Legislation to roll back competition for electricity suppliers was opposed by several spokespersons for companies who provide electric alternatives to Connecticut residents.
The following testimony was provided to members of the General Assembly’s Energy and Technology Committee by Jay Kooper, president of the Retail Energy Supply Association:
“The Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA) submits this testimony to oppose H.B. 5505 (An Act Concerning Electric Rate Relief).
RESA is a trade association comprised of 13 competitive energy suppliers – 10 of which are or are affiliated with Fortune 500 companies – who are actively involved in supplying competitive electric and natural gas products across the country, including customers in Connecticut.
RESA member companies include Con Edison Solutions, Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Direct Energy Service, LLC, Exelon Energy Company, GDF SUEZ Energy Resources, N.A., Inc., Gexa Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company, Hess Corporation, Integrys Energy Services, Inc., Just Energy, Liberty Power, PPL EnergyPlus and Sempra Energy Solutions, LLC.
As currently proposed, House Bill 5505 replaces the competitive choice model that by all objective measures is effectively providing customer with a variety of energy choices , significant savings and innovative products and services that Connecticut’s electric distribution companies under the regulated regime could not produce.
In its place, H.B. 5505 installs a regulated regime that will restrict choice for customers of all sizes, including mediumand large-sized business customers that the Speaker’s Rate Relief Panel recommended the competitive model should be preserved for.
In addition, this legislation will, unlike the competitive model, force Connecticut ratepayers and taxpayers to bear the costs of enormous billion-dollar risks of allowing Connecticut’s electric utilities to build new generation, establishing a Connecticut Electric Authority and creating a managed portfolio structure for Standard Service customers. Make no mistake, the costs for all of these proposals – the risks of which can total into the billions of dollars – will be borne by Connecticut taxpayers and ratepayers during a time of deep economic recession when they can least afford these costs.
Finally, passage of H.B. 5505 will result in lost economic development and investment in Connecticut in the form of capital, jobs and innovation through the eradication of customer choice that will drive businesses out of Connecticut and leave remaining businesses with fewer options and higher electricity prices not subject to the downward pressures that competition provides.
For these reasons and those expressed in the section-by section objections below, RESA strongly opposes H.B. 5505 urges its rejection by the Committee.
Anyone in favor of the proposed legislation can provide me with their testimony and I would be happy to publish it. George Gombossy
Similar Posts:
- Controversial Energy Bill Passes Ct Senate
- Major Propane Reform Legislation Expected In Connecticut
- Radical Energy Bill Passes House & Senate, Now Up To Rell
- Renewable Energy Sources: Ct Atty Gen Says Proof Needed
- General Assembly Quietly Cooking Up Last-Minute New Electric Taxes
- Alternative Electric Suppliers In Ct Have Difficulty Matching New CL&P, UI Rates
George, which legislators in particular sponsored this legislation? I think it is important to identify them by name and let them support their position.
UTC just pointed out last week that CT has the second highest electricity rates in the country. This is due to our friends at the DPUC and our legislature. Now we are asked to trust their solution to revert back to the old model?
Just when taxes need to be cut and the size of government needs to shrink the exact opposite is being proposed.
A new energy tax is proposed in H.B. 5505:
Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2010) On and after October 1, 2010, the Department of Public Utility Control shall assess or cause to be assessed a charge per kilowatt hour of electricity sold to each end use customer of an electric supplier, as defined in section 16-1 of the general statutes, to be used by the department to expand its educational programs. Such expansion of programs shall emphasize how in-state businesses can operate successfully as consumers in the competitive market. The department shall initiate a proceeding to determine the amount of the per kilowatt hour charge to be assessed pursuant to this section.
This bill also creates a NEW government agency The Connecticut Electric Authority. Just what this state needs is more deadwood overlapping what others in State government should already be doing as part of their jobs.
Read how your tax dollars were spent for a team of State-paid attorneys to come up with this:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/TOB/H/2010HB-05505-R00-HB.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmyBillAllComm.asp?bill=HB-05505&doc_year=2010
Dear John,
I believe this legislation was proposed by Representative Nardello, Atty. General Blumenthal, and by Speaker Donovan. You should also look at the financing structure for the Authority, it will result in higher prices, and will put money to a duplicate entity, while at the same time the state is asking non-profits to close their doors.
Great catch, George – it’s a shame other major media isn’t paying attention. This same legislature has put the state hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, so their solution for high energy rates is to put themselves in charge through a power authority! Unreal. On the other hand, the energy industry is one of the few that has grown in Connecticut since the economic collpase. Companies have invested millions in generation infrastructure and hired hundreds of construction workers. Retails suppliers are providing lower rates to businesses and residents. Yet Nardello and Blumenthal want to levy a windfall tax on them so they can stop making money and actually hiring people. Brilliant! Check out competitionworksct.org – I sent my legislators a note to tell them to stop this nonesense. Hope they listen.
As a Connecticut consumer, I do not want you to take away my right to choose an alternative electricity supplier and the benefits of competition. I like the one I have now.
I totally agree Serena.
George
As a Connecticut consumer, I do not want you to take away my right to choose an alternative electricity supplier and the benefits of competition . I like the one I have now. So please don’ t change. I hope all the State Senator and State Representative will say no, don’t change too . I thank you very much.
My husband and I have been working as Independent Associates with Viridian Energy Inc. since Sept. ’09. We have been able to help thousands of customers switch away from the high prices at CL and P and save hundreds, if not thousands (for a large users) of dollars off of their electric bill. Viridian Energy also offers 20% green content in our everyday product while CL and P and UI only offer 14%. Atty. Blumenthal was actually quoted in the Hartford Courant as a supporter of Viridian’s green content along with Conn Edison Solutions. We, at Viridian Energy, are outraged to think that hundreds of thousands of Ct. resident’s will be forced into going back to the local utility because of bureaucracy on the State level. What have we come to here in the state of Ct.? Isn’t it bad enough that we have the second HIGHEST electric costs in the country? I am not sure that the average consumer can grasp how much this bill will hurt the state and those of us that are earning a living with alternative energy companies. The financial impact that H.B. 5505 will have on many of us is unfathomable.