Office of Consumer Counsel supports House electric legislation.

The Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) is the state agency responsible for representing the interests of consumers in the proceedings of the Department of Public Utility Control on utility issues - including electric rates.

So, with leaders in the state House and Senate divided on the terms of electricity legislation, it is very significant that the OCC has identified the legislation under consideration in the House of Representatives (House Bill 7098) as better for electric ratepayers than the Senate legislation (Senate Bill 1374).

The House bill is better. It would bring electric rates back under control, while the Senate bill would apparently actually increases rates even more.

The OCC did this summary comparing to the two bills...

Principle	Reflected in House Bill?	Reflected in Senate Bill?	Discussion
A restoration of some direct state control over energy costs.	Yes.	No.	Section 58 of the House Bill would require that some new power plants be built and compensated according to cost of service principles as determined by the Department of Public Utility Control, including a reasonable profit. Both utilities and non-utilities can build these plants and take advantage of this opportunity.
Allow some peaking power plants to be owned by the traditional utilities to reduce market risks.	Yes.	Yes, but in a way that leaves the utilities with risks but no rewards.	Section 54 and Section 58 of the House Bill would allow the utilities to own some peaking power plants to mitigate price spikes in the summer. Senate Bill Section 24 would allow the utilities to own power plants but would not offer then a reasonable profit to do so, while leaving them with the risk of cost overruns. Because there is no upside but only downside for the utilities to build, the Senate’s approach is not a realistic proposal to achieve some utility-owned generation that would reduce market risks for customers.
Maintain oversight of conservation dollars under the auspices of the successful Energy Conservation Management Board (ECMB).	Yes.	No.	The House Bill maintains ECMB oversight over conservation and energy efficiency measures, which has proven to be a successful model. Section 2 of the Senate Bill creates an electric efficiency partner program with only limited input and no oversight by the ECMB. The ratepayer contribution is up to 90 million dollars a year. If all goes well, then the ratepayers will get a return on that investment. However, to avoid customer confusion and duplication of effort, the dollars would be better added to the existing Conservation and Load Management Fund overseen by ECMB.

Principle	Reflected in House Bill?	Reflected in Senate Bill?	Discussion
Avoid burdening customers with payments for new equipment without a DPUC analysis of the costs and benefits.	Yes.	No.	Section 7 of the Senate Bill would require the installation of advanced electric meters for all customers on an aggressive schedule without an analysis by DPUC as to whether the benefits will outweigh the costs. CL&P has estimated in DPUC Docket No 05-10-03RE01 that full deployment of this system would cost $255 million dollars, plus the cost of stranding the investment of existing meters of an estimated $25 million a year for ten years. There is no evidence to date that the meters will benefit most customers or cause them to significantly shift their usage.
Achieve a low standard service price that can be enjoyed by residential and municipal customers.	Yes.	No.	Section 55 of the House Bill creates a procurement plan that, in conjunction with the other House provisions discussed above, will stabilize and ultimately reduce the standard service price. Section 23 of the Senate Bill has similar planning provisions but contains other provisions that will actually raise the standard service price. For example, Section 13 of the Senate Bill would subsidize retail suppliers and removes rules that prevent retail suppliers from using schemes to pull their customers onto and off of standard service. The Senate Bill appears to create migration risks that would actually raise the standard service price for all customers. The Senate Bill creates artificial competition for competition’s sake, whereas the House Bill seeks to establish the lowest standard service price for residential and municipal customers.

Principle	Reflected in House Bill?	Reflected in Senate Bill?	Discussion
Avoid disincentives to building new electric infrastructure.	Yes.	No.	Section 1 of the Senate Bill would require the electric distribution companies to submit a plan to the DPUC to sell off part of the high-voltage transmission lines that they are building in order to support other goals such as demand response. This would send the wrong message to others that take on the risk of building infrastructure. To achieve the worthy goal of fostering more demand response, it should be funded directly.
Restore some robust planning processes.	Yes.	Yes, but with more limited options and with less effectiveness than the House.	As discussed above, Section 55 of the House Bill and Section 23 of the Senate Bill, along with other provisions of both bills, will restore some needed planning processes for the essential product of electricity. However, the Senate Bill does not have a realistic proposal for adding some utility-owned peaking power plants to mitigate our market power risks and ensure reliability, which limits our planning options. Also, the Senate’s efforts to push customers onto retail choice may well make supply planning more difficult and less effective.