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.

May 8, 2007 New Britain legislative Update.

Just now available on the web, here is the latest New Britain Legislative Update:

Online Videos by Veoh.com

Included in this Update are Sen. Donald DeFronzo, Rep. Peter Tercyak, Rep. Betty Boukus and me.

Sorry it took a little while to get this together. We had some technical difficulties that we had to work out.

In this update, we have some discussion of the budget process and the proposed by that would be very good for the people of the state.

It also features part of a presentation by former State Commission of Consumer Protection Mary Heslin showing the Polish history display that was at in the Legislative Office Building as part of the Polish Day celebration at the Capitol.

My thanks to Marcin Olechowski for his work filming both our Update and Mary Heslin's presentation.

Message from bloggers on the "social networking site legislation".

I thought I would share an e-mail message that I received recently from a number of Connecticut's prominent bloggers on their concerns regarding the legislation that has been proposed to require regulation of "social networking websites".

This legislation would require that social networking websites keep children from creating accounts on these sites unless the parents of these children give their authorization. It is intended to protect children from online sexual predators.

The motive behind this legislation is good. However, I agree with the concerns raised by bloggers, which they summarize in their e-mail message to legislators:

We are writing to you today on the subject of House Bill 6981, "An Act Concerning Social Networking Internet Sites and Enforcement of Electronic Mail Phishing and Identity Theft Laws." Specifically, this letter addresses the Joint Favorable Substitute made after the public hearing date by the General Law Committee on March 8, 2007 - Attorney General Blumenthal's proposed additions concerning social networking internet sites, which are contained in Section 3 of the bill.

We are writing to request that you oppose the bill in its present form, as the proposed regulations of social networking sites:

-- cannot be consistently met by content providers,

-- will impact a far greater number of internet sites than intended, due to overly broad language in the definition of "social networking internet sites,"

-- will limit protected speech online, including the right to communicate and access information anonymously

By seeking to regulate a wide swath of internet communication in an effort to target crimes conducted in the physical world - namely, sexual violence against minors - HB 6981 will limit the ability of Connecticut residents to access information online, force non-commercial content providers to cease their online operations, and may have serious and unintended ramifications for internet-based commerce and communications of all kinds in- and outside the State of Connecticut.

If these concerns can be addressed through the amendment process, the bill - especially its provisions concerning electronic mail phishing and identity theft - may provide the Attorney General with appropriate legal authority to prosecute crimes conducted via the internet.

Additionally, it may be possible for the General Assembly to achieve the desired effect of the Sec. 3 provisions by formalizing a process by which parents are provided with the tools and information necessary to restrict their child's access to social networking websites. The Attorney General's office has been cultivating an educational program informally for several years, and it is our belief that establishing and funding a state program along the lines of this educational model would not only be the most successful method for protecting minors from contact with child predators online, but would fully protect the ability of adults to access information and communicate via the internet without additional and unintended interference by the state.

Our letter -- including a more thorough explanation of what we believe to be the technical and legal flaws in HB 6981 as written -- is enclosed with this email. Feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

The letter attached to the e-mail is a PDF (similar to this PDF), and it looks very similar to the discussion of the social networking sites legislation by mattw in this MLN post.

The problem with the social networking website legislation is that, to follow it, virtually all interactive websites would have to assume that every person wanting to participate in the site is a minor, unless that person can document that they are not. And that would mean (1) everyone would have to divulge personal information about themselves before they could participate in an interactive website and (2) anonymous participation on the web would essentially be outlawed.

As a case in point, the blog you are reading right now would seem to be affected by this. I would be banned from allowing people leave comments to my blog posts unless they tell me exactly who they are. I have not had a problem with people leaving (polite) anonymous comments on this blog because I think it encourages free speech.

But there are a lot more good reason why anonymous participation on the Internet is important to preserve, and the points in this comment from the MLN post are especially relevant:

HB 6981 doesn't take into account the variety of legitimate reasons why one might wish to communicate or access such information anonymously - security and identity theft concerns, or fear of stigmatization by internet users wishing to access sensitive medical, sexual, political, or cultural information. Even if a selective enforcement approach were used to exclude sites such as Amazon.com or Ebay.com from prosecution under HB 6981, websites which are designed primarily for "social networking" purposes are often used to solicit help or medical advice anonymously: for example, many private groups exist on MySpace.com and Facebook.com sponsored by rape crisis centers, cancer or AIDS support groups, and battered women/children's shelters, and the ability to contact and obtain information from such organizations privately and anonymously is enjoyed by many users of these forums.

There are ideas being considered at the Capitol that would help catch criminals who abuse children, including Internet predators. Catching actual criminals is a lot better way to protect children than creating new rules that would take away much of what is good about the Internet. As the MLN post points out:

The problem the General Assembly and the Attorney General are attempting to address is an important one: Connecticut's children interacting with other internet users - including possible child predators - without their parents' knowledge or consent. But in crafting a law to address this problem, you should take care to allow adults to communicate with other adults, and you should take care to protect the rights of free speech and free assembly - including anonymity and pseudonymity - enjoyed by minors and adults alike on the internet.