According to MLN there were only 19 no votes.
More details as they come in, including information on the various amendments. Feel free to chime in with information in the comments section. Initial details about the compromise can be found at our earlier post here.
Right after the vote was called I spoke to a tired, and very frustrated Tom Swan. He said that in his 13 years at the Legislature this was the worst train wreck that he’d ever seen. Swan said that Energy and Technology Committee Chair Rep. Fontanna refused to bring the bill onto the floor and that he along with Vice Chair Rep. Vicki Nardello were two stars of the debate. Swan also said that the compromise will fly right through the Senate and that, for those whom are interested, the best chance to kill it was to try for a veto from Governor Rell.
Rep. Tim O’Brien offers the details I’ve been searching for on his blog. H/T to Spazeboy.
12:37am update after the voting is done:
The real electric reform that would finally help electric consumers was House Amendment C. It was defeated on a 34-114 vote.The final bill was approved 128-19. If I voted for the bill, I would be able to go out to my constituents and say that a voted for energy legislation. But I would know, in my heart, that it would not be true that this legislation solves the problem - high electric rates - that they wanted electric reform legislation to get done. So the only right thing I could do was to vote against this poor substitute for real reform of electric pricing.
Update 6:52am
The Courant article points out that this bill will bring no immediate relief for consumers.
In the competing battle over the content of the bill, the Senate version won, insiders said. The Senate version relied on allowing the deregulated energy world to flourish, while the House version sought to cut rates for consumers.
Rep. Stephen Fontana, a North Haven Democrat who worked on the bill for nearly two years, saw much of his work eviscerated as the bill was rewritten. As such, Fontana described the compromise bill as “a fraud” that would not immediately fix “our dysfunctional wholesale electricity system” in Connecticut.
“There is nothing in here that will lower rates,” Fontana told his House colleagues. “This is a deeply flawed amendment that will raise rates on consumers.” (Keating)
The more I hear about this bill, the less I like the sound of it.
15 responses so far ↓
Fontana really seemd to be losing it. On CT-N, he was twitching, rubbing his forehead and sweating. Not in control.
One has to wonder why he, as chairman, didn’t bring out the bill - which is 99% of the case — especially on big bills.
He seemed to be thrown overboard by Amann is lieu of Fonfara. Backer totally trashed Steve’s plan.
I thought his commending Urban was touching — and weird. What does she have to do with it, other than being his girlfriend?
He didn’t get many of his colleagues to go along with him, other then the most Lib of ‘em.
No energy bill (of his), no bullhook bill…. what is he going to reference in his end of session report?
Does he shine his head? Do bald guys do that? Thank god I don’t have to deal with that , not yet anyway.
My take — after waiting a year (supposed to be done last May during the session, then we heard special session coming in November, then it was going to be the firest billapproved in Januray….) was this the BEST they could come up with? So I save a few cents on weatherstripping….
No wonder why we are in trouble up there….
Wait for tomorrow’s news stories, when the bill is explained by the proponents instead of the opponents, and see if you still feel the same way.
thesea,
My sources are saying the energy bill that passed was written by industry lobbyists and they were all celebrating its passage.
True?
ctkeith said:
True.
The reason Fontana didn’t bring out the bill was that it was so bad he couldn’t put his name on it.
There was a good bill, a product of 2 years of work and input from all sort of groups (especially consumer and environmental), that would have truly lowered rates, and it was not voted on because powerful lobbyists influenced key leadership members in the House and Senate and got them to prevent it from going anywhere. The so-called compromise was the original lobbyist-written language from the Senate with some minor concessions to the House that provided accountability, but none of the House language that really mattered in terms of fixing the electric system or lowering rates.
This Bill was pretty much written by the lobbyists, and this is the bill that Fontana spent the entire Session Fighting against. It should tell you something when neither the Energy Chair nor the Vice-Chair vote for it. I felt Nardello was brilliant in her questioning Mazurek (why Mazurek I’m not sure, but I guess he was the proponent). Bravo to those 19 who voted against this monstrosity of a bill, maybe 5 years from now when things are even worse and we need to do this all over again they’ll be listened too.
Here’s the link to the bill if anyone is interested
http://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=7432&which_year=2007
Problems in the Energy Bill
Efficiency Partnerships
-$60 million per year without accountability provisions like a limit on how much each partner can receive, an RFP process to choose which proposals to fund, a requirement that the person receiving the technology pay a portion of the cost and a licensure requirement instead of the more lax certification requirement
Metering
-“just voluntary” still costs $170 million b/c the system to support the meters is expensive
-customers can currently get on a voluntary basis time-of-use meters that are capable of doing on peak and off peak pricing, but the meters in the program are the “Cadillac” meters, which are capable of doing real-time pricing
-this moves customers toward real time pricing, which forces people to pay spot market prices, which are high and volatile – their costs will increase
Towns and Municipalities
-In 2005, EIA forced towns and school systems into expensive (mandatory time of use rates) and volatile (pricing changes monthly) standard of last resort service
-Towns and schools cannot shift their load because of the hours they operate
-the bill does not exempt towns and municipalities from supplier of last resort service or time of use rates
Rates
-the bill does not address the problems with the underlying wholesale market that are causing the standard service benchmark to be high
-the electric heat rate language only maintains the rate for 5 years and only applies to those already on this rate (i.e. no one new can get it)
Procurement
-bilateral contracting language doesn’t work because it doesn’t create a framework for the DPUC to do this outside the RFP process
-doesn’t remove the full service generation requirement (means that we can’t buy baseload, intermediate and peaking separately, making bilateral contracts directly with generators impossible)
Cost of Service
-does not allow the DPUC to consider a variety of ownership options in its integrated resources plan
-does not require all plants going forward (that ratepayers pay to build) to agree to sell their power at cost of service plus a reasonable profit, not the highest cost possible they can charge in the market
-utilities are only allowed to generate if they are outside a regulated rate of return and bear all risk for cost overruns, which turns them into independent power producers and negates the entire purpose of utility owned generation
Retail Competition
-ratepayers subsidize retail competitive marketers
-aggressive retail referral program encourages people to move to competitive suppliers, which increases the migration risk in standard service and therefore raises the standard service price
-state is encouraged to pursue competitive suppliers
-consumer protections were not included
Accountability
-does not include a cost effectiveness review for generation going forward to make sure the winning bids are in the best interest of ratepayers
-includes a number of programs with technology that is already funded elsewhere and is not cost effective ($30 million for renewables and combined heat and power in state buildings, $50 million for DG ($25 million earmarked for fuel cells) for businesses and state facilities)
-encourages use of a standard service portfolio manager, which creates a huge potential for market manipulation
Dave–
Did you work against the bill and for Fontana’s ammendment?
If not, why not?
If you did, was that the best you could do among your colleagues?
What hurt the alternative was Fontana/Nardello/Urban.
Hooray! Now the Democrats can say they passed something! This bill doesn’t really do an awful lot though.
I mean… it’s not like it has the power and bravery of legislation that bans incandescent light bulbs!
Still, it’s better than the Fontana amendment… maybe he could have gotten over 30 votes for that thing if he brought a bullhook into the chamber with him.
Not sure what your bill is Headless; could it be as mindless as this?Gov. M. Jodi Rell has indicated she will sign the energy package into law. “It is not everything we want or need, but at this point our consumers will appreciate any help we can give them,” Rell said in a statement.
Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, said he would support the energy bill because it will “be very helpful” to consumers in four or five years. But he added that, “There’s no immediate rate relief for consumers.”
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18419693&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=31007&rfi=6
there is a dirty little secret that few Connecticut consumers know….
…….On those days, the owners of those plants can - and do - charge the highest rates they can. Rather than sending out eye-popping bills in the summer, the utilities spread those rates out through the entire year. But most consumers don’t know that, and the legislature has never stopped it.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-energy0603.artjun03,0,346279.story?coll=hc-headlines-home
But backers of the House bill, including some advocacy groups like the CCAG and state Consumer Counsel Mary J. Healey, fear it is a naïve solution.
The companies who would step in to manage power demand, sell new power meters, and install other technologies, would profit from ratepayer investments, they say, and electricity companies could see their costs go down as peak demand decreases. But those advocates don’t agree that such decreasing demand will translate into a system-wide drop in prices for consumers.
What little In understand of this bill, it appaers that large power users will see improvements but residential users will pay some hefty investments as the pols like to call them; but the jury is still out.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=611653c7-3137-4bf6-909f-b453d136260e
Toucan,
Face it,We’re screwed as far as electric rates go.The Dem Leadership sold out to the Corperate Lobbyists. The Liebercrat and Republican allience won this battle and you,I and every other Ct. resident will pay through the nose for it.
Until Amann’s gone this is what you can expect over and over again.
PS- There should be no doubt that Leadership or even help from the Governors office was totally Awol on this entire subject.
You give them all tooo much credit up there. I don’t think any of them know what to do and this was the path of least resistance brokered by Williams (who also favored it) and Ammann. The bill also got a number of GOP votes along with the DEms but I am still trying to sort things out, ctkeith.
I spent a lot of time working with the AG, Consumer Counsel, CCAG, AARP on the Fontana, Nardello bill/amendment. I voted for their amendment and against the bill. Unfortunately, we reached the stage in the legislative process known as the “WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING” stage, regardless of what the something is. Fonfara, the generator and the middleman lobbyists were never interested in a compromise and so they got most of what they wanted.
You must log in to post a comment.