commitments.
Bills are commitments, not obligations
As I explain in You Don’t Need a Budget, I don’t see monthly bills as obligations you’re stuck with. I see them as financial commitments you have control and influence over. This means two important things for how you approach paying these bills:
You had the power to commit to the payment at some point, so you have the power to uncommit when you need to, as well. Unsubscribe, cancel a lease, discharge a debt, negotiate a lower rate, etc. A line item in your monthly expenses isn’t there forever; it’s there for as long as it serves you.
Part of your commitment is agreeing to deal with its consequences. That means the consequences of paying, which are basically the opportunity costs of any other thing you could have done with that money. And it also means the consequences of not paying; what happens if you don’t pay a bill or you pay it late?
Deciding how to use your money, especially when your resources are tight, includes deciding which consequences you can live with. A bill isn’t the be-all end-all of your obligation to a service provider or lender. As I write in YDNAB:
Whatever reason you have for not allocating resources to a particular commitment is legitimate; a bill from a service provider, debt collector, or landowner doesn’t make their desire to be paid any more legitimate than your inability [or unwillingness] to pay.
Instead of taking that bill at face value, consider: What kinds of consequences does the biller have the power to enforce?
The typical consequence of not paying a utility bill is having your power shut off. That keeps people paying because it’s incredibly inconvenient: You lose light when it’s dark, refrigerated food goes bad, you lose climate control, you’ll have no internet or TV. In freezing temperatures, it’s also life-threatening. That’s an incredible amount of power for a utility company to wield.
In 1984, the Wisconsin legislature (controlled by Democrats, in case you’re counting) decided that was too much power for a utility company to wield. Those companies are no longer allowed to let our homes become lethally cold because we don’t give them money. That changes our relationship with that bill.
Now the consequence of not paying a utility bill between Nov. 1 and April 15 is less severe: It means a bigger bill come April 15 and maybe the hassle of setting up a payment plan with the utility company.
With that threat to your life and health off the table, you can think about how the financial consequence fits into your life. Maybe it’s easier for you to make payments between April and November because you work in construction and have more income in warmer seasons. Maybe you’re just putting off payments this year, because you’re having a tough few months and know you’ll have access to more resources soon. Maybe you get a student loan refund every spring that makes it easy to pay the bill all at once, and you’d rather have your cash flow available for other spending during the school year.
There are tons of scenarios that may or may not sound like financially “responsible” moves to some people. But if you stop moralizing about how people use money, choosing how to handle bills is just a matter of deciding which consequences you will or won’t live with. That can significantly reduce the stress that’s triggered when a bill arrives in your inbox.
Resist the expectation to ‘earn a living’
Protective rules like Wisconsin’s disconnection moratorium complicate our culture’s expectation that everyone must “earn a living” — one we should be constantly calling into question. Here’s another passage from YDNAB:
Under [capitalism], we treat it as normal to exchange labor for access to necessities like food, property, financial products, education and health care. We unironically call this “earning a living.”
Pause to consider the absurdity of that everyday phrase. When we talk about earning a living, we are, literally, talking about getting money to pay for the things that keep us alive, like food, shelter, clothing, health care, community, dignity and safety. When we attach those to the word earn, we suggest a person is only entitled to these life-giving amenities if they have the means to pay for them, and, for the majority of people, if they can work for the means to pay for them.
When we support rules that protect people’s access to life regardless of their ability to pay for it, we push back against this ridiculous cultural norm. We assert a set of values that puts human life and dignity above corporate profit.
Put very simply: We’ve decided we won’t expect Wisconsinites to earn their ability to heat their homes in the winter, because we value keeping our neighbors alive. Public and private programs that offer assistance with energy bills now reinforce that value. Asserting it lets us raise questions about what people need and move away from a line of thinking that they only deserve to have those needs met when they can pay for them.
The introduction to the section of the Wisconsin Administrative Code that spells out the cold-weather rule says:
The public service commission of Wisconsin recognizes that there are many citizens of the state who, because of incomes, infirmities of aging, developmental or mental disabilities or like infirmities incurred at any age, or the frailties associated with being very young, need protection from cold weather disconnections. This section is intended to provide that protection as enumerated below…
That declaration is just as important as the details that follow. Alongside rethinking our own relationship with the bills we receive from capitalists who control our necessities, it’s vital that we expect our public institutions to recognize our humanness and protect us from their destructive greed.
And, in case we still have any capitalists in the audience, you don’t have to worry about the energy companies. 😮💨 They’re doing just fine. Here’s my utility company’s stock performance since 1985:
