Cheaper Electric And Market Choice Hinges On State Politics

Last year, the Connecticut Legislature made it a very difficult year for consumers in the energy market. The Democrat super majority in the legislature tried to end deregulation in the energy business, which would have been a game changer for your choices, and would affect everyones ability to save money on their electric bills. Fortunately, we had a Republican Governor that stood up for consumers and vetoed the bill, which ended a direct threat to saving us customers money on our electric bills this legislative year.

Elections have consequences. It is up to us to vote for officials that will protect our consumer rights and our ability to save them money. It is imperative that we elect proponents, also the Governor is key. Please get out and vote, and encourage your friends, family and friends to vote for legislators who protect our savings and our energy choices.

Please call your State representatives to see where they stand on energy deregulation prior to your casting your vote, or see how they voted on the energy bill in the links below. If you have any questions on where your Senator and State Representative stands, please feel free to give me a call at 203-846-9900.

If Malloy, or a like opponent, is elected governor, he will NOT veto attempts to re-regulate the energy business, because he would not provide the backstop to the next super majority in our state legislature that may be intent on re-passing this re-regulation bill.

Results of the House and Senate voting this year on the Energy Bill that was vetoed by Republican governor Jodi Rell:

("NO" is for consumers, "YES" is against against consumers.)

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/VOTE/S/2010SV-00324-R00SB00493-SV.htm (Senate Vote)

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/VOTE/H/2010HV-00214-R00SB00493-HV.htm (House Vote)


Please forward this blog on to your friends, family, customers, and any other energy brokers in CT.

Submitted by Rick Giordano, Edited by Rocco Frank

TO LOWER YOUR ELECTRIC RATE CLICK THIS LINK

Milford Set To Recieve $556,000.00 To Conserve Energy

The city will receive $556,000 in federal funds to reduce energy consumption in public buildings.

The grant from the U.S. Department of Energy could be made available within a month, Thomas Ivers, the city's block grant coordinator, said Friday.

Among the programs that the grant will cover is a wireless Internet connection to network all of the municipal facilities within a 1.5-mile radius of the Parsons Government Center, according to the grant application.

The wireless network would allow energy consumption data from each location to be gathered in "real time,'' under changing circumstances.

"One thing we'd do first is benchmarking, establishing the baseline energy usage for each building so that we can measure progress,'' said Ivers, who also chairs the city's Clean Energy Task Force.

Recreation Director William McCarthy said the broadband connection will link 20 community centers and other facilities managed by his department.

"The data would be sent to a central location and it will allow us to see how much we are spending on energy in any one of our buildings at any minute,'' McCarthy said.

That information, in turn, will be used to plan efficiencies to reduce consumption, according to the plan.

Also included in the federal grant is money for technical assistance with a fuel cell for the Housatonic Wastewater Treatment plant that could provide most of the power to run the plant.

The Board of Aldermen last week accepted the task force's "Energy Road Map,'' calling for a 10 percent reduction in the city's consumption by 2015. "That is about $600,000, which is not an insignificant sum,'' Ivers said.

The city's electric bill in 2005 was nearly $3.4 million, and 21.1 million kilowatt hours were used, according to task force data.

ORIGINAL FRANK JULIANO STORY CT POST

Public Utility District And Consumer Demands

The Concern over the cost of electric continues to be at the forefront of the cost of living debate in Connecticut. Yesterday I met with an executive at Countrywide Financial who indicated that foreclosures in Milford have reached a record 350 with nearly 80% of the city mortgaged. Already declining real estate values have been impacting home equity lines of credit by having lenders either cancel them completely or reduce the amount by which can be drawn.

When I asked what advice he had for fixing these issues he said Connecticut needs living wage jobs and curbs on the cost of energy. There are too many Milford residents that are struggling and are in danger of losing their home. The news on Wall Street last week has also been disappointing with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae reaching new lows, lows so low that over 90% of their stock value has been lost in a year.

Should these two lending giants drop out of the lending arena, banks will have to issue their own in-house loans and reduce their risk to depositors by only writing loans to individuals with high credit scores. When I asked what the new magic number was, he indicated that would be somewhere between 740 and a 760 FICO score. Essentially this score would exclude 80-85% of all potential lenders. This is what has been dubbed as the "Credit crunch," and is going to pose some serious challenges for commission based professional dependent on loans being written to purchase property, build additions and conduct repairs.

On the local front, and specifically dealing with the energy issue alone, I have spoken with and written to some of our local leaders. I would like to add my concern that Jim Amann's last two legislative updates both ignored UI and the high cost of energy, this is even after I took issue with him after receiving the last 2007 legislative update. Not that I am a Rell fan but she has a "One Thing" program, what does Amann have or propose?

So far all I have seen from the Dem's, (and I single them out because all our elected state leaders in town are Democrats,) is one person looking to "condemn" the electric company and the other just completely ignores the issue, besides Slossberg "fighting the hike" where is the leadership?

I think you need to look at the UI situation like a bad marriage between us the ratepayers and them the monopoly. This is clearly an abusive relationship with UI as the abuser. We either need to fix the relationship or get a divorce from this company. Energy companies are a “dime a dozen” and the taxpayers have a real attractive “grid.” We do not need to take their abuse they produce nothing, since the 1999 deregulation they have become nothing more than brokers or middle men. Why can't we buy energy directly without having it marked up and resold to us? This was my question to Mike Brown who is a member of the Democratic Town Committee who responded to this question by making the following partisan statement:


"The Crux of the Situation: Government control of transmission and distribution, as indicated in the resolution, would require the establishment of a Public Utility District (PUD). This is the case throughout the country and is required by federal law. The PUD would manage the distribution of electricity. A government run district would be more inclined to promote reasonable energy development, conservation, and renewable generating methods. PUD's are nonprofit entities and are run by an elected board - elected by the citizens, not a shareholder in Texas.

And as for government control, would you let the State Government control the public highways? Oh, that's right, they already do - a very big "lemon aide stand" in deed (to quote Scott Willey). Apparently there are things called public libraries, also run by the government. Willey's rhetoric is right out of the Republican playbook. The Republicans say that "government doesn't work" and "government is bad." They often prove this once they get into power. Here in Milford, we suffered through 18 years of Republicans running the government - badly."

To conclude this post, I cannot emphasise more strongly that this is not an issue that we can afford to be partisan on. A solution must be found to benefit the thousands of struggling families trying to make ends meet. I believe that partisan politics will only prolong this problem and I am making a plea to all our Representatives here in town and the state to get on the same page. When we all agree miracles can happen!

UI Dupes Milford on "Clean Energy"

The most clever profiteer in Milford is by far The United Illuminating Company who has achieved a stellar profit record for their share holders and future interests. In 2007 UI was able to circumvent the "Windfall Profits Tax", duped the CT House of Representatives with (HB 7432) by charging you "for lost profits", charging you again for a "Rebate Program", UI "Defrauded" customers with meters that overcharge, was "gifted" a brand new power grid, and most insulting of all won permission to raise our electrical rates 90% in just a few years.

With such a solid business climate you would think that UI would be satisfied, as a matter of fact they decided to do business with Energy Inc. to reopen what they call a "clean power plant" here in Milford. This partnership is with a company that owns TEN, a company that is now in court with Attorney General Blumenthal for allegations that it breached its contract and overcharged taxpayers over 14 Million Dollars. TEN even has gone so far as to attempt a disruption of power to important buildings at the State Capitol.

With such a marred controversial record, are we now to believe and trust that UI and NRG burning natural gas is "clean?" The facts indicate otherwise, as these natural gas plants will likely need to obtain their fuel from a foreign source. The North East peaked on oil and gas some time ago, and a opportunity has been created for a controversial LNG or Liquefied Natural Gas facility off the coast of CT in NY waters. Unfortunately the game is "afoot" because NY Gov. Spitzer is holding the fate of CT's waterfront. If the Gov. approves the LNG than UI scores another big victory while we the inhabitants of this state lose yet again.

Make no mistake, mining for Gas is not "Eco friendly" an LNG is not "Eco-friendly" and the billowing smoke coming out of UI's smoke stack will still create massive CO2 "greenhouse gas" emissions with reduced air quality in our town. The only thing "clean" about gas is that it puts less mercury into the environment. This comes at a huge price, the price being a "reshuffling" of environmentally destructive sources. Do not believe the news in the Milford Mirror as fact because they originate from UI press releases and connected sources. They are intended to make you feel content with their 700 Million dollar plant opening right near your home as somehow safe.

The real kicker, aside from, obvious health risks, the transport of more toxic and explosive gas and chemicals, and increased traffic congestion, is UI's demand that we pay them yet again as a reward for building a "clean" plant. UI has yet done too little to remediate the massive mercury and methylmercury problem they created just a few short years ago. To any naysayers out there, if it has a billowing smokestack it is not clean, it is as simple as that.

Link on Gas Plants LNG Opposition

As it stands my opponent has supported UI and its associated interests.