So pay them with tax dollars? Which is our money. So we are still paying for record profits? Makes so (little) sense.

The Republican plan is to literally guarantee payments to Eversource as a reward for their record profits and rising stock price while simultaneously blowing a gaping hole in the state budget.

Never enough money for social programs or school books, but when it comes to a handout to energy companies, those Republicans are right there with a plan all fleshed out.

“Based on 2020 energy costs, the change would save the average Connecticut household around $210 per year, they said. “

Then expect your income tax or sales tax to go up the same amount. This is how republicans think.

Then have them run on a platform that wants to cut spending on education because taxes are too high, so my mill rate also goes up.

So pull out all those unfunded mandates and pay for them? This seems like a good idea to me, as now those pork programs will have line items in the budget instead of being hidden in delivery charges.

Now I dont think it changes the numbers. Fixing out min green mix would be a good start.

[deleted]

Haha we agree on so much except dogs. Good comment. Republicans always have money for three things:

1-tax cuts for the rich

2-Military

3-Big energy

Anything else they need to “starve da beast!!!”

Shhhh don’t tell the Republican voters. Let them pretend.

Buy out eversource, make energy a public commodity in CT, diversify like Ned wants, and sell energy at no profit. Hiding the record profits under tax dollars changes nothing.

You should read the actual plan not the article which is incredibly misleading.(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mnx3ML1iKdc8ZYyJ3pxe1ufhwarVkCHi/view) It's calling for the fees imposed by the state on the energy bills to be included in the state budget and not reflected on our energy bills. It has nothing to do with any money that eversource is receiving but government fees imposed by lawmakers. It also calls for a separation of PURA from DEEP to give it more control of the situation and differentiate PURA policies from DEEP which hinder energy procurement sources. It also calls for the expansion of procurement from nuclear, hydro, and other viable and stable options. Lastly it calls for more oversight of utility companies.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me when you actually read it. Considering so far we are just using state programs funded by tax payers and donations to subsidize the higher costs and excuse their practices as you seem to believe this proposal was about.

The republicans created this problem when the deregulated. Simple solution right here: remove all utilities from Wall Street.

It has nothing to do with any money eversource receives. It's about the state fees on our energy bills that go directly to the state.

The governor was a republican, the legislature who actually makes the policies was not. Don't get blinded by your party affiliation and spread misinformation.

So to correct your comment the Democrats created this problem when the legislature they held the majority of passed the policies which led to deregulation.

[removed]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because you do not meet the required karma threshold.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

What is wrong with this politicians, they want to screw the middle class even more

Edit: typo

What?

>You should read the actual plan not the article which is incredibly misleading.(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mnx3ML1iKdc8ZYyJ3pxe1ufhwarVkCHi/view) It's calling for the fees imposed by the state on the energy bills to be included in the state budget and not reflected on our energy bills. It has nothing to do with any money that eversource is receiving but government fees imposed by lawmakers. It also calls for a separation of PURA from DEEP to give it more control of the situation and differentiate PURA policies from DEEP which hinder energy procurement sources. It also calls for the expansion of procurement from nuclear, hydro, and other viable and stable options. Lastly it calls for more oversight of utility companies. > >Sounds pretty reasonable to me when you actually read it. Considering so far we are just using state programs funded by tax payers and donations to subsidize the higher costs and excuse their practices as you seem to believe this proposal was about.

It's all buzzwords and nonsense.

Yes it would certainly be easier for Eversource to run circles around PURA if it didn't have all the lawyers and scientists from DEEP to contend with.

Obviously Eversource would love nothing more than to weaken PURA.

Obviously the rest of the proposal you're okay with, such as neutering the ability of PURA and the AG to enforce settlements against Eversource.

Facts state otherwise from your opinion. We are the only state with a structure like this and coincidentally one of the states with the highest utility rates. PURA wants it's independence and has repeatedly stated that it's neutered by the current structure in place, and we the consumers have seen the effects of this first hand. PURA is a judicial organization devoted to policy relating to utilities, they don't need an environmental organization to oversee their activities and add red tape when it encompasses far more aspects pertaining to consumers and our costs. How have utility rates been since the structure change happened? How much has been able to be done about it, since it was supposedly so helpful?

You should really read that proposal again and then do some research as to what it all means because your opinion of it is completely nonsensical.

I did. It's a handout to Eversource and a plan for deregulation. Damn you are gullible though huh? Or you're in on it. Wonder how come you had that private Google link.

$210 per YEAR? Fuck off. Some people's bills have increased by that MONTHLY.

So we basically pay their fees out of our state budget?

The party of no fucking plan strikes again.

☝️

My bill just went from $201 to $398…. Absolutely awful.

Everyone talks about Eversource and I get it, but something needs to be done about Southern Connecticut Gas! My gas bill to heat my home this month just went up to $525, the highest I've ever seen it! Just to keep the house at 68 degrees too! And there is no option to try and get your gas from another supplier. It is out of control!

Bull shit Repubs this does not correct the issues just moves the expense

There is a question of which is better. They could configure it so that the taxes that go up disproportionately affect wealthier people, so that poorer and middle class people come out ahead. But I seriously doubt that is what they would propose.

And there is some merit to having a consumption tax on electricity. We want people to be incentivized to save on energy, and taxing energy consumption rewards energy saving investments. While income tax does not incentivize any societal beneficial behavior.

The link was in the news article which you obviously didn't read properly, and damn you are ignorant.

The Republican governor signed off on it. Could have vetoed. Didn’t. Meaning both parties are complicit. Lose your blinders too.

Eversource owns a gas company too(former Yankee Gas). I have eversource for both gas and electric, so there is a lot of work that needs to be done by state.

You realize a governors veto can be overridden when sent back to the house so if they hold the majority and already passed it once it would just happen again. The governors position doesn't hold much power in those aspects. I don't have blinders because I'm independent and think for myself.

Sure do. Did the governor actually veto this and the legislature override it? If not, your comment is pointless. You think for yourself, but do you do it well?

This is no solution and just a stunt as they really have no solutions they are willing to support. Take a power related mandatory expense. Take it out of the power bill where only power customer’s pay for it and put it in the state budget where everyone pays for it.

I can’t believe this is a serious proposal.

I didn't know that. I have United Illuminating.

So, no, Rowland didn’t veto it. Deregulation was an idea that simply didn’t work.

So because one individual with little to no power in the situation chooses not to battle a house made up of over 100 legislators when they already showed their decision, it somehow passes all the blame to him and his party? Sounds like a pretty nonsensical standpoint to me, considering all the drafting and voting was overwhelmingly carried out by another party.

[deleted]

Both he and his party and the other party were all for it. It was a popular idea at the time. It has turned out to be a bad idea. This really isn’t difficult.

Agreed. I moved from CA a few years back and they have even more issues with their giant energy company than we do. LOTS of talk of making the company a public asset, but many raise the exact concerns you just laid out.

I still think it’s a better idea than what we have now, and I don’t agree that they would be able to hide a CEO making 20 million. Waste and nepotism absolutely.

Even with some waste, I think we can do better. Eversource (and most big companies right now) are running away with the economy. Record profits all across the board while the rest of us suffer, and then they cry “inflation!” When asked about their profit margins.

I’m no expert on this, but this is clearly an example of failed capitalism with what we have right now. I agree that there’s risks going too far the other direction (socialism I suppose).

It's actually a much more complex issue which other policies have played a role in exacerbating. Most of which was done by one side under the guise of "Green" policy making and then after making several pushes towards certain technologies and fuel source which they reneged on later calling them bad after already implementing too many changes in one direction. Basically it was the reliance on natural gas being pushed then fighting any possible solution to increase the supply to our state after deciding it wasn't good. Then pushing policies for people towards newer technologies which are still in their infancy and not viable yet while punishing the very industry that they called the solution not long ago.

It's a whole lot of hypocrisy essentially and rush decisions without looking at long term side effects and failure to produce actual solutions.

You side with one party a lot. Strange for someone who claims to be an independent and a free thinker.

[deleted]

That's where the facts lead to in this topic right now. Which side pushed natural gas as the ultimate solution, subsidized and expanded the industry, offered rebates to anyone switching, then changed their mind conveniently as the demand started to outweigh the supply. Now after all that pushing, fracking and pipelines which are necessary to that change, are suddenly the worst thing. Disregarding that crude oil reliance was still far worse and we have no other viable solution yet. I think pushing everyone to electric heat would be far worse given the amount of production needed and what that would entail for the environment, and that's basically the only other option than natural gas.

We could have more options but the way our houses are built and the land we have hinders geothermal heat or just building underground where there is a comfortable temperature with no heat production needed.

Oh yeah, sorry I didn't click the link on the article you'd have to be a moron to believe.

Fair enough. I’ll bow out because you clearly know more about state energy regulation than I do, so I’ll go do some more research on a free evening. Cheers.

MDC is currently a non-profit municipal Corp. it is wicked expensive and is a pain to work with on development in Hartford.

[deleted]

Interesting, thanks!

You don’t actually expect Republicans to propose anything that would benefit anyone but a small group of already wealthy people do you?

Of course not Never said I did either🤔

Nationalize.

[deleted]