Ct Governor M. Jodi Rell today vetoed energy legislation, crafted and passed in the final days of the session, citing “deep concerns that the measure would raise utility rates for consumers, not reduce them as bill sponsors claim.”
The Governor said Bill 493, An Act Reducing Electricity Costs and Promoting Renewable Energy, “is not in the best interests of the ratepayers or taxpayers of our state. The Governor said it “fails to deliver the very benefit its title promises.”
“The legislation, as well-intentioned as it is, would likely result in higher utility bills for consumers and, at time when taxpayers simply cannot afford bigger government, creates another state bureaucracy,” the Governor said. “In the midst of both this great recession and our well-known state budget challenges I cannot ask our already over-burdened and over-taxed residents and businesses to bear the additional burden of costs associated with this bill.”
The Governor said the bill is “eerily reminiscent of the claims made by supporters of the landmark deregulation bill in 1998, which promised a panacea to the state’s rising energy rates. Since then, rates have skyrocketed.”
Governor Rell said she was also “deeply troubled by the lack of transparency and critical public input leading up to the passage of the bill, crafted in the final days of the legislative session.”
“The best way to improve our generation, delivery and regulation of energy is through a transparent process within the normal legislative process, one that includes input from all critical stakeholders,” the Governor said. “I urge lawmakers to begin publicly meeting now to determine how the goals of this bill can be achieved without increasing rates and diminishing the progress we have made.”
The Connecticut Fund for the Environment said it was disappointed.
“This a real failure of leadership and underscores the fact that the Governor’s stated interest in creating Connecticut jobs in the new clean energy economy is nothing more than empty rhetoric,” said Charles Rothenberger, staff attorney for CFE. “Governor Rell turned down an opportunity to make substantial progress on an issue that has plagued Connecticut consumers, business owners, and the economy for a decade. If legislation that reduces consumer costs, creates long-term jobs, and protects the environment isn’t good legislation, what is?”
The bill had strong support from the AARP, the business community, and environmental and consumer advocates. It would have added 300 megawatts of solar power to Connecticut’s grid over the next decade, and provided 1,200 direct and 3,000-4,000 indirect jobs in the solar industry. It also established current Energy Star guidelines as minimum performance standards for televisions sold in the state and allows municipalities to bond for PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) financing, so property owners can take out low-interest loans to make energy efficiency improvements to their properties.
Rothenberger continued, “This legislation would have put us on the path to a cleaner, smarter, and more stable energy economy, one that protected the state’s interest in investing in its solar and renewable energy industry, and protected the national interest in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and their polluting byproducts. Governor Rell’s action today maintains the status quo and ensures that Connecticut’s residents and businesses will continue to pay the highest energy rates in the continental United States.”
Similar Posts:
- Radical Energy Bill Passes House & Senate, Now Up To Rell
- Controversial Energy Bill Passes Ct Senate
- Gov. Rell Visits Middletown’s Pegasus Manufacturing
- Operation Fuel Gets $1 Million To Help Ct Poor Residents
- Gov. Rell Considering Veto Of Major Electric Legislation
- General Assembly Quietly Cooking Up Last-Minute New Electric Taxes
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by George Gombossy, Jim. Jim said: Conn Gov. Rell Vetoes Sweeping Proposal To Change Electric Policies http://bit.ly/cSI3GD [...]
When Former Sen Tom Ritter introduced and passed the deregulation bill
for Gas and Electricity, Ritter was involved in a serious conflict of Interest.
We were promised lower rates, only to find that we have some of the highest electric rates in the Country. Who is fighting for and representing the consumers?
We have been programmed to believe Utility Propaganda and they have the money and the Political power to do it with. Who will fight for the people?
How exactly would this bill have increased, or decreased, the price of energy for consumers? I see no mention of any facts regarding this. How can anyone have an opinion one way or another without any facts?
The rebates for solar rebate programs are added as a line item in your bill. If the solar rebates were too excessive it would have increased your total bill (not the rate).
Having said that long term, it would decrease rates because there would be potentially 300mw less demand on the electrical grid.
So, Greg, the number in the new line item could be positive or negative. The issue then i suppose is whether we want to risk a ratepayer subsidy for “green” energy companies. I guess that depends on the ability to quality check their competence beyond mearly asserting they are “green.” Is that about right?
Has a bill in the history of government ever saved anything? The times I can think of such things is when tax breaks or handouts were given to people or companies that didn’t need them. After all; how else could you pay for them to be awarded.