But even with the approval of both legislative branches, questions remain, including whether Gov. M. Jodi Rell will sign the bill into law.

Adam Liegeot, a spokesman for Rell, had no comment on passage of the legislation, although the governor has expressed concern in the past about the bill. Rell has 15 days from the time the bill arrives on her desk to act upon it.

She can either sign it, veto it or not act upon it, in which case it would become law anyway, said Charles Rothenberger, a staff attorney for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, which supported the bill.

Overriding a gubernatorial veto would require a special legislative session and the support of two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate, Rothenberger said

The most prominent feature of the bill — a promise of a 15 percent decrease in consumers’ electric bills by July 1, 2012, — is already proving to be the most controversial.

The bill essentially calls for the state’s two legacy electric utilities, The United Illuminating Co. and Connecticut Light & Power Co., to work out the details of how to achieve that savings by the target date, he said.

Details concerning the creation and staffing of a Connecticut Energy and Technology Authority, which the state’s Department of Public Utility Control would become a part of, will be developed with the help of Connecticut Academy of Sciences, a research-focused think tank made up of scientists and engineers, Rothenberger said.

He said the potential 15 percent savings figure was determined by an analysis of the electric rates in other states in the region, as well as a comparison with what customers of Connecticut’s municipal electric companies pay.

“It’s essentially a target for them to shoot for,” he said of UI and CL&P. “How they do it is really to be determined.”

Al Carbone, a spokesman for UI of New Haven, said that while company officials support some parts of the bill lawmakers approved, “we feel that 15 percent figure is unrealistic, a shot in the dark.”

“There’s no way of knowing at this point whether we can reach that,” Carbone said. “This is coming out of sweeping and untested change to the current regulatory process.”

Competitive power suppliers have opposed the bill.

Michael Perna, a vice president with Con Edison Solutions, which serves residential and small-business customers, said company officials are still trying to digest all the nuances of the bill.

“The concerns we have are anything that would make it harder for consumers to sign up,” Perna said. “We want to make sure there is a level marketplace and that customer choice is not disrupted.”

Con Edison Solutions offers consumers savings of between 13 and 31 percent, depending upon whether a customer is with UI or CL&P.

Perna said it was unlikely that the company would pull out of Connecticut if the bill becomes law, but he said it is possible that some provisions of the legislation will make it harder for consumers to save as much as they can now. By Luther Turmelle, New Haven Register, Conn.

—–

To see more of New Haven Register, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.nhregister.com.

Copyright (c) 2010, New Haven Register, Conn.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Technorati Tags: electricity deregulation Connecticut

Hartford – Late Monday night, state Senate leaders postponed debate on a massive proposal to overhaul state energy policy, pushing a vote back at least until today and leaving its fate unclear.

But any visitor wondering about the scope and import of the bill needed search no further than the crowds of lobbyists, activists and aides clustered in the marble hall outside the Senate chamber.

The attempt to make the most sweeping changes in Connecticut’s electricity markets since their deregulation in 1998 has provoked an aggressive show of force by power companies, business interests, environmentalists and advocates for consumers, the elderly and the poor.

Swarms of lobbyists monitored the progress of the reform bill as Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, and Rep. Vickie Nardello, D-Prospect, the co-chairs of the Energy and Technology Committee, made last minute changes to it all Monday afternoon.

And, as in previous days, they swarmed lawmakers and their aides whenever they emerged into the corridors, arguing the cases of the consumer groups who believe the reform will help drive down rates and spur renewable energy development, or of the industry groups who think it will cut into the profits of energy retailers, raise rates and kill jobs.

Fonfara was tired – he stifled a sudden involuntary yawn during an interview in the hallway outside the Senate Republican caucus room – but confident that the bill he has assembled with Nardello over the objections of Republicans and many powerful industry voices will eventually become law.

“This is a darn good bill, and I hope the governor listens to the debate tonight,” Fonfara said Monday evening. “For the first time we’re taking steps to reduce rates and build a clean energy economy, through solar, wind and hydro.”

Despite making changes to address the concerns of Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s administration and current regulators, the core principles of the bill remain, said Nardello.

Meanwhile, Republicans have denounced what they argue is the secrecy of the bill’s construction.

Opposing the bill in its current form are, among others, the two utilities, Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating, the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, and a host of small electric retailers who have entered the market to offer competition to CL&P and UI, and now claim to serve more than 300,000 customers in the state.

But a coalition of supporters of the proposal, including consumer advocates, the AARP and owners of renewable energy start-up firms, rallied in favor of the bill, saying it would lower rates for Connecticut consumers and redress some of the unintended effects on consumers from the deregulation bill the General Assembly passed in 1998.

“It is those people who are opposed to the bill that fed us the lies” that helped pass the deregulation bill, said Tom Swan, the executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, which supports the reform package. “If you liked their lies the last time around, you’re going to love the lies they’re coming up with this time.”

Those who helped shape the bill also include state officials, including representatives from the office of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and from the Office of Consumer Counsel, a nonpartisan agency that represents the interests of utility customers.

The pushback from the Rell administration has been quiet but forceful.

Rell budget chief Robert L. Genuario and Department of Public Utility Control Chairman Kevin DelGobbo wrote last week to object to an earlier draft of the legislation, prompting Fonfara and Nardello to agree to some changes. They included a rewrite that would direct the state’s Connecticut Energy and Technology Authority to study whether market rules at ISO-New England, the nonprofit operator of the state’s transmission system, help drive up rates for Connecticut customers, and whether the state would benefit from pulling out of ISO-New England altogether.

The two administration officials were not appeased, however, and issued a second memo on Monday that details their continuing objections to the bill. Among their concerns are added costs to ratepayers from proposed incentives for solar power generation, and the additional risk that would be borne by utilities if they are allowed more flexible to structure their own power purchases on the open market, rather than buying through the so-called “middlemen” who currently assemble power contracts for the utilities and charge a premium in exchange for bearing risk.

Supporters of the bill believe utilities can make more cost-effective purchases on their own – cooperatives like the Connecticut Municipal Electrical Energy Cooperative already do this, Fonfara notes – while critics note that bad investments by the utilities could lead to losses that they would then try to recoup from ratepayers.

“The Administration can accept a number of these provisions as well intended; however we believe that the provisions of this proposed legislation passes the tipping point which place the Connecticut’s ratepayers at risk for increased costs,” DelGobbo and Genuario wrote on Monday.

In the memo, the two also object to the proposed reorganization of the DPUC and say some of the proposed restrictions on marketing practices by retail energy companies could adversely affect those businesses, though the memo does not say which restrictions they find objectionable.

Genuario and DelGobbo included a worksheet with their memo outlining the potential costs of the solar generation incentives and other benefits in the bill, arguing that the costs could rise anywhere from $76 million to $200 million.

But in a response Monday evening, representatives from the advocacy groups Environment Connecticut and Clean Water Action slammed those estimates, saying the administration had completely ignored provisions of the bill meant to cap the costs of the incentives, and drastically overstated the possible costs of the programs.

“They regurgitated the utilities’ talking points,” said Christopher Phelps of Environment Connecticut.

By Ted Mann

Technorati Tags: electricity deregulation Connecticut

Mr. Butler recognizes that CL&P does not make money selling electricity; it gets its revenues from providing the power grid to distribute electricity. With the exception of municipal utilities such as Groton, Norwich and Jewett City, the CL&P distribution charge is part of every electric bill, no matter who is selling the power.

When Connecticut partially deregulated the industry in 1998, the General Assembly recognized that some consumers would not choose a power company. These non-choosers get their power from the default supplier – CL&P. It passes on the cost of acquiring the electricity directly to consumers, without a profit margin.

For the first decade of deregulation, few suppliers were able to beat this pass-through price, meaning little competition. In the last year or so, however, that has changed. Visitors to www.ctenergyinfo.com will find 16 suppliers who can beat the CL&P price and provide green or greener energy. For the average home, estimated savings run from $3.02 to $18.35 per month.

While most customers still default to CL&P, the market is changing, with 16 percent now opting for an alternative supplier. While it took too long, the arrival of competition is a good development. Unfortunately, even the best prices in Connecticut are high by national standards, putting the state at a competitive disadvantage in attracting industry.

CL&P plans to seek a rate increase for 2011 on that distribution end of the bill. Mr. Butler said the company needs the cash infusion to maintain the grid. We await the details, but fear adding to electric bills could short-circuit economic recovery.

Consumers can’t control that, only state regulators can. But consumers can, and should, choose who they buy power from.

Technorati Tags: electricity deregulation Connecticut