Energy and Technology Committee

JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT

Bill No.:

SB-1075

Title:

AN ACT CONCERNING COMPETITIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLIERS.

Vote Date:

3/19/2009

Vote Action:

Joint Favorable Substitute

PH Date:

3/3/2009

File No.:

SPONSORS OF BILL:

Energy & Technology Committee

REASONS FOR BILL:

This bill would specifically allow municipalities, single or in groups, to aggregate purchases of electricity on behalf of the residents and businesses within their boundaries. It will also put local governments in a position in which they can use the purchasing power of a larger group to get lower prices. It will allow towns and cities, if they choose, to take advantage of the deregulation laws passed a decade ago.

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

Don Downes, Department of Public Utility Control,

Joe Rosenthal, Office of Consumer Counsel, testified stating several concerns. Mr. Rosenthal stated that the bill provides that the telephone verification is “subject to an audit,” OCC is unsure as to whether the audit provisions provides the same level of protection as having the involvement of an independent third party in the telephone verification process.

The following people submitted testimony in favor of the bill:

John DeStefano, Jr, Office of the Mayor

Bill Finch, Office of the Mayor

CCM

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

William Barkas, Dominion Retail, appeared in support stating that these revisions are technical in nature and we hope the Committee will accept them without much controversy, as corrections to the Electricity and Energy Efficiency Act 2007 (PA 07-242).

Stephen Wemple, ConEdison Solutions, testified in favor of the bill stating that, if adopted, would allow for more opportunities to provide residential and small commercial customers with competitive offerings that can reduce energy costs as well as provide the opportunity for municipalities to have more control in delivering energy efficiency programs tailored to their residents.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

CT Light and Power, submitted testimony in opposition stating that this proposal would expose customers to more risk and less predictability over what their prices would be.

The United Illuminating Company, submitted testimony in opposition.

Reported by: Jessica Rosario

Date: March 23, 2009