|
The Vermont House decided Friday it is not the time to intervene inan open Public Service Board proceeding involving a merger of thestate s two largest utilities. On an 87-54 vote, legislation that would have directed the board toensure $21 million in cash went to ratepayers died on the floorFriday afternoon. Eighteen lawmakers who initially signed on to the amendment changedtheir stance. The House voted 99-43 to pass a resolution that would send a letterto the utilities and Department of Public Service stating: Thatthe General Assembly expects that the full range of concerns andissues raised by the general public will be given fullconsideration, and that the proposed merger must be in the bestinterests of the ratepayers and people of the State of Vermont. Rep. Oliver Olsen offered another compromise amendment. Hisproposal would not allow utilities to recover in rates investmentsin things like weatherization that did not benefit the electricsystem. Olsen s amendment would not intervene in the currentdocket per se, but it would affect a subsequent ratemaking processinvolving the utilities. It passed on a voice vote. The House tossed around multiple proposals to decide how to dealwith the ever-pressing issue of a windfall that Central VermontPublic Service Corp. is required to share with ratepayers when itmerges with Green Mountain Power. The Legislature debated for hours this week the merits of tellingthe Public Service Board that CVPS must give ratepayers a check orrefund for $21 million or not approve the deal. The Vermont Department of Public Service, which representsratepayers before the board, struck a compromise with the utilitiesthat would involve investing that $21 million in efficiencymeasures, with $12 million going to weatherization programs. Theutilities would be able to recoup that money in rates. They say $25million in benefits will flow through to ratepayers through lesselectricity usage. The issue pitted lawmakers against each other based on principle.Some say the Legislature should let the Public Service Board do itsjob since it is the expert on the issue. Others say it is a matterof populism with utility executives reaping huge benefits whilerefusing to pay back ratepayers for a bailout in the early 2000swhen they raised rates as a result of bad contracts withHydro-Quebec. The Senate voted Thursday to approve legislation that would requirethe Public Service Board to direct money used to prevent thebankruptcy or financial instability of a utility, like a bailout,to be returned to ratepayers in a credit or refund. Under theSenate bill, utilities couldn t recoup the money in rates. Gov. Peter Shumlin issued a harsh statement Thursday rebuking theSenate. He says the Legislature shouldn t meddle in the board saffairs. The House and Senate will have to deal with the issue again in aconference committee on this year s budget bill. In a last-ditcheffort, Rep. Paul Poirier asked lawmakers to direct their membersto agree with the Senate s version. That push failed on a 105-24vote. The House has been less supportive of some sort of legislativeintervention than the Senate. Numerous proposals emerged in thelast two days to take a more hands-off approach. The Vermont Public Service Board, which will ultimately make thedecision on what happens with the windfall money, was conspicuouslyabsent from the list of that letter s recipients. Proponents of a law that would direct a $21 million cash payouthave grumbled throughout the session about procedural moves tostifle their efforts. Some say the resolution was designed to drawaway supporters of the amendment offered by Cynthia Browning. Rep. Chris Pearson, one of four lawmakers who consistently pushedfor the amendment, said the resolution was a maneuver to underminethe efforts by him and others. We all recognize as I think we probably ought to that thisresolution is meant to deflate the substantive debate we ve beenhaving, Pearson said. I find it very discouraging to have thisresolution voted on before any debate. It s designed to deflate anargument that s made people uncomfortable. But uncomfortablepositions are part of this job. I just wish we could have had thisabsent the effect of having a feel-good resolution. But Margaret Cheney, vice chair of the House Committee on NaturalResources and Energy, said the resolution still sent a strongmessage. Some will say this resolution does nothing, she said. It doesnot tell the Public Service Board what to do. It does not intervenein an open docket. It does not interfere with the regulatoryprocess. But a legislative resolution, by its very nature speaks ina loud and powerful voice. Whether it was due to the feel-good resolution or not, one-by-onenumerous lawmakers stood up to say they were shifting their supportagainst the amendment after having their names on it. On the House floor, the debate centered on two issues: legislativeintervention and economic fairness. Michael Marcotte, vice chair of the House Committee on Commerce andEconomic Development, heard weeks of testimony in committee on theissue. He said he was sympathetic to the argument that people should gettheir money back. People made an investment. They were forced to make it, hesaid. They should get money back when the trigger was pulled. ButI don t feel that s our decision. Rep. Tony Klein, chair of the House Committee on Natural Resourcesand Energy, has in the last week been outspoken about his vehementopposition to intervening in an open docket. His committeesupported Olsen s amendment. He said it was a compromise. The Browning amendment has become a political football, he saidin committee Friday morning. It s politics. This gives folkssomething to vote for rather than just voting against something. Rep. Tom Koch, said he voted to inject the legislature into apending case with reservations. But he said the current dealpresented some exceptional circumstances warranting that effort. As far as I m concerned, this memorandum of understandingembodies a deal that breaks a deal and this new deal stinks, hesaid. Now lawyers can take a pig out of the sky and pretty it upso it s ready for the county fair, but I don t think you can workthat kind of magic on this deal. While the Browning amendment failed, the House expressed supportfor an amendment to that amendment that would prohibit utilitiesfrom clawing back in rates money invested in efficiency. SinceBrowning s underlying amendment died, so too did that proposal. Another amendment by Rep. Chris Pearson that would require a statereport looking into the possibility of public ownership of theelectric transmission system failed 41-95 also. An amendment by Rep. Paul Ralston to create a work group under theattorney general that would study an alternate consumer advocacymodel for the Public Service Board passed 106-33. Late Friday afternoon, Browning introduced yet another change thatwould require legislative approval of any merger resulting incontrol of 50 percent or more of the state s utility market. That one died on a voice vote late in the afternoon. We are high quality suppliers, our products such as China Negative Ions Watch , China Energy Balance Necklace for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits Energy Silicone Bracelet.
Related Articles -
China Negative Ions Watch, China Energy Balance Necklace,
| 
