Radical Energy Bill Passes House & Senate, Now Up To Rell

The Connecticut House of Representatives has passed the controversial Energy bill which could have dramatic impact on our electric bills.

By a vote of  81-40, the House followed the Senate in adopting the last-minute legislation that has not even had a public hearing.

Gov. M. Jody Rell, who has not said whether she would sign the legislation, said earlier this week, along with state utility regulators, that the bill could have unintended consequences of driving electric bills in Ct even higher.

However, several other groups say they favor it.

Charles Rothenberger, staff attorney for Connecticut Fund for the Environment, said, “We strongly support the Nardello-Fonfara bill and we urge Governor Rell to sign it into law. This is an opportunity to improve the state’s environment and economy, and to reduce ratepayer energy bills. Our energy infrastructure is broken. By passing this bill, lawmakers sent the message that they are committed to fixing it.”

He claims the legislation “will spur advancement and technology in the state’s green energy and energy efficiency industry, reduce air pollution and help the state meet greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth in the 2008 law that mandates a reduction of 10% below 1990 levels by 2020.”

Similar Posts:

Share

7 Comments on "Radical Energy Bill Passes House & Senate, Now Up To Rell"

  1. NO PUBLIC HEARING ?

    ARE THESE LAWYERS who are in public office NOT the representatives of the PEOPLE ?

    Then WHY are Y-O-U allowing them to RAPE you and your civil rights ?

    In the immortal words ” TROW DA BUMS OUT ! ”
    Yep its time to get radical and throw da bums outta office.

    Can you believe this ” a vote of 81-40, the House followed the Senate in adopting the last-minute legislation that has not even had a public hearing.”

    These corrupt LAWYERS tke LOBBY MONEy and then expect We the PEOLE to just go along ?

    Hell NO !

    TROW dem outta office !

    AMERICA get a spine !

    IF THIS , and I MEAN THIS , be DEMOCRACY then I’d Rather have ANARCHY !

  2. Ellee Rose | May 5, 2010 at 12:09 pm |

    I can not believe the timing. I had an ‘educated consumer’ chat with CLP for 35 minutes one hour ago. I explained it would be impossible to have the same utility bill as last month. The heat was barely used. I generally sleep in a bedroom that is 63-66 degrees in the winter. In the summer, I allow the thermostat to generally read 75. The air conditioning was OFF many days, and only used for the very hot days. If my washing machine was not used for 10 days because it was not working, this would mean about five less loads. Was I taking more showers, baths? NO. Was I washing more dishes? NO. Did I suddenly bring in new electrical equipment? NO. I expected to see a substantial decrease. Instead I have been told that everything ON in my apartment costs money, even the television uses electricity when it is not on for 3 days because of the cable box. During the day, lights are never used as my apartment brings in lots of natural light. On sunny days, my bedroom blinds are always drawn. In fact, I do not like overhead lighting anyway. What is wrong with this picture? I asked if it were possible that I could be paying additionally for something NOT IN my apartment and was told no. So seeing this article coming in today is quite a kismet in the face. Thank you.

    • Volunteer | May 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm |

      Did they offer to send a Home Energy Solution specialist to your home to perform an energy assessment? If not, you should have that done.

  3. Roger Smith | May 5, 2010 at 9:00 pm |

    The components of this bill had public hearings this session but were combined into a bigger bill. So technically you can say the bill didn’t have a hearing but in fact all the policies did and I personally watched most of them.

    In addition to environmental non-profits, consumer groups like AARP and ConnPIRG are supporting this bill as good for ratepayers and ratepayer advocate Representative Nardello worked on many consumer protection pieces in this bill, including a discount rate for low-income customers.

    Elle, do Home Energy Solutions (call 1877WISE USE) and they’ll help you cut your bills and give you a “Kill a watt” meter that helps you measure how much money each appliance uses, even when off! I learned a lot using it in my home.

  4. Roger Smith | May 5, 2010 at 9:02 pm |

    The components of this bill had public hearings this session but were combined into a bigger bill. So technically you can say the bill didn’t have a hearing but in fact all the policies did and I personally watched most of them. Many of these ideas have been percolating for years as the last real energy bill was in 2007.

    In addition to environmental non-profits, consumer groups like AARP and ConnPIRG are supporting this bill as good for ratepayers and ratepayer advocate Representative Nardello worked on many consumer protection pieces in this bill, including a discount rate for low-income customers.

    Elle, do Home Energy Solutions (call 1877WISE USE) and they’ll help you cut your bills and give you a “Kill a watt” meter that helps you measure how much money each appliance uses, even when off! I learned a lot using it in my home.

  5. I just heard on the news this evening from Governor Rell, that “…this is what the public wanted.” WHAT?? when was there ever a public hearing? are the Republicans in this legislature laggards in our defense against the taxaholic Democrats?? It is a tax that will never end against all CT residents and businesses, disguised as a fee. I firmly believe there will be a wholesale removal of most of these incompetents from this legislature and in the federal government this year. with a 10% unemployment rate, with businesses relocating?? How much more does this ‘do-nothing”, high salaried, argumentative legislature want from our almost empty pockets??

    Unbelievable! the arrogance.

  6. Roger,

    You are patently wrong. Many of the major components in the bill did NOT in fact have public hearings, including the provision to study the HQ/NU transmission line and the study of ISO NE market rule 1 to determine if CT should leave ISO NE (a glorifyingly stupid idea). As for Nardello being a “rate advocate” – I have to laugh. It’s all about her quest to re-regulate the industry, NOT about rate relief. She had her chance to lower bills by voting against her party’s proposal to extend the CTA on all electric bills, but of course she voted in favor. Thus, all ratepayers will see this “tax” in their bills for years to come thanks to legislators like Nardello. And the environmentalists supporting this bill are even more hilarious. Many have financial stakes in solar companies in CT and, low and behold, the bill is littered with government handouts to solar. Finally, can someone explain to me how a bill with millions in spending for solar, by far the most expensive source of energy generation, is supposed to lower bills????

Comments are closed.