A late session bill that legislators say will reduce energy costs by 40 percent over two years is headed to the Energy and Technology (ENT) Committee for further action. The Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee voted to approve the bill, which would create an independent, quasi-public agency to regulate electricity, to the Senate floor. It is expected to be referred to the ENT committee, which is the committee of cognizance, for further action.

SB 1560, a committee bill worked on by Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, was introduced two weeks ago and has drawn support and criticisms from both sides of the aisle.

It would create the Connecticut Electricity Procurement Authority (CEPA) to manage the procurement of electricity and to manage rates. The bill would also direct PURA to set 300 percent higher rates during peak energy use hours, mandate the rollout of smart meters, and replace part of the public benefits charge with state bonding. This aspect of the bill has drawn the most criticism. Legislators have also expressed concern about what the bill would do to the state’s solar industry. During a public hearing, representatives of multiple solar companies testified against it, stating that a provision in the bill to create a credit for energy “procured by a facility and not consumed” to be used against an end user’s supply costs, but not against transmission or distribution costs, would destroy the industry.

Those concerns were evident in discussion prior to the finance committee’s vote to advance the bill.

Rep. Joe Polletta, R-Watertown, opened the discussion by thanking other legislators for their collaboration. He characterized SB 1560 as a “great bill” and said he still considers it a work in progress before offering it for the consent calendar.

Committee co-chair Rep. Maria Horn, D-Salisbury declined the move.

Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, who sparred with Fonfara during the bill’s public hearing, called the bill a “great point that we want to start working from” but said he was hoping the bill was sent either through the screening process or to the energy committee.

Other Democrats pointed to other sections of the bill where they saw concerns. Rep. Steve Winter, D-New Haven, cited concerns about the bill’s impact on the solar industry and reliance on bonding. He said he thought storm recovery and arrearages could be a “good fit” for bonding but didn’t think the state could “offload the programmatic costs” to bonding. Winter further stated that carrying costs over a 20-year period would add an additional billion dollars to the $2.4 billion in bonding contained in the bill. He voted against advancing it.

Rep. Mary Mushinsky, D-Wallingford, also expressed concerns that the bill would impair growth in Connecticut’s solar energy and that it threatened investments in conservation technology and stated that the amount of bonding in the bill would make investing in other state priorities difficult. She said the state can do “things to bring down prices” and procure electricity over a longer period of time without a new authority.

Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, said everyone could agree “electric costs are too damn high.” That sentiment was echoed in comments made by several other legislators. He added that state policies contribute to high costs and state leadership needs to make electricity more affordable, calling the bill an effort to do so but also saying a lot in it needed to be “worked through.” He voted for the bill to “keep the conversation going.”

Fonfara closed the conversation by thanking members of the committee for their “indulgence” for hearing the bill, even though it is not the committee of cognizance. He also apologized for “dissension” caused by the bill’s introduction and said he would “gladly” turn it over to the ENT committee with the belief that legislators on both sides of the aisle will continue to work together.

“I have a friend who says we can do hard things. And this will be a hard thing but we can do it for the betterment of this state, for the economy of our state, for the households of our state and for the businesses of our state.” Fonfara said.

The committee voted to move the bill forward, with members of both parties voting in favor and against doing so.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.