1 sp energy and technology 10:00 a.m. committee … · 2 march 5, 2019 sp energy and technology...

1 MARCH 5, 2019

sp ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY 10:00 A.M.

COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

CHAIRPERSONS: Senator Norman Needleman

Representative Jonathan

Steinberg

SENATORS: Fonfara, Formica, Lesser

REPRESENTATIVES: Ackert, Arconti, Buckbee,

Cheeseman, Davis, Demicco,

Ferraro, Gresko, Lanoue,

Lopes, Meskers, Napoli,

Perone, Petit, Piscopo,

Winkler

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Good morning, everyone.

Nobody says good morning back? I have to do the

flag attendant thing. In the interest of safety I

would ask that you note the location of and access

to the exits in this hearing room. The two doors

through which you entered the room are the emergency

exits and are marked with exit signs. In an

emergency, the door behind the Legislators can also

be used. In the event of an emergency please walk

quickly to the nearest exit. After exiting the room

go to your left and exit the building by the main

entrance or follow the exit signs to one of the

other exits. Please quickly exit the building and

follow any instructions from the Capitol Police. Do

not delay and do not return unless and until you are

advised that it is safe to do so. In the event of a

lockdown announcement please remain in the Hearing

Room, stay away from the exit doors until an “All

Clear” announcement is heard. So with that, I am

2 MARCH 5, 2019



going to ask if my Co-Chair has anything or? So we

might as well get right down to it.

This is a Public Hearing of the Energy and

Technology Committee and we have a bunch of Bills to

review. The first person on our list is Senator

Somers.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Good Morning to the Chairman

and Ranking Members of the Committee that are here

today. Well thank you for the opportunity to come

in front of you this morning. I am testifying in

support of Raised Bill 961 that’s AN ACT CONCERNING

MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC

ENERGY COOPERATIVES.

So on behalf of the Connecticut Municipal Electric

Energy Cooperative “CMEEC” ratepayers in my

district, I would like to thank the Committee for

drafting Raised Bill 961 and committing to continue

to make adjustments to the operations of this, $300

million dollar ratepayer-funded, not for profit,

public entity.

Nearly two years ago to this day, I sat here before

you to testify on several pieces of legislation that

I proposed to change the way CMEEC operates in

Connecticut. My concern began with the revelation

that CMEEC had invited more than 40 colleagues,

vendors and friends to an all-expense paid trip to

the Kentucky Derby, including the use of a private

jet for a total cost of approximately $340,000 in

2016. This “Business trip” included only eight

people that had any relation to CMEEC even the Board

Member’s parents who allowed to join in this junket.

They were flown thanks to their son’s employer but

shockingly there was no business agenda at the

3 MARCH 5, 2019



retreat and no evidence of any business being done

on this trip.

The Public then learned that these trips had been

going on for years, totaling over $1 million dollars

of ratepayer dollars spent and that the news was

intentionally kept quiet. In fact, the local utility

regulators and some of the chief elected officials

whom these Board Members and Co-Op officials served,

were unaware of the trips.

I am here today to thank the Committee for the

initial steps taken in Public Act 17-73, AN ACT

CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY COOPERATIVES

AND ESTABLISHING A MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC CONSUMER

ADVOCATE. One of the most important provision in

this Act, in my opinion, was the creation of a

municipal Ratepayer Advocate. Attorney Bill

Kowalski has filled that role with extreme

competence since 2017 and is an excellent advocate

for CMEEC’s municipal ratepayers. He has uncovered

many more questionable practices by this

organization and his role is critical, especially in

light of the recent indictments that we have seen

comedown. For example he successfully lobbied the

Board to rescind it’s initial award of a contract

for a statutorily mandated forensic audit due to an

existing business relationship. He participated in

the rebidding and selection process that resulted in

a selection of an auditor with no prior history with

CMEEC.

I am also here today to testify that more reforms

are needed, in my opinion, to protect CMEEC’s

captive ratepayers.

4 MARCH 5, 2019



Continuing discoveries since the 2017 Public Act was

passed indicate that CMEEC is an organization that

is simply unable or unwilling to empathize with the

ratepayers that it serves. After watching CMEEC

closely for more than two years now, I believe the

problem is deep within the organization’s DNA. It

simply does not appear to possess the skillset and

integrity necessary to retain the privilege of self-

governance the legislature bestowed upon it over the

years. This entity is technically a municipality

and should be subject to the transparency. In fact,

CMEEC’s sister organization in Massachusetts has two

governor appointees on the Board, to provide true

independent review of its actions and they provide

full transparency.

Since the legislature last considered CMEEC, five of

the organization’s officials, including the Chief

Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, one

sitting Board Member and two former Board members

were indicted by the FBI for crimes associated with

misuse of federal dollars at CMEEC. The CEO, Drew

Rankin, and former Norwich Public Utilities

Chairman, James Sullivan, are facing seventy years

in prison, while the others face thirty-five years

in prison. Rankin and Sullivan also conspired to

hide Mr. Sullivan’s personal expenses within CMEEC’s

administrative budget.

For years CMEEC has been used to “flying under the

radar” of the public, they’ve never had to justify

its own decisions to anyone. Over time, the entire

organization has lost the ability to assess its own

conduct and has developed a perverse view of its

duty to the ratepayers who fund it and the statute

that enabled its existence. One of the perversions

5 MARCH 5, 2019



is known as the “Margin Fund” which I understand is

no longer in place.

But we did learn about the inflation of the

wholesale price of energy with a dollar charge per

megawatt that was put into a margin fund which is

used to go on these junkets.

So how can a public, not for profit utility with

captive ratepayers be secretive? They refused to

have full transparency. Their budgets are redacted.

CMEEC has been unable or unwilling to honor the

spirit of our State’s FOI laws. To this day, CMEEC

deems portions of its business or its operations as

confidential trade secrets. Other than personnel

matters, the CMEEC has no reason to ever claim the

“proprietary business information” exemption to the

State’s Freedom of Information laws and if you look

at Massachusetts their sister authority does not

claim business sensitive or trade secrets. Once a

contract is signed it is made public. There is a

period of 120 day and then it is made public.

CMEEC has been under questionable management since

at least 2011, when Mr. Rankin came on board and the

now indicted CEO still sits on the Board.

Since the indictments, CMEEC Board and interim CEO

Mike Lane, still asserts that the bad people are

gone and everything is fine but I think otherwise.

After the indictments, the CMEEC Board re-elected

Drew Rankin (yes the man facing 70 years in prison

under FBI indictment) and Board Members were still

parroting his talking points of CMEECs “unbelievable

value,” but unfortunately they have not been able to

provide any transparent numbers prove that

unbelievable value.

6 MARCH 5, 2019



If the General Assembly looks closely at the

original purpose of CMEEC and determines that it is

still a public benefit for them to exist, then this

body must also accept that the changes to CMEEC will

be a multi-year process, requiring hands-on guidance

from this Committee. CMEEC must refamiliarize itself

with its original purpose. It must be fully

transparent and deliver power at cost to its

municipal member utilities.

The provisions put forth in the Committee bill lay

the ground work for what I believe will be a multi-

year process of reforming CMEEC. The bill will:

Make CMEEC subject to the State Auditor, to instill

ratepayer confidence. It will continue to fund the

Ratepayer Advocate who have been invaluable over

these past two years. It will ensure Ensures that

CMEEC will seek to recover the legal costs

associated with those who have been indicted should

they be found guilty. Right now CMEEC is paying for

the defense of the people that have been indicted.

CMEEC and Municipal Utilities must disclose their

annual budgets and executed agreements without

redaction after a period of time. There should be

the elimination of trade secret exemptions when it

comes to non-profit and public entities It changes

the weighted voting used at CMEEC, which flies in

the face of a joint action agency CMEEC must

incorporate the forensic audit findings that were

found during the last forensic audit into its

operating procedures and it must disclose to the DRS

if they are holding money for any municipalities in

their accounts at CMEEC for those municipalities.

This refocus CMEEC back to its primary purpose

before it started doing what I call for profit work.

7 MARCH 5, 2019



Municipal utilities must provide information back up

to their customers should they require it on line-

item charges. That backup needs to be equivalent to

what a regulated utility would provide.

Finally, I want acknowledge some of the hard work of

the Consumer Counsel. There have been active

citizens and The Day has very, very helpful in

helping uncover some of the wrong doings at CMEEC.

And I would like to thank the FBI actually when

local and state law authorities fail to stop

offenses the FBI was undeterred and is responsible

for bringing the only semblance of justice in this

matter to our small corner of the state.

And on behalf of the CMEEC ratepayers in my

district, I want to thank the Committee for drafting

this Bill and your commitment to continue to make

necessary adjustments are made in the practices of

this $300 million dollar, again public, not for

profit entity so that our ratepayers in Connecticut

can be confident that their leadership is doing the

right think. Thank you very much and I’m happy to

answer any questions.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Senator. You

were both at the same time.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): You got it.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH): Good morning, Senator. Thank

you for your testimony. I was, you mentioned the

ratepayer advocate. Can you kinda give me some

idea, can you give me some justification why you

believe they should stay in that position and keep

8 MARCH 5, 2019



getting funded, like can you justify that for me,

please?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Well absolutely, the

ratepayer advocate was added in the last legislation

so that we had a truly independent voice on the

Board of CMEEC for attending the meeting for CMEEC

and Mr. Kowalski was chosen in an independent

process that the Consumer Council choose him as the

advocate and he has been invaluable. He attends all

the meetings, he is the one who has actually just

recently asked for backup on some unusual findings I

the forensic audit that we can certainly go through.

There was unaccounted charges for example that are

quite troublesome, they include things such as

$4,600 dollars for Board of Directors golf outing,

$13,700 dollars for bands, food and massage gift

certificates and play parties, $8,700 for artwork,

$350 dollars for “the attire for Governor Saul, all

those types of expenses. This is non-profit

organization. These were uncovered during a

forensic audit. He has asked for the details and the

detail is what I’ve given you.

I have personally written a letter this morning to

CMEEC asking for the documentation for all of these

expenses. This is something that would never be

allowed out in a non-profit organization. He has

been invaluable there.

He also has been advocating on some of the Board

Rules. For example the Board had a rule as far as I

have been informed that should someone be accused of

criminal activity that CMEEC would pay for their

defense which is happening now. He has insisted

that changes to the Board practices go forward.

9 MARCH 5, 2019



Without him there, we don’t have a truly independent

voice and in light of having five people indicted

since our first legislation has passed I think it is

imperative that we need to have a consumer ratepayer

advocate on that Board so we are clear and have a

truly independent voice present.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH): Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank

you for your testimony, Senator and I want to thank

you for your tireless advocacy on the part of the

ratepayers. As everyone on this Committee knows

that is a song I sing very often so I really

appreciate your efforts. I do have a couple of

questions for you, however. Can you clarify your

position on whether CMEEC should continue to invest

in projects and contract for services anymore? I’m

looking at Section 7, lines 444-447.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): What are you looking at?

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): 44.34, Section 7, lines 444-

447.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes this speaks to the

enabling Statue. The enabling statue was to allow

these, the seven most distressed communities to come

together to develop a purchase power agreement so

they could get the best price on the market for

energy and this initially was supposed to go through

the cooperative at a no-cost or at cost to the

municipal electric company and to the consumer.

Since that time CMEEC has expanded its prevue of

what businesses that they are or not in and therefor

I believe that we should think about bringing them

10 MARCH 5, 2019



back to their statutory purpose and enabling them to

just purchase power because that is what they were

originally designed to do. We have seen what

happens when they get into other areas where they

can generate margin as they call it which is not

what they are supposed to be doing.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): So basically you want them

to get back in their original lane?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I would like them to get back

in their lane, exactly.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): All right, thank you. There

is a Bill that relates to electric bill, portion of

the Bill that relates to electric bill format.

Would this also apply to CMEEC?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Well in some of the cases

some of the larger companies I have spoken to

directly CMEEC generates the bill for the utility

company. I am not sure if that is true for all

businesses but some of the business I’ve spoken to

directly and CMEEC charges a fee for that. You know

one of the companies that I have spoken to in

details is a very large pharmaceutical company and

they were being originally charged $5,000 a month

for CMEEC to create this bill which looked like an

Excel spread sheet. They were doing that on behalf

of a utility company and there’s items or line items

on that bill that are not descriptive. They may say

fixed line cost and just using that as an example.

When the company asked the utility for the backup

behind it what they’re told and this is coming

directly from this company is that they will say

that we don’t have to give it to you, it is trade

secret, it’s confidential, I’m not giving it to you.

11 MARCH 5, 2019



So I think it is important. If a customer is asking

for the detail behind a line item that whether it’s

a public utility or a municipal utility there should

be a requirement that they need to provide the

backup data for the charge associated with that and

that is what this is trying to do saying if a

customer asks for the line item details that the

municipal electric company needs to provide the back

up of data just like they would and equivalent to a

regulated utility.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Okay and one final question

in Section 6 makes CMEEC subject to review by the

state auditors and they have to submit a report

quarterly to the DRS. Do you feel PURA is the more

appropriate, I’m trying to follow the rationale

behind have these two other entities as opposed PURA

regulating and monitoring CMEEC?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I would love for PURA to be

able to oversee this but PURA has not been really

interested in pursuing that so this was the best

alternative that I could come up with. As far as

the DRS report the reason that I asked for that was

because CMEEC holds or in the past have held money

in separate accounts for utility companies. I was

told by Drew Rankin himself that any account a

municipal company would like to create, he’s fine

with that. That’s the electric company’s business

not CMEECs so if they wanted to create a rate

stabilization account everyone has one. If they

wanted to have an Economics Development account he

would create it. I, you know factiously said that

if they wanted a “trip account” would you create

that and he said, “Anything they want.” So when

we’re looking at ECF funding for example for all we

12 MARCH 5, 2019



know we could have a local electric utility company

owned by a town or a city that has millions of

dollars sitting one of these accounts and we would

have no way of knowing that it is there. So that’s

way if we require that there is a report sent to the

DRS we would know how much money is in each one of

those accounts and that was my rationale behind

that. That money in my opinion should all be in

rate stabilization because that money is for the

ratepayer and that money is originally designed to

stabilize the rate so that the energy costs stay low

for the members that in the utility company’s

jurisdiction. Again if you look at the

Massachusetts version they are not allowed to keep

money in those accounts. They have to return it to

the ratepayers. So I think that is important so

that we know what’s there.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): I will just say you make some

very good points and I will say although PURA maybe

your preferred entity to monitor this just looking

at some of the other reports that the state auditors

have done, I’ve been very impressed by what they

uncover, your mention of gift cards, I know hearing

when they reported on the community college system

student parking fines are supposed to be dedicated

to student scholarships and there were community

colleges that were using them to buy Amazon gift

cards for their employees as part of reward system.

So I think as I say although PRUA might be your

preferred entity I think the state auditor could

certainly do a good job. So again, thank you for

testimony today. Thank you for answering my

questions and thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Senator Formica.

13 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you very much , Mr.

Chairman, morning. Good morning, Senator. My

questions were going to be around Section 6 as well

and the auditors. But we had a forensic audit

performed on this and did I hear you say that those

results were not implemented and you are asking them

to be implemented within.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): We did. The legislature

required a forensic audit and that is why it was

wonderful that we had the ratepayer advocate because

CMEEC originally chose their current auditor that

they were using to do their standard audit. We

thought that was a conflict of interest as did the

ratepayer advocate so they had to go back and rebid

for a forensic audit which was just completed and

there was some questionable findings, some of them

are what I just mentioned previously. Yes there’s

other findings in there. One of the findings was to

not allow CMEEC to hold these different accounts for

municipal electric companies. I would like to make

sure their findings and recommendations are

implemented at CMEEC. I can’t say with any certainty

if they have or they have not that is why I am

asking that they are within this Bill.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): So is there a mechanism for

them to be applied? Is there something that last

legislation forces them to do it? We just had this

forensic audit performed, they come up with all of

this stuff and then it is going to be up to the

Board to implement or not?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): That’s the way I read the

last legislation so that is why in this legislation

14 MARCH 5, 2019



I’m requesting that the findings of the audit be

incorporated into their practices.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): So the people that have

been indicted are pretty much been removed from the

daily operation as far as I understand and do you

feel that they’re beginning to move forward in a new

direction with these people under the eyes of the

consumer advocate?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I think that they are making

some slight movement, some slight changes. Yes I

will give them that but there is still somethings

that have not moved. One of the things in

particular is the transparency, is the accounts, we

need to know, we need to verify that they’re not any

longer going to have those accounts. We need ensure

that after they enter into an agreement there should

be nothing that is trade secret or confidential

about energy when you look at except maybe the

strategy on how you get the rate that you do but

that is something that is not necessarily public. If

you look as sister organizations like this

cooperative in other states after a certain period

of time all those contracts become public, just like

they do with Eversource. They are published and

they are put on a website. That is something that

would instill transparency here. There is a budget

that is provided but it’s still redacted. You can’t

if you are a customer from a municipal electric

company from what I’ve been told from customers and

you ask for the backup on a line item charge it is

not given. I don’t think that shows transparency in

the ratepayers and that is where we’re going again.

These municipalities have a defined territory. They

don’t have competition in their territory and they

15 MARCH 5, 2019



were set up that way because there were the most

distressed community and during the last legislation

we heard, well we provide the cheapest rates on the

market but we found in fact that’s not true. One of

the municipal electric companies withdrew from this

organization, they could purchase power on the

market cheaper than CMEEC could provide it. And I

can give you another example, there is a customer

who owns two McDonald’s in one of these territories.

One is outside of CMEEC’s territory and Eversource

and one is within CMEEC’s territory. Same amount of

power, same overall operating times and budgets and

yet the one that is in the Eversource territory has

cheaper power than the one in the CMEEC territory. I

don’t know if she has submitted testimony but she is

somebody that you could definitely talk to. So I

think we need to have better transparency, we need

to have better communication, we need to make sure

the ratepayer advocate stays on the Board. I would

argue that we should consider having two Governor

appointees put on that Board just like they do in

Massachusetts to also provide true transparency. In

Massachusetts those board members are not paid.

They are paid here in Connecticut. They get paid

$600 dollars a meeting and I believe it is $200

dollars or $300 dollars to call into a meeting.

Those are things that are all very different and

same type of organization but, you know, the one in

Massachusetts is much more in its lane than I see

CMEEC.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you and Mr. Chairman,

I have one last question. We’ve been dealing with

this for some time and thank you for your advocacy

and the advocacy of this Committee to kind of move

16 MARCH 5, 2019



these Bills forward. Are we getting to a point

where, you know, when is it going to be worth this

and do we need to have this organization do what

we’re doing and what they’re doing in light of your

last comment or, you know, is this something that,

you know, the legislature needs to step in and said

there’s too much, to much going on here that, you

know, can we say this going forward or, you know,

where do you think we are in this process?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Well, I mean that’s a very

good question and that was the question that we

asked two years ago. We were told that, you know,

if CMEEC went away that the lights would go out but

that is absolutely not the case. Since they have

been, since they were formed there is many other

organizations that do the exact same thing that

CMEEC does. I keep saying MMWEC in Massachusetts is

someone I’ve spent hours with them on the phone and

one of the questions I did ask them was tomorrow if

CMEEC did not exist they could certainly handle all

of the power agreements with the municipalities

tomorrow if they had to. There is, I think it’s

called Energy New England, that is where Wallingford

went when they pulled out of CMEEC. You can go

direct to the market. Some of the larger companies

that I talked to have their own, because energy is

so, such a big cost in Connecticut they have their

own energy department and they could negotiate their

own purchase power agreement directly. So that is

something that I think the legislature needs to

think about. And if CMEEC can under the prevue of

this Committee, if they can get back in their lane,

if they can provide transparency, if they can start

realizing they are a non-profit really, a

17 MARCH 5, 2019



municipality, that is what they are designed as and

behave in that manner then it is worth pursuing but

if we’re gonna have to have this every year I would

question that. I mean you just think of the

expenses I just listed off that were found in the

audit those are just absolutely, this is ratepayer

dollars. When I knock on doors, there’s little old

ladies in the areas that I knock on that can’t pay

their electric bill and we’re spending $13,000

dollars on bands for parties, and massages and

artwork. It’s completely lost it’s way and that’s

why I think it needs to be really reigned in or this

Committee can decide if it should still go forward.

There are other organizations that could fill the

need but that’s just my opinion.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you very much,

Senator. Thank you for your hard work on this and

thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Meskers.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Two questions, one the

energies provided to distressed municipalities, I

assume that involves state aid or assistance to the

individuals who receive energy as well.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I would have to look, but

yes these distressed municipalities the towns that

were chosen to be part of this cooperative was

because they were the most distressed communities at

the time. I am certain that there are individuals

within those communities that are getting energy

assistance, etc. I am sure they are but I don’t have

that number.

18 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. MESKERS (150TH): Right because from your

testimony you’re indicating that the energy costs

that they are providing are higher and yet I am

assuming state aid is going to the individuals so

not only are they “charging or overcharging” the

individuals in their district but the State is also

then funding over priced energy in this scenario?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I should be clear in my

testimony. I can tell you that in the case of

Wallingford when they pulled out, they were able to

purchase power cheaper than CMEEC was able to

deliver it to them. I don’t know if that is the

case in every single case. I could only give you

the example that I have on the person I talked to

has actually two identical businesses one in a CMEEC

territory and one not to give you a comparison.

That could be the case, I really can’t say. I know

that two years ago when we compared the rates there

were not the cheapest on the market. That could

have changed at this point so I can’t answer that

specifically but I see what you’re saying.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Yeah, because I think part of

our review of their, apart from the discussion on

questionable expenses would be are they actually

fulfilling their role of providing cheaper energy

costs. So that’s got to be very important to us.

And secondly the policy on spending or paying for

the legal defense. Has the Board established that

all the activities on which they are being charged

are within their purview as they saw it or they’ve

just decided to pick up the legal defense?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): You probably will have to ask

them that specifically. What I know is that as a

19 MARCH 5, 2019



Board member you are, I believe that you are held

harmless so to speak until and it is the policy that

they pay your defense until you’re found guilty.

I’ve been told that they will seek the return of

those funds should someone be found guilty or, you

know, decide to go with a plea but I would like that

in writing so I would like to make sure that if a

Board Member, CEO anybody to do with CMEEC if they

are indicted on a criminal charge, on FBI charges

and CMEEC which is ratepayers are now paying for

their defense which I think the cost is close to

$500,000 dollars at this point that should they be

found guilty those funds are returned to the

ratepayers. I think that is imperative.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Yeah, I think that is very

important that we look into that to the extent that

they are duly authorized and engaging in their legal

responsibilities as a board I can see how we would

cover them but if they are exceeding their mandate

or taking decisions that are outside of their

charter than the question should we defend or paying

for the defense. So thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): I think Representative

Cheeseman had one more question.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair for the

second time. Just relooking at Section 7, lines

444-447 which would involve projects that they

undertake, looking at the Public Hearing testimony

and then refreshing my memory I see there has been

testimony submitted by Backus Hospital in opposition

because CMEEC helped them build a ten megawatt

microgrid in 2015 and I was actually at the ribbon

cutting for the fuel cell installation at the

20 MARCH 5, 2019



subbase which was done in conjunction with the DOD

and the State of Connecticut. If this went ahead

would this section not preclude them from entering

into those agreements? Would you want an additional

layer of scrutiny because those do seem to be

worthwhile endeavors for me both in terms of helping

those, particularly a hospital, provide critical

backup services and for the subbase again and backup

for them and nearby community in the case of grid

power failure so I would love your insight on that

because I see your point that they shouldn’t be able

to do things that are out of their lane but this

seems to me to be in their lane and also promoting

the interest of the customer. So I would love to

hear your comments.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I think if this is in their

lane and it has to do with a delivery of power then

it should be acceptable. There is no reason that in

certain areas like that or obviously what is going

on at the Navy base couldn’t come and get approval

to pursue going forward. But we have to be very

careful so that they stay in their lane.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Right. So you would prefer

that there be some sort of formal approval process

for any new project going forward. I’m just curious

how this would play out.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I think that it is important

obviously to have to go outside their territory to

purchase power, that’s clear. But if they are going

to be getting into, you know, other areas that are

not under their statutory enabling, you know,

language which was really just to purchase power and

deliver it to the municipality at the lowest cost,

21 MARCH 5, 2019



then they’ve got to come for approval. If we don’t

have some type of control and oversight, I’ll put it

that way over this organization we can see what

happened. I mean we saw it with the trips, we’re

seeing it with these expenditures that are

outrageous so we have to bring them in under some

kind of oversight or governance and should it be

that maybe this Committee decided that we should

have two Governor appointees on there along with a

ratepayer that is just a suggestion. Those things

could come for approval and be approved before they

go forward.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Obviously that might be an

area in which PURA oversight because the auditors

and DRS are ex post facto as it were. All right

thank you very much for your answer and thank you

for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Davis.

REP. DAVIS (57TH:) I didn’t get your attention, Mr.

Chair but Representative Cheeseman asked the

question that I was goin to ask, so we will move on.

REP. PERONE (137TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair

and thank you for your testimony. I had a question

so basically the way the legislation is currently

written is it would curb or disallow municipal power

companies to invest in bulk power projects?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): That is not the way it’s

intended.

REP. PERONE (137TH): Because on lines 444-447 this

allows power company investing in these kinds of

projects so that’s not the case?

22 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Again it depends on what the

project is and I think it would have to come back

for approval. When you look at their sister

organizations in another state, outside of the lane

of just purchasing power and you know, basically

passing it down to municipalities they have to come

back to the legislature for approval. So perhaps

here would set it up where they would come back to

maybe this Committee for approval into those

markets.

REP. PERONE (137TH): Thank you for that. I mean

just so you know where I’m coming from, I mean I

think that my concern is that there is a lot of, in

addition to what has already been passed there is

additional layers of oversight which I feel, you

know, logically could actually drive up rates. So I

feel that when you, you know, do things that curb

revenue streams for these power entities it is

something we have to be very cognizant of and be

careful of how we deal with it. So I thank you for

your testimony.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): So yeah, I will say my

concern with going outside the lane is because I’ve

had a direct conversation with a former, I guess he

is now the former CEO who is now looking at 70 years

in prison who said to me face-to-face in a

conference room upstairs, “I will do whatever I have

to do to make sure that the money is generated for

CMEEC so that it can continue” and factiously I said

would you be willing to enter an agreement with a

cotton candy company and he said, “If I have to.”

That’s my concern.

23 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. PERONE (137TH): Yeah well and that’s fair. I

mean but again I also have to be fair to the

ratepayers in municipal power companies in my

district, nobody went to jail and, you know, this is

an issue that I think we just have to make sure that

the care is not disproportionate to what we’re

trying to do. I think the legislation that went

through 1773, you know, laid the groundwork. I think

certainly the forensic audits that both of them have

weighed in and I think that, you know, going forward

looking at that as guidance make sure we’re doing

the right thing by the ratepayers is key and so.

Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Senator Fonfara.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Senator Somers. How are you today?

Great, great thank you. So I am a little confused

because all my years on this Committee the CMEEC

towns or any municipal electric town was well know

that they enjoyed much better rates for their

customers than our utilities Unite Illuminating and

Eversource. Can you tell me what do you know that

this Committee doesn’t know, what’s changed that now

is different?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Sure, you know, I don’t know

what this Committee knows so I am not sure that I

could, you know, tell you.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Let me ask it another way.

What’s changed from what has historically been know

about the rates and I understand that there are some

representatives of member towns, maybe

Representative Perone can say what the rates are in

his town or Norwalk but it’s long been understood

24 MARCH 5, 2019



that the rates that towns that are members of the

CMEEC enjoyed 20-30 percent better rates than the

investor owned utilities so do you have information

that is different than that?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I can share with you, but I

don’t have it in front of me, but we would expect

that member utility companies would at least be 15

percent less because they are not paying the taxes

that the other utilities are. But what we found,

and I can show you the example, again I don’t have

it in front of me, but I’m happy to submit it on two

different business, same business, one town in CEEMC

one town not in CEEMC with significant savings as an

Eversource customer versus the CEEMC customer. We

can tell you that when Wallingford pulled of CEEMC

it was able to purchase power cheaper on the market

than it was getting it through CEEMC. I can tell

you that businesses that I’ve been to and I’m happy

to share with you the detail afterwards have said if

CEEMC went I could save one-third on my electric

bill and, you know, I spend $20 million dollars a

year on electricity. It’s a significant, you know,

price point for me here a company in Connecticut. I

don’t have the residential rates in front of me to

compare them but that is what I can tell you that I

found. So, I would agree but if they will be

transparent then we can see if it is accurate or not

I guess.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): So Senator are, do you know

the towns that are members, that have membership in

the CEEMC currently? How many towns are there?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): There is Norwalk, South

Norwalk the second taxing district. There is

25 MARCH 5, 2019



Bozrah, Groton, Norwich Utilities and Jewitt City,

six.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Is this a voluntary

membership organization?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): You know I think that this

was setup in the ‘70s and the legislature picked the

seven most distressed communities. Wallingford was

in there at that point before they pulled and yes, I

believe they were able to decide if they wanted to

be part of the cooperative or not and it was

designed for that. CEEMC could go out and basically

bulk purchase a purchase power agreement.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): But it is a voluntary

organization?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): It is but try to get out of

it. There’s no exit clause. So if you’re a small.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Didn’t you say that

Wallingford exited?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes but they had to sue to

exit. It wasn’t something that they could just

decide, okay we’re gonna get out and they went to

court with CMMEC over having to get out of their

agreement. One of the things.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Has any member town

subsequent to the activities that the legislation

that we passed in 2017, has any town sought to leave

CEEMC?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Not that I know of but again

they can’t just leave, they have to sue. So if you

are a small town how are you going to sue and the

way that the votes are weighted which flies in the

26 MARCH 5, 2019



face of a joint agency action committee, if you look

at a Massachusetts version or another version in

another state, the idea of a joint action agency is

so that everyone shares equally. So in

Massachusetts it’s one municipality, one vote. Here

it is weighted so you two, Norwich and Groton

control all the votes. The other people could

basically not show up and not be able, they don’t

have a vote. It doesn’t matter. So that is another

thing that needs to be changed so that it is more

fair and equitable for all the members.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Does your legislation, if

according to you that you have to sue, does your

legislation seek to change that policy?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): We have written in that we

would like you be able to exit, obviously you would

have to finish your contract with them if you have a

contract for power, most of them are long time, you

know 10 years some of them are 20 years so you would

have to be able to fulfill that or come up with a

bond to be able to cover that but yeah, I think

that’s something that absolutely should be

considered.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): So if I could take another

moment with respect to Representative Perone’s

comments regarding whether the cure is worse than

the problem. But for the Committee’s benefit those

that were not here to vote on the legislation which

isn’t even fully two years in its implementation

these are items that were in that legislation that

is now law. What was added was ratepayer

representative from each utility service area in

addition to the member that comes from the

27 MARCH 5, 2019



particular town created a municipal electric

consumer advocate appointed by the Consumer Council

of the State of Connecticut that the consumer

advocate reports quarterly and annually to the

Consumer Council, implemented annual reporting

requirement to the General Assembly including to

this Committee, increase budget process

transparency, a five year forensic examination and a

monthly reporting on Board related expenses, updated

website to meet mandated pre and post meeting

publication requirements. And then subsequent to

that CEEMC has voluntarily put together these

requirements on itself: Public board report and

board meeting requirements, implement a new ethics

and conflict of interest and travel policy related

to training the board and staff, modified

indemnification policies with input from the

consumer advocate, formalize council review

requirements and exercise of executive session,

place the CEO and CFO on administrative leave

pending the investigation, retain independent

outside counsel to conduct the investigation. Those

are all things that were either done by legislation

or voluntarily done by CEEMC subsequently.

Senator is that, isn’t that pretty touch enforcement

in terms of addressing some of the, or the issues

that caused the legislation to be crafted in the

first place?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Why I applaud some of the

items that CEEMC has done those have been just

recently, quite frankly, like within the last couple

of weeks and the advocate reduces their salaries

reduced over time so I think that is something that

should be maintained. What’s change in the last two

28 MARCH 5, 2019



years we’ve had five Federal indictments on Board

Members, CEO’s and CFOs of CEEMC so that has changed

since the last legislation. We didn’t have the FBI

indictments. We also didn’t have CEEMC paying for

the defense of those who have been indicted and

CEEMC still and municipal electric companies have

not provided transparency, they still redact

information, they still don’t give information to

customers should they ask what the line item charges

are. So there’s things that although they’ve made

some baby steps, and I know it’s been a lot of work

but they’ve put themselves in this position by doing

what they did. They needed the oversight. It’s not

something we sought out to do on our own, but we

need to have, if we want to be able to say that

CEEMC and the municipal electric companies provide

the best rates on the market, then show us, have

your contracts become public just like they do in

Massachusetts, just like our regulated utilities

have to do after a period of time. There is nothing

trade secret, you can’t hide behind that any longer.

Or else how do ratepayers have the confidence that

what they are telling us is the truth based on their

history of how they behave. So I think that yes,

they have done somethings they would not have done

them should the legislature not have passed

legislation but we need to do more.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): So there’s been questions

regarding Section 7 of your Bill involving what

investments CEEMC can make and it is my

understanding that investments they’ve made in

general are those that are paying significant

dividends to ratepayers that are CEEMC customers or

member town customers to a total of some $15 million

29 MARCH 5, 2019



dollars annually that I would assume goes to the

bottom line in terms of reducing rates that CEEMC

customers pay, are you aware of that, Senator?

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Well then they can show us in

the rates that they provider to their customers.

That would be great.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): It’s public knowledge, I

understand what the revenues, what they’re

receiving.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): If they were making this

large amount of money, I guess profit margin,

whatever you want to say, is that going into the

rate stabilization and then they are lowering the

rates for their customers? I haven’t seen that.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Well there has been audits

done since what happened back a couple of years ago.

I’m sure they would identify those things. But I

would just like to read what those investments are

for the benefit of the Committee: Microgen Eagle

Generator which is for reliability purposes and for

financial benefit that’s a $7 million dollar benefit

to CEEMC customers, a power plant, the gas turbine

power plant is again about financial and reliability

benefit, Hydro Quebec Transmission Line,

Distribution Generation Battery Storage, Community

Solarguard and the sub-based fuel cell mentioned

earlier. Again a total of about $15 million dollars

annually that benefits the ratepayers of CEEMC.

Your legislation would prohibit most of those

investments.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): As I said before they could

come in front of this Committee to, you know, ask

30 MARCH 5, 2019



for approval to be able to invest in that and as far

as everything you’ve listed, you know, I’ve heard

that repeatedly that we’ve invested in this

hydropower or Microgen and it’s providing benefit

for CEEMC customers, I would like to have them be

able to submit the calculations and show us those

numbers because unless we have the numbers and the

details and the balance sheets to prove that, the

numbers really saying it means nothing to me. I

need to see it. And I think that something that has

not, I have not been able to receive that, again we

hid behind trade secret in our investments. So

maybe if they are not willing to give us that

information and be fully transparent then this com

could decide to not allow them to make that

investment until we can actually see the numbers, I

mean they’ll say we provide this great value but

there’s no numbers to back it up. That’s my issue.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Thank you, Senator. Thank

you, Mr. Chair look forward to hearing from others

who are part of CEEMC I understand are signed up to

testify today. Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Anyone else? Thank you,

Senator Somers.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): And I also did bring you all

the article and the 13 editorials that have been

written on CEEMC. I will leave you a copy of it if

you are interested in looking at it.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Leave it with the Clerk.

Thank you so much. Representative O’Dea.

REP. O'DEA 125TH): Dear Co-Chairs Needleman,

Arconti, and Ranking Member Formica and

31 MARCH 5, 2019



Distinguished Members of the Energy and Technology

Committee, my name is Tom O’Dea and with me is Troy

Vanbell the Vivint Solar Northeast Sales Director.

Troy is going to give a brief statement, I’m gonna

give a brief statement. In the interest to save time

I figured I’d have him up here to answer the touch

questions. I think it is appropriate for us to

follow the previous testimony by Senator Somers as

Justice Brandeis said, “Sunlight is the best

disinfectant for public corruption” and we’re here

to have another alternative for sunlight and that’s

power. So I appreciate the Committee giving me some

moment here to testify and I’ll turn it over to Troy

for now.

TROY VANBELL: Good morning, thank you everybody for

this opportunity. My name is Troy Vanbell, once

again I am the New England Director of Sales for

Vivint Solar and actually I moved here four years

ago. I’ve been traveling with the company for about

eight years in the industry opening up new markets

and the last market I ended up with was here in

Connecticut and it’s been really good. Our business

has done very well. We currently have about 80

employees and 150 that are affiliated with us in the

state and this year is actually going to be one of

our best years as a company.

But in the background we have looming HB-7251 and

what this Bill does just to simplify, and you’re a

customer for example and you own solar right now and

you are in this building, in this room and the

system is producing power for you, you would hope

that you could use that power later in the day,

maybe at night when you get home with your family

but his Bill prevents that from happening. It is a

32 MARCH 5, 2019



buy-all, sell-all and you don’t get credit for the

power that was generated. And I own a system at my

house is Southington and I can tell you that if I

produce power that I would hope that I could use it

later whether it’s at midnight or 6:00 p.m. once the

sun has set down. We work with homeowners every day

and what I can say is that they love solar. They

love having the option of producing their own power

and using it when they would like and HB 7251

prevents that from happening and hurts our business

dramatically moving forward. Thank you for your

time.

REP. O'DEA 125TH): Briefly if I may, I am

testifying I know it lists 7151 when I think but I’m

actually testifying on 7251 and I am specifically

requesting that it be modified in order to yield a

better outcome.

A number of years ago I researched putting solar

panels on my roof in New Canaan, Connecticut.

Unfortunately between the tress and the bad

direction I was pointing I couldn’t do that. That

said, I am still very interested in the growing

industry and I didn’t know how many people were

actually employed by solar in Connecticut. Many of

them are here today. I think it is about 2,200.

I’ve become increasingly concerned about the impact

of SB 9. I supported it and I think it’s good

legislation but I think we need to fix it. Everyone

I’ve spoken to agrees with me that portions of

Senate Bill 9 could be and should be improved.

Senate Bill 9 has the potential to devastate further

growth in the solar industry in Connecticut and so

the good news is we can fix it and do right by the

33 MARCH 5, 2019



many businesses that are here and the 2200 employees

in Connecticut.

I believe HB 7251 is a step in the right direction

but it is not yet a solution. We need to give PURA

the tools to examine a multitude of successful

programs not just the two options that they

currently have. We need to ensure there is a study

on the value of solar. The stakes are high and they

are too high for us to tie PURA’s hands behind their

back with having a look at only two policies.

The best and fastest way to improve our State’s

fiscal situation is to assist the private sector in

growing private sector jobs. As well all know

according to the March 2018 final report of the

Connecticut Commissions on Fiscal Stability and

Economic Growth Connecticut is the only state with a

negative GDP from 2007 through 2016 and it was a

negative 7.9 percent. Connecticut’s solar industry

has good clean energy jobs and needs to be supported

not destroyed. This Bill with changes allowing PURA

to study more than just two options will allow

businesses to grow including net metering. We need

to look at net metering as a way to continue the

growth of the industry and help it to thrive.

So, I’m looking forward to answering questions. I’m

sorry I didn’t introduce Kyle Wallace is Vivant

Solar’s Markets and Government’s Affairs Manger for

the company. He is here to answer questions better

than I can. Thank you

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Representative

O’Dea. Representative Lanoue.

34 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. LANOUE (45TH): Thank you for your testimony, I

appreciate you guys being here today. I just want

to get a little more understanding on this 7251.

Essentially right now you have net metering so

somebody puts the solar panels on their home, they

produce excess energy, they get it in terms of a

credit almost like rollover minutes in this field

of, if that’s the appropriate analogy. Now under

this Senate Bill 9 that was passed last session the

buy-all, sell-all. So you produce a bunch of, you

produce all this energy with your solar panel

theoretically, you have to sell it all back and then

they sell it back. You have to sell it all to the

grid and then they sell it back to you at a reduced

rate. Am I understanding that correctly?

KYLE WALLACE: Yes, that’s correct. That’s how they

work.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Okay, all right. So what would

be the incentive for me to put a solar panel on my

house at that point?

KYLE WALLACE: It would definitely be a reduced

value to homeowners, they would still be getting

compensated somewhat for the energy they produce but

not at the current rate that makes it economical

today so that would be much more challenging to get

that to work in the long-term.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Okay so if I am understanding

this correctly so what you guys are seeking as far

as some type of a language change would be in

addition to the buy-all, sell-all instantaneous

netting allow PURA to explore all options as far as

what would be the best option to replace net

metering, am I understanding that correctly?

35 MARCH 5, 2019



KYLE WALLACE: Yes, that’s what we’d prefer.

There’s a lot of other options out there that can be

simpler and still benefit homeowners in a way that

would make solar attractive and we just want to be

able to look at those alternatives.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Okay, so it’s your position

right now, you’re pretty much, its pigeonholing PURA

into two options as opposed to the broad view?

KYLE WALLACE: Yep

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Okay, thank you for your time.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Meskers.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): I am a big supporter of solar

energy, I’m laser focused, but then of course you

know there is always a caveat. My understanding of

the pricing that we’re engaging in now is the

pricing because solar energy at some level has less

value in that it reaches it’s obviously peak during

sunlight hours? The solar panel process where we’re

installing is not necessarily, are not built with

battery supplies and backup supplies at the

homeowners residence.

REP. O'DEA 125TH): Yeah.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Right. So the problem, so I

support this but I understand that the problem as I

see it is a problem of the whole grid and system so

without having a backup energy system, I still have

to pay, to have installed capacity that’s stranded

until we get to peak hours of demand and so if I

begin to grant a lot, if we change the solar, its’

not gonna necessarily improve the overall productive

capacity at night time or different times, I still

36 MARCH 5, 2019



have to have energy capacity and charge the other

ratepayers to carry that burden. So there’s an

issue of where the burden ends up and where the

benefit ends up. So that’s part of the problem

conception where we stand, I think on this. So I’m

not against it but we will have to look when we look

at the metering to figure out if we start giving you

the same price in and out, what does that do to the

whole burden sharing for the rest of utility

ratepayers and how are we gonna be able to reduce

our overall generating capacity at the big

generators? Because ultimately without the storage

we don’t really get the benefit other than solar

being a cleaner and better form of energy it does

create that problem that we don’t have the backup

system in place.

KYLE WALLACE: Yeah, and I think those are some fair

points. I think that what we’ve seen in other

states that have helped to develop energy sourced

markets in addition to just solar, like in

California has tiny use pricing with net metering,

it can be combined and so the tiny use pricing gives

homeowners a price signal that for them to align

their usage and production and exports the grid in

ways that are beneficial to all ratepayers and help

lower costs for everyone. So that’s one of those

solutions that currently is not allowed under this.

So that is the prime example of what we would like

to look at.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Perfect. As far as I’m

concerned I’m laser focused on reducing our overall

stranded installed capacity by getting good backup

on the solar energy site. Thank you very much for

that.

37 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. O'DEA 125TH): Representative I think you’re

spot-on. What I don’t want to see happen though is a

stopping of the investment in solar which this, in

my humble opinion, I think if we all looked at this,

this Bill will do. We want to encourage the

investment and have get the storage to catch up to

that investment rather than eliminating the

investment. But you’re spot-on.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Well, I won’t come over and

ask for hug yet, but I agree with you [Laughter] 100

percent. I think when we look at the billing

process we will have to figure out the benefit we

can give to solar homeowners that some of that

benefit if we don’t give it to the homeowners goes

to building a storage capacity or we figure out how

we assess to get storage capacity built in the State

so we can get to green energy that we all want.

Thanks.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you.

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming here today. What is the

capacity factor of solar?

KYLE WALLACE: That can range based on the storage

orientation and admin of a system but roughly

between 13 and 18 percent I think [Cross-talking].

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Yeah, that’s the figure I

was looking at was 17 percent.

KYLE WALLACE: Yeah, yeah I think that, yeah.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): So we’re not looking at a

terribly high capacity factor. What percentage of

38 MARCH 5, 2019



your installed solar panels are purchased as opposed

to leased?

KYLE WALLACE: I can say that in Connecticut the

majority are through lease or power purchase

agreements, I think that is close to three-quarters

based on data from the Greenbank and then the

remainder 25 percent is either bought outright or

through financed through a loan.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Right and I just, refresh my

memory, I understand that if you chose to sell your

house with those solar panels the purchaser doesn’t

wish to keep them on, once you’ve installed them you

have to return them to the company and repay the

contract price? I’m reading some articles from

other states where solar is more prevalent and

understand there have been issues.

KYLE WALLACE: Yes. So there are a number of

options for homeowners in that situation. They can

chose to purchase the panels outright then past

those on to the new homeowner. The new homeowner

can assume the contract, that’s typically what

happens. They can also payout the contract and have

them removed entirely if the new homeowner doesn’t

want ‘em and there is a bunch of different ways that

you can do that. We’ve handled thousands of those

type of transfers in our company and 98 percent of

them go through without any problems at all and then

the two percent are always resolved in some manner

that works for both the new homebuyer and the home

seller.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): So do you find the majority

of home purchasers wish to maintain the contract in

your experience?

39 MARCH 5, 2019



KYLE WALLACE: Yes.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): What’s your position in

terms of a lienholder?

KYLE WALLACE: Sorry, what was that?

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): What is your position in

terms of being a lienholder should there not be a

resolution.

KYLE WALLACE: So for our systems we don’t put any

lien on a home. We put a UCC Filing which is just a

notice to any potential buyer, helps protect the

home seller and the homebuyer that there is an asset

that someone else owns on this house. And so for

those filings we remove them when people want to

refinance, when we work with them there is no cost.

It’s just a way to protect our assets and a way to

protect the homeowner and it’s common practice in a

lot of industries to do things like that.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): All right, thank you. Thank

you for your answers. Thank you for your testimony

today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Anyone else? Thank you

gentlemen. Appreciate your time. Just as a quick

announcement, Room 1C will serve as a spillover room

until 2:00 p.m. I really request the people don’t

block the doors so we have safe access in and out of

the room. Mike Caron.

REP. O'DEA 125TH): Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Mike Caron from

MIKE CARON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Chairman

Arconti, Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure

40 MARCH 5, 2019



to be here with you again. Michel Caron from

Connecticut PURA joining me is one of our, our

Acting Director of Judications Rob Listerbusch

[Phonetic].

First of all I just wanted to say that we’re very

grateful for the Committee both raising and

providing a Public Hearing for Senate Bill 960 AN ACT

CONCERNING MEMBERS OF THE CONNECTICUT GREEN BANK

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE PUBLIC UTILITIES

REGULATORY AUTHORITY'S REVIEW OF CLAIMS ARISING FROM

CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY.

This proposal stems from Connecticut Supreme Court

Decision in 2015 wherein the Court held that PURA

lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute

between an electric distribution company and a power

generator arising out of a PURA-approve contract.

Parties appearing before the authority after the

Kleen Decision have numerous times raised questions

about or have raised challenges about PURAs legal

authority to review and resolve disputes related to

utility services in contracts that have previously

been approve by PURA.

By enacting this Bill and specifically in section 2,

it will clarify with expressed language that the

authorities in fact empowered to review and

adjudicate disputes arising out of PURA approved

contracts where a public service company is a party

to the contract, the contract price is funded by

ratepayers and the purpose of contracts is for

public service company purchase products and

services for the benefit of ratepayers.

Moreover because these contracts are extensively

reviewed and approved by the authorities before they

41 MARCH 5, 2019



enter into force, PURA possess the familiarity of

the subject matter and of the statutory standings

giving rise to these contract as well as expertise

on our staff.

Finally in the Bill as proposed, in section 2,

PURA’s review of these contract claims would not

deprive parties of their ability to seek subsequent

review of the authorities decisions in the superior

court. This Bill will also not disturb any existing

contracts which contain clauses requiring dispute

resolution through arbitration or courts. That

concludes my testimony and we’ll be happy to answer

any questions you may have.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Mike Anybody?

I don’t see any.

MIKE CARON: All right, thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Matt Macunas from the

Green Bank.

BRIAN GARCIA: Members of the Energy and Technology

Committee, good morning. My name is Brian Garcia I

am President and CEO of the Connecticut Green Back.

I am joined by Brian Faruham our General Counsel.

We are there this morning to testify on SB 959, SB

960 and HB 7251.

On SB 959 we are seeking to enable the Green Bank to

access low-cost and long-term federal loan funds

from the United Stated Department of Agriculture.

Applying successfully for these funds from USDA

often terns on how an applicants enabling statute

fits the USDA criteria for these applicants. It is

our hope that the modifications recommended for our

42 MARCH 5, 2019



enabling statue will give the Green Bank a good

chance to secure these funds for Connecticut.

On SB 950 this a technical fix. As a result of

Public Act 16-212 a non-voting board member position

was removed from the Board of Directors of the

Green Bank. Despite this removal this subsection

still erroneously references two “non-voting”

members instead of one even though the previous ex

officio board position was removed.

On HB 7251 the Green Back is supportive of the

concepts proposed by the Bill with regards to

Section 1 on the ZREC-LREC extension, it would seem

that adding a year nine to the program would

establish the date certain of January 1, 2021 for

the net metering policy to transition to the

proposed tariff under Section 7 of Public Act 18-50

In a similar fashion with regards to Section 2 of

the proposed Bill on the residential solar

investment program by adding an additional l10

megawatts to the RSIP given the current run rate of

five to six megawatts of additional capacity a month

and our current capacity of 250 to 255 megawatts per

the policy a near date certain of January 1, 2021 is

also about the timing the transition from net metric

to a tariff compensation structure would occur.

The Green Bank sees it’s role in successfully

implementing Public Act 15-194 as achieving the

following three stated public policy goals:

First to achieve 300 megawatts of new residential

solar PV systems installed in the State before

December 31, 2022.

43 MARCH 5, 2019



Second to reduce the market reliance on incentives

through a declining incentive block structure.

Since 2011 we have reduced incentives by 83 percent

whereby they only comprise eight to ten percent of

the total overall installed cost of a project.

And third, most importantly to foster the sustained

orderly development of a State based industry

meaning that when we were done achieving the 300

megawatt public policy goal that the local industry

was vibrant enough to continue to sustainably

deliver an equal amount of systems to customers year

after year.

And if I might add, although it is unstated in

Public Act 15-194 the Green Bank has a fourth goal,

a commitment to ensure that solar PV is accessible

and affordable to Connecticut’s low to moderate

income families in minority communities. We have

just completed a report on this that we left in our

filings today. We see the benefits of a transition

to a tariff structure and the reasonable rate of

return approach set forth in Public Act 18-50 but we

first must ensure that the utilities have the

appropriate metering and billing systems in place to

handle the successful implementation of the policy

in terms or all compensation and timing options

which will require several years for them to put

into place. Over the last seven years the Green

Bank working with you, solar contractors, private

capital providers, DEEP, the utilities and HESS

contractors have created a $200 million dollar

market that has helping to deploy 60 megawatts of

clean renewable energy to help 7,500 families reduce

the burden of energy costs. With that we would be

happy to take any questions that you might have.

44 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you for that.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank

you Brian. I have a quick question concerning 959.

In your research have you identified funds, I don’t

want to say just waiting there to be applied for?

I’ve been working on something along with my

colleagues on trying to get the Federal Government

to recognize our COG system as county government so

we can apply for some funds that we now are not

eligible for. So in your research have you

identified funds, especially Ag funds that you, kind

of in the cross-hairs that you just need this pass

and then you’re gonna go after it?

BRIAN GARCIA: Yeah, I’ll invite Matt Macunas to

come up and join me, he has been our lead with the

Federal Government on this point. The Rural

Electrification Act of 1936 establishes programs

that allow for low cost federal loan funds to come

into states, specifically rural communities through

their energy efficiency and renewable energy

programs states can effectively access low cost

capital which we all know is very, very important to

advancing our clean energy economy. But they do

have specific eligibility requirements as to what

types of participants can become eligible. They’re

typically looking at competitive supplies, municipal

co-ops. We’ve been having ongoing conversations

with them for the past three years to see us as a

vehicle to deploy some of those funds. We’ve

actually provided them with this draft legislation

to ask them the question of does this get us over

the hurdle of you seeing Connecticut as a place to

invest your funds. But let me turn it to Matt to

offer some additional thoughts.

45 MARCH 5, 2019



MATT MACUNAS: Sure, Hi. Matt Macunas, Legislative

Liaison. It’s kind of like the bible for energy

policy here PA-07024, 1180 things like that. USDA

looks toward the Rural Electrification Act of 1936

so that is where they derive all their statutory

authority though Federal Code for that lending.

They’ve got a variety of programs that split out

underneath that for various targeted beneficiaries.

It’s general lending authorities that we are seeking

to establish that conduit with right here. The

Federal Farm Bill intends to be what update that

federal program and, this is only hearsay I’ve heard

that the most recent one might have extended out the

rurality definitions of the traditional population

bounds that they are limited to for the Rural

Electrification Act. It might be inclusive of the

larger metro area. We need to do the research on

that to figure that our for sure. It is something

that I’ve heard that might be extensible so that

could be a good thing for your proposal for counties

in that case. There might be something, so.

BRAIN GARCIA: So we continue to be very persistent.

We are trying to identify opportunities with the

Federal Government. Another example might be in

2016 the Green Bank Act, the National Green Bank Act

sponsored by Representative, Congresswoman Estee and

Senator Murphy. Our belief is that this year

Congressman Hines is going to rerelease the National

Green Bank Act which would effectively capitalize

the Department of Treasury with $50 billion dollars

that it can loan to states at low interest, at low

cost to support it’s various clean energy and

climate change policies. So we continue to try to

find ways of engaging the Federal Government in ways

46 MARCH 5, 2019



that will lower Connecticut’s energy costs while at

the same time deriving more clean energy deployment.

But as you can imagine it is a maze to try to work

through there and it’s a challenge but we’re

persistent, we’ll get there.

BRIAN FARUHAM: I think you’re feeling some of our

pain. It is definitely getting those Federal

dollars is far from a slam-dunk but anytime we can

open up an opportunity which will potentially drag

those federal dollars back home, that’s really what

it’s all about.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): And Mr. Chair if you wouldn’t

mind a second question on 7251? Listening to your

testimony to pause and maintain but how do you feel

about reevaluating the goals of the original SB 9

from last year?

BRIAN GARCIA: So I think the challenge for all of

us, right, is to balance our economic development in

jobs interest. We are trying to ensure fair costs

to all ratepayers. We are actually moving into an

era behind the meter renewable energy system where

battery storage is gonna start to play a bigger

role. When we start to think about solar power that

would be exported to the grid, we could now start to

have conversations in the coming year that power

will actually be stored and used when the homeowner

comes back at a peak time later on in the day. So

we will actually start to see more benefits coming

from households that pursue solar in battery

storage. So we want to ensure the preservation of

the local industry, we are all very committed to

jobs in the industry that we build here in the

state. We want to ensure that this technology is

47 MARCH 5, 2019



made more accessible to low to moderate income

families who, you know, any reduction in the burden

of energy costs to them plays a significant role in

their overall household income. So that a really

important part. You know, we had always, we didn’t

anticipate Public Act 18-50. We had always just come

from the perspective of implementing Public Act 15-

194 which was the Resident Solar Investment Program

in net metering and when 300 megawatts was hit net

metering would continue to be the market, right. So

we’re currently at 30,000 households. We have about

850,000 owner occupied households so we are at less

than, you know, three to four percent market

penetration. So I find it hard to think that we are

cost shifting to other ratepayers at this rate. If

we have higher penetration rates maybe in the ten to

fifteen percent then we are starting to cost shift

but they’re also benefits that these systems are

providing as well. We know this past summer during

the heat and humid days of late June, early July

that these systems were producing at peak in

Connecticut and collectively reducing all ratepayer

costs across the New England region and in

Connecticut. So we are now working on a report to

value that and to bring to the conversation what

these systems are also doing to benefit other

ratepayers. So net metering is important. We see

the prospect of the tariff ahead of us. What I was

eluding to in the reasonable rate of return is a

really interesting aspect of Section 7 which means

that if in 2020, 2021, and 2022 the Federal

Government reduces the investment tax credit which

is what is going to happen then reasonable rate of

return policy under the tariff would require the

tariff to increase to offset for that Federal

48 MARCH 5, 2019



reduction. So the tariff actually gives us an

interesting ways to weather external impacts in our

market but we need to figure out how to get from

here to there and what we’re hearing from the

contractors is more time. We know we know we need

the metering and billing systems in place to be able

to appropriately cost solar PV out to customers and

I think what we’re looking at in terms of

potentially this date certain of a January 1, 2021

date, net metering to that point would allow us to

transition to this new era of pricing and consumer

compensation.

That covered a lot of ground there but I think we

see the potential of the tariff and we want to

constructively get there.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you. You answered all

of my questions too so Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. You say you want to be to qualify as a

Community Development Financial Institution. What

preciously would that involve?

BRIAN FARUHAM: [Not on microphone]. I don’t think

that Green Bank.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): So you would create a sub-

entity.

BRIAN FARUHAM: That would be one potential option.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): And through that you would

then apply to the Department of Agriculture for the

Rural Electrification?

49 MARCH 5, 2019



BRIAN FARUHAM: Yeah, and we’re open to other

potential options. We’re just trying to get USDA to

yes. I don’t think that the Connecticut Green Bank

could become a CFI but we could set one up and

hopefully then.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH): Okay so sort of under your

umbrella, your little cousin as it were. And I’m

getting back Representative Gresko’s point, one I am

constantly amazed by what areas are eligible for

Department of Agriculture loans. It was My

Children’s Museum in Niantic and apparently East

Lyme qualifies for Department of Agriculture loans

and I have been assured by the Governor that he is

in the process of seeking Federal authorization to

have our Cogs treated a county equivalence for the

purpose of federal loans. So I think it’s a step in

the right direction. Thank you for your answers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Anyone else? Thank you.

I just want to say probably the other person in the

room that’s actually done a series of USDA Loans,

they are a great agency to work with and they have a

great track record. They are not as bureaucratic as

many of the other agencies out there and we’ve done

a number of projects with them and I hope that it

works out. Happy to give you guys the authority to

do that, thanks.

BRIAN GARCIA: We may solicit your support, Senator.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Call me anytime, I know a

few of them that are still there. Thank you. I

have to say one of the benefits of working with them

because they do a lot of municipal, quasi municipal

and non-profit, they do 40-year fixed rate loans

50 MARCH 5, 2019



which is almost, it is unheard of. I’ve never

actually seen an agency, low interest, 40-year fixed

loans for a wide range of contracts. So I think

they’re a great option.

BRIAN GARCIA: That’s a great point, if we can get

there you can understand all the benefit that can be

achieved with that long-term maturity and the low

cost capital it can really help us keep costs down

and decarbonize our system.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Yeah, I don’t know of any

other organization that will lend you money for that

amount of time. Mayor Hendrick from Groton.

MAYOR HENDRICK: Good morning, Co-Chairs Senator

Needleman, Representative Arconti, Ranking Members

Senator Formica, Representative Ferraro and

Distinguished Members of the Energy and Technology

Committee. My name is Keith Hendrick, I am the City

of Groton Mayor and I am here to speak in opposition

to Raised Bill 961 AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL

ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ENERGY

COOPERATIVES.

The City of Groton owns Groton Utilities and own

Bozrah Light and Power as such I am the Chairperson

for the Groton Utilities Commission and for Bozrah

Light and Power Utilities Commission. Between

Groton Utilities and Bozrah Light and Power we have

57 percent ownership of CMEEC. CMEEC includes

Groton Utility, Bozrah Light and Power, Norwalk

Public Utilities, South Norwalk the third taxing

district of Norwalk and Jewitt City.

My major customers with Groton Utilities and Bozrah

are General Dynamics Boat Division, Pfizer,

51 MARCH 5, 2019



Submarine Base New London, University of Connecticut

Avery Point Campus and Air Gas. We also have

approximately 15,000 to 20,000 customers which are

residential and for full disclosure Senator Somers

does reside in the City of Groton and does have

Groton Utilities as her provider.

So the question is why do you have a public utility?

We have a public utility provides low cost,

reliability, good will with the local ratepayers and

the return to the municipality. My cost is

currently 15.7 cents with kilowatt hour compared to

Eversource which is at 20 per kilowatt hour, it’s

about a 25 percent increase if we had to go to those

rates.

Reliability, my outages are typically measured in

terms of hours as opposed to days and weeks with

Eversource. The return to the municipality from the

utility is about $4 million dollars directly to the

utility as well as Concerts in the Park, Concerts at

the Beach and other events that they sponsor.

How are we able to do this? We are able to do it as

part of the cooperative that is CEEMC. We get low

cost energy through hedges of betting, hedges of

power and also physical hedges from our projects.

CMEEC has power generation projects and one of the

things there is two parts of that. Last year it was

$12 to $14 million dollar direct return in money to

the utilities and more importantly there was an

offset of power as far as a deferred cost for peak

production periods. So for peak periods and we have

these generation plants they can offset the power

cost and therefor there is a cost that we don’t get,

that we don’t have.

52 MARCH 5, 2019



As you know Public Act 1773 was adopted and enacted

in November 2017 and it added a ratepayer

representative, it added the annual reporting

requirements to the General Assembly, the five year

forensic examination, the monthly reporting on board

related expenses, it added the MECA, it implemented

new ethics and conflicts of interest travel policies

those kinds of things. The MECA has provided some

benefit so therefore I have said in my written

testimony that continuing with having MECA there

would be okay but most of what MECA has identified

is after we have been transparent with things that

have been released, either through the forensic

examination or through board meetings or through

other things hat CMEEC is trying to change.

There were a couple of things that I wanted, the

other thing, since the enactment of Public Act 1773

there have been no new violations that have been

identified. The MECA has not identified any, FOIA

has not identified any, whistleblower hasn’t

identified any and the newspaper has not identified

any. So my recommendation is you continue with PA

1773. There have been no new allegations. The FBI

indictments resulted as a result of the initial

information that came out about the Kentucky Derby

and that’s what fostered 1773.

Now a couple of things on the paying of the

attorney’s fees, CMEEC is paying the attorneys fee

because there’s a judge order in regard to Ed Prior.

So we went to the judge and said, nope we don’t want

to do that and the judge said you have to do it

because a previous internal legislation from CMEEC

and since then there are things that are being

changed. CMEEC is looking at the findings from the

53 MARCH 5, 2019



forensic examination and the Board has already asked

for a plan of action and milestones to make sure

that those examination findings are going to be

implemented.

The weighted vote, I wanted to address that real

quick. We have not had a weighted vote. I do have

that option to call for a weighted vote but the way

it’s setup is that each municipality has two member

delegates and a ratepayer representative, so

everybody gets equal votes, equal footing on that

and when we have our meetings we follow Roberts’

Rules of Order. So as long as we have a quorum and

things come up we have a vote. There could be a

case where one of the municipalities doesn’t have

all its representatives there but the meeting is

still held as a result of the way we follow Roberts’

Rules of Order.

The FBI indictment was for specific individuals and

specific acts that they found, that they conducted.

It was not CMEEC in general. There had been no

allegations that CMEEC as a body of the Board of

Directors as a body are not doing the job that they

are supposed to do and not providing low cost power

to the MEUs and therefore to the ratepayers. There

has been a turnover of staff and there has been a

turnover of Board Members. Currently on the Board

Members we have 11 of 15 Board Members that sit

there now are new since May of 2017 and none of

those members were on the, none of the members when

to the Kentucky Derby. One of the challenges we do

have is that Senator Somers alluded to, mentioned

that Drew Rankin was voted back as CEO was because

he was indicted, we had not placed him on leave

without pay yet and so therefor the way this were

54 MARCH 5, 2019



set up we had to put that name on there. There are

also current members that are officers that went to

the Kentucky Derby but if you look at the reason

why, part of that is because if you look for

experience most of our member Board Members are only

a year to a year-and-a half one and so that is one

of the challenges. I do believe that in December

when we have a new vote that all those members will

be voted out and you will have new voices on the

Board at the office level.

CMEEC has stopped the margin fund that is self-

governing. As regards to FOI, as far as I am aware,

the State FOI Commission has not made CMEEC disclose

anymore than they already have disclosed and have

sent out additionally CMEEC in June of 2018, CMEEC

sent a 200 page Annual Report out to different

people including Senator Somers.

There was something about the formation of CMEEC.

Prior to CMEEC, MEUs were captive wholesale

customers of the CLMP who is now Eversource. The

MEUs were subject to price squeeze with CLP

wholesale rates, higher than CLP large customer

retail rates, stifling economic growth in the MEU

service areas. CLMP also imposed conditions of

wholesale services in some instances that prevented

MEUs from serving large customers. Connecticut MEUs

entered an antitrust charges again CLMP in pursuit

of rights to jointly purchase and transmit power to

engage in the wholesale market including acquiring

ownership in nuclear plants and regional interacting

transmission facilities. The result was Chapter 101

(a), section 7-233 of the Connecticut General

Statutes that allowed CMEEC to join, correction, to

form the Joint Action Agency. The antitrust case

55 MARCH 5, 2019



settlement secure joint transmission and generation

resources from CLMP to form the initial CMEEC power

supply for aggravate loads of MEU. CMEEC began

delivering power to MEUs in 1980.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Excuse me, do you think we

could sort of wrap it up a little bit?

MAYOR HENDRICK: Yes, sir.


MAYOR HENDRICK: So one last thing, one of the

things I’m concerned about is the withstanding

language, correction, the notwithstanding language

in Section 7. Basically what that’s saying is you

can do everything that you’re allowed to do except

you can’t. So all it’s gonna allow us to do is just

to purchase power and sell it to the cooperatives

and the legislation that allows projects, it allows

sell power in state and out of state and, like I

said that money, those monies and cost avoidance are

translated to savings down to the ratepayers through

the rate stabilization fund which offsets power,

power costs and gives us reduced cost and then I

also have a rate stabilization fund at the Groton

Utilities. We had a cost of service study done, we

actually raised rates but the cost of energy stayed

the same, customer’s bills stayed the same because

of our rate stabilization funds due to the money

that we had from projects that we put into our rate

stabilization fund. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Mayor.

Anybody have any questions? Senator Fonfara.


Good morning, Mayor. I think we have a few more

56 MARCH 5, 2019



minutes for this morning. You heard Senator Somers

testimony I believe.

MAYOR HENDRICK: Yes, sir I did.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): She made mention to the

requirements regarding an individual town exiting

CMEEC that one had to sue, is that accurate?

MAYOR HENDRICK: That is correct. Wallingford sued

but I don’t know that they sued to drop out as much

as they were suing as a result of one of the charges

that they felt was inappropriate. But Wallingford

has exited and they have also left some projects and

as a result there are projects that are out there

that are now, are coming back to the individual MEUs

to see if the MEUs want to pick up extra share in

those projects.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): If Groton were to want to

exit, what would it have to do?

MAYOR HENDRICK: Ask me that again, sir.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): If your town wanted to exit

CMEEC what would it have to do?

MAYOR HENDRICK: I honestly don’t know cause it’s

never really come up. We’re happy with the way

CMEEC is providing power to us, the cost of the

power, the way that we’re delivering power. The

concern that I have is that the one section, the

notwithstanding section, that could emasculate or

kill CMEEC and then therefore CMEEC goes away then

we’re left with Eversource or we have to go figure

out how we’re gonna provide that power. How are we

gonna get that power? Some of the smaller MEUs

would not survive that because they are not big

57 MARCH 5, 2019



enough in order to pick that up. Groton Utilities

might be able to, Norwich Public Utilities might be

able to but others might not be able to do that.

And so that’s one of the concerns that I have. The

other thing is this is a regional issue. I have an

electric boat here. General Dynamics makes, is

hiring 5,000 additional new employees in the next

five years for the Columbia Class they are building.

We have the submarine base there. We have worked

hard with the submarine base with the solar power

that we did with the cells there and with the fuel

cells they’re doin onboard to help them so that they

are resistant to any future attacks from BRAC. I

also have other large employers, Pfizer and Airgas

that could be influenced to relocate if the power

costs to them skyrocket or it is increased. And so

therefore that is a regional aspect, you’re talking

the Southeast Region of Connecticut and that is a

concern that I have with this Bill.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Also are there any aspects

of 961 that you feel, I mean we’re, none of us have

all the answers, and this process helps to hopefully

find the best path with the issues that come before

us. From your perspective are there any aspects and

you don’t have to answer today if you can report

back to the Chairs of the Committee what aspects of

961 might be worth supporting from your perspective

in other member towns?

MAYOR HENDRICK: Well in my written testimony I did

support the continuation of the MECA at the $70,000

dollar level. I do think though if the MECA is

gonna do the job the MECA needs to do the job. And

what I mean by that either he is qualified to do it

or he’s not qualified to do it and I am against the

58 MARCH 5, 2019



additional $30,000 dollars for consultants and

things like that. He has, there have been some

recommendations he has made and that have been

embraced by CMEEC and by the Board and we have done

that. There are things that I think we might do on

our own. One of the challenges you run into is that

some of the problems that have been identified

occurred several years ago and now you have new

management and leadership there and we’re trying to

turn the corner and we need that opportunity to do

this. Some of this regulation is intrusive enough

that it is almost like trying to take somebody’s

pulse by putting your foot on their neck and that is

hard for us to do. And just because you can’t see

everything doesn’t mean that somebody is trying to

sneak around and do something underhanded. That is

a challenge that we face. I do think that in the

beginning there was a missed opportunity to go the

ratepayers and say, “We are sorry for what we did we

understand why you’re upset, we understand why

you’re made and this is what we’re doin to fix it.”

That opportunity was missed then but under the new

leadership that we have with the Board and with

CMEEC I see that we are trying to turn that corner.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Thank you, Mayor. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you so much.

Anybody else have anything? No.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Good morning, Mr. Mayor. Thank

you for joining us today and testifying. I

appreciate it. As you know I’m the Representative

for Jewitt City which is one of the public utilities

in CMEEC. When I first learned that ratepayer

59 MARCH 5, 2019



dollars were going to trips for the Kentucky Derby I

was fuming, that’s unacceptable. You know I see

people working very, very hard in Jewitt City. A

lot of people are on fixed incomes. We have elderly

and to see those dollars being abused for people

going to the Kentucky Derby is unacceptable. With

that said, we need to make sure it doesn’t happen

again. I know you’ve addressed that, we’ve talked

about it but I’m just trying to understand. You

said in your written testimony here that having more

audits, a general audit would increase the

ratepayers rate fees? Did I read that correctly?

MAYOR HENDRICK: Well, yes. Now here’s way.

Anything that has to be done additionally that is

gonna cost money ends impacting the ratepayers and

that is the challenge that we have. Now somebody

needs to weigh out is that worth it doin that and I

don’t know that, I don’t know that an additional

audit would hurt or not hurt. I know there is gonna

be, the one thing that I’m concerned about is if

we’re doing forensic audits and I may have a

misunderstanding of this but if it is a five year

lookback and then I’m doing the next year and it’s a

five year lookback there’s duplication in that

redundancy so I wouldn’t like that but if you did a

five year, an every five years, you look back then I

could understand that and I could see the benefit of

that. On your first comment, I agree with you. I was

appalled. I was the Deputy Mayor then when this

first come out on Kentucky Derby and one of the

things I asked the Mayor at the time was did they

have any deliverables when they came out? Was there

an agenda? Were there meeting minutes? Was there

anything else and she said, “No.” I said they were

60 MARCH 5, 2019



on a boondoggle and they need to be held accountable

and two of the members that went, my director and my

finance director went there, they went through an

ethics hearing at the City of Groton and they were

found that they had violated the ethics policy and

there were things that they had to do and they have

completed those things and so in my mind, I put them

behind me because they have been held accountable

and we just moved forward.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): My, again my concern is that

this will happen again. Now where I struggle a

little bit, maybe I am over simplifying this, I’m

not an engineer, I’m not an electrician but there

was excess money essentially to take a trip to the

Kentucky Derby that didn’t effect ratepayers but an

audit would, that’s where I struggle a little bit.

MAYOR HENDRICK: Well I never said that, I never

said that the ratepayer money is ratepayer money,

whether it is used for just a good purpose or if it

used for an illicit purpose. So if it doesn’t get

back to the ratepayer I have some issues with that.

So I agree with you. You know, one of the things

that we’re starting to do now is when are meetings,

we’re having meetings at reasonable locations.

Another thing we’re doing is we’re not doing any

junkets. Junkets are off the table, period. We’re

also not doing any strategic retreats or anything

else. Now PA 1773 specifically talks about if

you’re gonna do those, it needs to stay within the

State of Connecticut but one of the things that I’m

trying to get us to understand is we need to stay

local. We need to be in touch with our ratepayers.

We need to walk in their shoes and we need to

understand why they were upset. We need to

61 MARCH 5, 2019



understand why they are still upset. There are

people that have come to me that have said, this

happened two years ago, why are people still mad.

And I’m like that attitude is the reason that CMEEC

is under the scrutiny that it’s under and the MEUs

are under the scrutiny they’re under. And I agree

with you 100 percent. Now goin back to trying to

answer your question any cost that we have, any

profits that we make need to get back to the

ratepayers someway. I don’t know what the cost of

the audits would be in time or in money but I agree

with you the junkets and Kentucky Derby, golf

outings and those kind of things, they are not okay

and I’m not sure what kind of group think got us

into that. That was before my time. I would like

to think that I wouldn’t have went but then again I

wasn’t offered that choice so I don’t know. But I

don’t think I would have went to that cause that

just doesn’t make sense to me. But because I think

that the money that we have should go to the

ratepayers to try to keep low rates.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Okay, now the forensic

examination every five years what is the difference

between, can you define what a forensic examination

is say compared to a standard audit?

MAYOR HENDRICK: Well and that is the question I

have with this legislation is when you’re talking

about an audit are we talking about an audit of

practices or are we talking about an audit of

financial records. The reason we have, the reason

my understanding is the reason the forensic

examination was used, that term is instead of a

forensic audit was because there was no definition

of a forensic audit. And goin back to this there

62 MARCH 5, 2019



were and CMEEC can talk to this when they come up

here but there were RFPs that were put out to try to

find somebody to do that forensic examination and no

body wanted to bid on it because one auditor doesn’t

want to rat out another auditor and our one

financial person, they all work together, different

projects doesn’t want to say you didn’t do financing

auditing right. And so that’s why they originally

started and we’re gonna go down the path of here’s

the only auditor we have which happens to be the

auditor we have. And then the problem with that

obviously is how do you audit yourself. How do you

do a forensic audit of an audit that you’ve already

conducted? Bill Kowalski did bring that up, it was

resolved, Cohn Resnick did the audit, correction,

did the forensic examination. They identified some

things. The MECCA Bill Kowalski has asked for

additional information on that, CMEEC is gonna

provide that additional information and that came

us. Now the other part of this is the audit, is

that an audit of business practices and I’m not sure

that’s where I get confused with the legislation is

what are we trying to look at? Are we trying to

audit the businesses practices of CMEEC and of the

Board or are we trying to do financials or are we

trying to do both and I’m not sure of the added

benefit? I will tell you we have a young board and

as a young board we are learning, we are growing, we

are getting smarter and more knowledgeable in the

requirements so that we can be a stronger force so

that we can be the oversight that is needed for

CMEEC cause the question gets asked sometimes who

works for who? Does CMEEC work for the Board or

does the Board work for CMEEC? CMEEC should work

for the Board and the Board as we get stronger will

63 MARCH 5, 2019



be able to evaluate and look at and ask the hard

questions to make sure we’re not gonna get into this

situation again.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): So currently the five year

forensic examination who or what entity will conduct

the examination?

MAYOR HENDRICK: Well I guess we will have to go out

for bid again. Cohn Resnick is the group that just

conducted the forensic examination that was

completed in December. So it was completed in

December, was made public at the end of December and

then, since then here we are in March now but CMEEC

and the Board are lookin at this. The Board has

only met, I think officially twice sine the results

of the examination came out.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): So there any those five years

of forensic examination is there some type of audit

that will be conducted internally to make sure two

plus two adds up to four, the money checks out, the

things that.

MAYOR HENDRICK: Yes, sir. There is by normal

business practice and I think also required by law

CMEEC has an annual audit of their records. I mean

they have their own records that they keep and they

are audited annually. I know for example the

municipality we have our CAFR Consolidated Annual

Financial Report and that is done by an outside

agency to look to see if we are following practices

and look to see if there is any glaring oversight.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll

just close by saying, you know, what happened was

aggreges. We agree on that. What I need as a

64 MARCH 5, 2019



legislator, as somebody that one of the public

utilities in my district I need to ensure that this

doesn’t happen again and we put stopgap measures in

that this don’t happen again, again at the same time

protect the ratepayer from this and make sure that

what we put in fair to the ratepayer, essentially

the taxpayer and the citizens, not only of Jewitt

City buy all the ratepayers that fit within CMEEC.

Thank you for your answers and Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

MAYOR HENDRICK: And going back to this, your Jewitt

City would be one, because it is a small MEU, Jewitt

City is potentially one of the MEUs that could be

negatively impacted if this legislation, if this

Bill is implemented in it’s entirety. That is a

concern that I have.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): I look forward to all of us

workin together to make sure that it doesn’t

negatively impact the ratepayer but at the same time

make sure this don’t happen again. I applaud

Senator Somers and some others that are taking this

initiative. We want to make sure this does not

happen again and make sure there is accountability.

Accountability is important and we need checks and

balances.

MAYOR HENDRICK: I agree with you. It’s a delicate

balance between how do you have the accountability

and not squash somebody and still have the ability

to run a business to make money so MEUs can use that

and to have low rates for the ratepayers. There

needs ultimately to be about the ratepayers.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

65 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Anybody else? I just

would like say for a minute that I’ve been involved

in one other quasi-public agency, Essex was the host

town, I’m First Selectman there of one of the old

CRA facilities and these quasi-public agencies in

general you’re either in or out. You’re either

public or you’re private and I think that, I’m not

sure how much intervention the State should do but I

think that it is, there is no question about the

fact that the organization reports to your board.

You have a fiduciary and legal obligation to make

that happen but the psychology of running a private

entrepreneurial kind of business with all of it’s

incumbent good, bad and ugly can lead to the kind of

abuse that you saw there. That you are either a

private agency or you’re out there for the public

good and so I think that you guys really need to

figure out what’s appropriate. I think the pendulum

may swing, you know, to the point were you won’t let

anybody leave the state on the agency’s dime and

that may not be the smartest decision either. You

want to be creative and innovative but you are

talking about ratepayer money, you know, you’re

statutorily empowered so that can lead people to

feel that they have protections that they can abuse.

So the Board really needs to have a solid hand on

the organization and make sure that management is

totally accountable to the Board because ultimately

the Board is on the hook and you guys are the

responsible parties. So with that I want to say

thank you for coming. Appreciate your willingness

to testify today.

MAYOR HENDICK: Thank you, sir and thank you to the

Committee.

66 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Next up is Commissioner

Dykes from DEEP. Good morning -- afternoon.

CMSR. DYKES: Good afternoon. So pleased to be here

and to be joined by our Deputy Commissioner for

Energy Mary Sotos. I know you have a big docket in

front of you for today’s hearing so I’m just going

to offer oral testimony on two Bills although we

have submitted written testimony on a number of them

and would be happy to take questions.

The first Bill that I would like to comment on is

the Governor’s Bill HB 7151 which is AN ACT

CONCERNING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS. This is one

of those where unfortunately because of the failure

of leadership at the federal level in terms of

continuing with, you know, appliance standards which

has been embraced on a bipartisan standpoint by many

administrations in Washington, we see unfortunately

the U.S. Department of Energy backsliding on it’s

requirements to move ahead with efficiency standards

for a broad range of different products. So the

Bill here today reflects not just Connecticut but a

number of states in the North East who are

considering or committed to filing identical

standards to help fill the leadership gap at the

federal level to ensure that we can continue to make

progress in providing families and businesses in our

states with the energy and water saving appliances

taking advantage of cost-effective technology that

is out there to ensure that we can provide bill

savings to our customers. Specifically there is

lightbulb standard that the DOE has indicated in

February that they intend to rescind a prior

expansion of an eligible lightbulb that would be

subject to stricter efficiency standards that will

67 MARCH 5, 2019



come into effect in 2022. So this is just

backstopping that previously announced commitment

from the Department of Energy to ensure that this

rollback will not occur.

I should also say that these appliance standards

that are done at the federal level will typically,

are really the foundation, the bedrock for cost

effective efficiency savings because they ensure the

products in the marketplace are already at an

appropriate level of efficiency and that saves the

states from having to through our Utility

Administrator Efficiency Programs for example to,

you know, invest in marketing dollars or other sort

of rebates and buydowns on the price of more

efficient products that become necessary to steer

customers to those that are most cost effective in

the marketplace. So we are achieving very

significant saving on our energy bills everyday

because of this appliance standards the Federal

Government is putting into place and so it is really

important that these can continue. Then of course

the fact that we are not just doing this alone but

recognizing that we want to make sure that

manufacturers are intended to bring forward these

products, it’s key that we are doing this with a

group of states that we are providing identical

standards across the different states that are

participating to help make it easy for those

companies to comply and do the right thing here. So

we are excited to see this Bill raised for

discussion and happy to take any questions on the

appliance standards.

68 MARCH 5, 2019



And then also I can take questions there or move to

the other I was going to talk about which was 7251

but at your pleasure.

Okay, so House Bill 7251 this is AN ACT CONCERNING

LONG-TERM CONTRACTS FOR CERTAIN CLASS I GENERATION

PROJECTS AND THE RESIDENTIAL SOLAR INVESTMENT

(RSIP)PROGRAM AND REQUIRING A STUDY OF THE VALUE OF

SOLAR.

So we are supportive of the intent of this

legislation which would provide more time for the

process that is already underway with respect to a

transition to a new framework for compensating

behind the need for renewable resources. It is no

secret this has been a very controversial issue and

there has been a lot of work underway at the Public

Utilities Regulatory Authority implementing Public

Act 18-50 from last year or Senate Bill 9 which

began this transition to two new types of tariffs

for both commercial industrial and also residential

facilities. You know the administration is really

committed to ensuring that we have a sustainable

pathway for behind the meter facilities for

customers to be able to adopt these. We know there

has been a, you know, this is one of the sort of

shining examples of a transition to a clean energy

economy that we see customers not only being able to

participate in lowering their bills through

installing behind the meter renewable facilities but

also that we’ve seen companies develop and invest in

Connecticut in the jobs that are providing the, you

know, helping to get these facilities installed and

that has been a great success story for the State.

69 MARCH 5, 2019



We also in the comprehensive energy strategies at

DEEP issued now over a year ago recognizing the

importance of having a portfolio of different types

of resources that will help renewable resources that

can enable the State to make its transition to our

ambitious and urgent requirements to reduce our

carbon emissions from the power sector. So we

believe in that portfolio approach. We have a

balance of grid scale procurements for example that

are bringing forward very cost effective renewable

facilities on a larger scale as well as the

framework of Public Act 18-50 which is enabling a

transition to a new compensation scheme to ensure

that, for a portion of that portfolio of meeting our

climate goals that are behind the meter resources

continue to have a sustained pathway for growth.

And we know that there are a lot of benefits that

behind the meter facilities provide that for example

grid scale renewables can’t. For example in helping

to optimize for the efficiency you don’t have the

same types of line losses, of delivering the

electricity from a grid scale project to a customer

when it solar on a customer’s roof for example.

There may be opportunities to help with avoiding

some of the costs or investments the utilities may

need to make on their distribution system by

collocating distributed generation with, paired with

electric vehicle charging for example or in an area

where you might have increased demand distributed

generation can help to address those issues and help

to avoid utility costs.

This as well, you know, we struggle with sightings

in our state. We are a very dense state and we have

a lot of focus on maintaining our core forests,

70 MARCH 5, 2019



maintaining prime agricultural land and behind the

meter resources where they can be sighted on a

customer presence is obviously help to optimize for

those sighting issues. So these are just a few of

the examples of benefits Behind the Meter Resource

provide that we know there is also a lot of changes,

positive changes in terms of the install costs, the

technology costs coming down for solar panels for

example and we’ve had a history if our State of

using things like competition, more transparent

pricing mechanisms as we see with LREC/ZREC Program

that has been very successful over the last couple

of years to ensure that we can continue to make this

a market opportunity for distributed generation

possible but at the same time maximizing for

ratepayers to benefit helping to, you know right

size the amount of incentive that is necessary for

developers to move these projects forward.

So there’s a lot of work ongoing and there is a lot

of work yet do to in the implementation of 18-50.

We have been pleased to have to start to have some

discussions cause I know many of the stakeholders

involved in that process and who I know are very

eager to testify and be involved in the discussion

with the Committee about what the future of Public

Act 18-50 Program will be so we’re happy to engage

in those discussion with the Committee. We’re open

to, you know, the ideas people are brining forward

but we think that it is really important that, you

know there is allowance of some additional time so

that we can address some of the technical challenges

and clarifications that may be necessary in Public

Act 18-50 that is something we could be supportive

of. We believe that it would be important to specify

71 MARCH 5, 2019



though perhaps a date certain for the transition to

the new program for the residential programs as

opposed to tying that extension to an extension of

the Residential Solar Investment Program. I’d be

happy to talk more that. We included that in our

written testimony.

And then finally with respect to the Bill’s

direction around the Value of Solar Study we are

simply recommending, we see the important benefit of

undertaking that type of investigation. We think

that DEEP and also PURA have some important

expertise in this area, PURA with respect to its

modernization docket which will help to provide more

input and around the potential opportunities to

avoid distribution costs behind the meter resources

and then DEEP of course has the integrated resource

plan underway that will help to clarify and project

forward what the value of avoided generation

capacity cost will be. So we think that this is,

you know, the type of study that will be

informative. We are open to doing it and we think

it may be helpful to authorize give DEEP and PURA

the discretion to conduct such as study jointly

given the relevance to our various proceedings. So

what that, happy to take any questions.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Commissioner.

Anybody have any questions?

REP. PERONE (137TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner for your testimony, I

appreciate it. On 7151 it is my understanding we

have adopted the California standards as far as the

appliances.

72 MARCH 5, 2019



CMSR. DYKES: We have in some cases adopted those

4Ds though we believe that this additional statutory

language is necessary to authorize us to move

forward with these particular class of appliances

and Mary feel free to jump in if there is anything

to add there.

REP. PERONE (137TH): And did you want to say

something, Mary?

MARY SOTOS: Just to note that, you know, there are

a variety of products listed, I think at least 18

different products and I was going to say think

about the lighting products as sort of a separate

category so of those 17 product categories in terms

of why they were chosen and sort of what is their

other relative benchmark, so these are all product

categories that at the federal level did not have

standards in place previously. But there are

relevant certifications from California or you know,

you may be familiar with an EPA EnergyStar or Water

Sense Certification so in all these cases there are

already an existing certification, it is not the

State coming up with what the standard should be and

again as the Commissioner pointed out these are the

same categories and the same specific standards or

certifications referenced that our being embraced by

other states using this model Bill.

REP. PERONE (137TH): Thank you, Mary and so we are

going to setup our own standards for these newly

added above and beyond EnergyStar, we’re gonna setup

our own standards with this regional?

MARY SOTOS: So this, the language here would be

referencing some of those existing certifications,

so it wouldn’t be us determining what the right

73 MARCH 5, 2019



level of efficiency it would be, it would be relying

on either existing certifications or you mentioned

California. California has often the leadership role

here in doing that additional testing and

determination of what the standards should be so

when some of the product cases you reference there

is a reference to an established California

standard.

REP. PERONE (137TH): Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Senator Petit.

REP. PETIT (22ND): Demoted again. [Laughter] Thank

you, Senator.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Sorry about that. You’ve

been promoted or demoted.

REP. PETIT (22ND): Maybe everybody that knows the

answers to this so, excuse my naivety. So the

manufactures do in general do they manufacture to

the most rigid standard and use it as marketing tool

or do they divide up their manufacturing and

manufacture some products that are more energy

efficient and perhaps, I don’t know if it costs them

less to have some products that are less energy

efficient do they do a bifurcated or trifurcated

kind of marketing scheme across the nation or they

all manufacture to the lowest standard?

CMSR. DYKES: So where there is the federal standard

in place obviously they’re complying with that

across the country. The challenge here is that we

see the Federal Government not taking this role so,

you know, different manufactures may have different

strategies reflecting, you know, and for different

74 MARCH 5, 2019



products, the goal for states taking action here and

this is certainly why California has been able to be

a leader is where we can establish standards that

are uniform across a broad segment of the market

then obviously that creates the incentive for

manufacturers to comply with the standards to, you

know, they may consider making, focusing on product

lines that are conforming with those standards and

perhaps making that available even in states where,

you know, the standards aren’t in play.

REP. PETIT (22ND): So do you have any feedback. You

say other states have done this so have you had

feedback from any manufacturers where they are

already do this but won’t be an issue or will it

create costs for them to make some of these changes

or again will they use it as a marketing too saying,

hey we are more energy efficient now and we’ll save

you money as a marketing tool in a positive sense?

MARY SOTOS: Sure, um I would point to what the

Commissioner said other states have already had

begun this process so this model Bill was passed in

Vermont so that is the sort of one example that we

can see of this full suite of products but both in

Vermont and Massachusetts where this is being

discussed there has been feedback on specific

product categories where, you know the industry has

said we’re not quite ready to be able to produce

products at that level so I think we can have, you

know, a dialogue with the Committee and manufactures

here to see if there is that level of specific

feedback. But again that is one product out of the

list, you know, of 17 that we’ve seen that has

gotten that feedback.

75 MARCH 5, 2019



And then on the lighting side, California was

actually sort of early in putting into place at the

state level those same sort of federal standards.

So on the lighting side that has been going very

well in California.

REP. PETIT (22ND): Are any or many of these

manufacturers in Connecticut or New England and how

does it impact international manufacturers?

CMSR. DYKES: It’s a great question with respect the

international. I know that this is an area where we

relied and speaking to my past experience I’ve

worked in the Department of Energy in the Counsel’s

Office there we were very focused on ensuring there

is a level playing field for American and foreign

manufacturers which relied on coordination with

Customs and ensuring that there is proper

enforcement against those international companies

who are selling into the U.S. market subject to

these regulations when they enter the stream of

commerce in the United States. So with respect to

manufacturing we could certainly get back to the

Committee unless Mary you have specifics in terms of

the manufactures that maybe headquartered here or

have operations here for some of these different

appliances.

MARY SOTOS: Yeah, so I think we will likely hear

from associations of different product manufacturers

so you know, on the lighting side at this point in

the global market there is very little lighting or

light bulbs that are manufactured here in the U.S.

but the other product categories you know I thing

there’s, you’re gonna hear from a few that may have

a presence in Connecticut but this Bill also, I

76 MARCH 5, 2019



should just clarify, you know, is a requirement at

the point of sale. So it’s not a requirement for any

business or household to you know, change out what

they currently have, it is about what is going to be

actually available sort of at your Home Depot or

other places again starting in a phased approach so

that the less efficient products, you know, vendors

would have an opportunity to deplete their inventory

but then only be required to source these higher

efficiency products for sale going forward.

REP. PETIT (22ND): I realize it could be a long

answer but the shortest answer is good, in a global

economy will these standards be better than most of

European or Asian standards or do we lag behind

other industrialized areas of the world in terms of

these guidelines?

MARY SOTOS: I would say generally speaking, we’ve

seen examples in Europe being at the forefront of

many of these product specifications. But again

thinking about the standards being set here would be

setting a floor also know that here is voluntary

certifications that are sort of trying to take us

into more of that leadership role that would get us

closer to, you know, to where we see sort of the

leading edge of some of that, but I think we would

be confident that this suite of standards actually

represents high efficiency, you know, sense of

progress for Connecticut.

REP. PETIT (22ND): Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Representative Ackert.

77 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a

follow up, so do we know, back on the same

legislation, the same Bill, and I see that we like

another 50 items approximately that are in the list

now that I’m seeing, is that about right? Oh no,

maybe not. Air compressor on it looks like new, so

are these now being sold that you know of that are

being promoted and sold at this time in Connecticut.

I think most times I see something that does already

say, you know, energy rating out there now and it’s

not a mandate, it seems to be, you know, a choice.

Is that?

MARY SOTOS: So all of the products that are in this

list are already available, are meeting the standard

and available from multiple manufacturers. So yes,

this is not trying to set some new product that

hasn’t even been created yet. These are all

products that there is a version from multiple

manufacturers that meets the specifications.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Okay and do we know and I’m

just, you know, thinking about price costs, you know

of a product. I imagine as the more they’re being

sold sometimes I think when there is a mandate that

maybe here is a percentage being added on so you can

sell now something, thinking about the family, you

know, that they just lost their refrigerator,

probably their paycheck and they’re going in and

trying to find a refrigerator to replace that. So

I’m just thinking have we noticed any price bump in

the market because of that, it’s just a question I’m

thinking of in terms of some of items here are kind

of high cost items. That’s all I was thinking of.

Do we know?

78 MARCH 5, 2019



CMSR. DYKES: I mean our focus with these policies of

course is often times consumers maybe looking at the

cost of the appliance but not factoring in what the

operating costs are going to be so the whole key of

this is that, you know, LEDs are a great example of

that. That you know, an incandescent bulb is going

to be cheaper on the shelf but when you factor in

the savings on your electricity bill from operating

with, you know, and LED as opposed to incandescents

are like little heaters frankly that these appliance

standards help to make those savings more

transparent and more reflected in the customer

choice of front.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Actually in Connecticut I think

we’ve done a great job is subsidizing LEDs they’re

cheaper than incandescent now if you go to the

store, I buy a whole lot of lightbulbs.

CMSR. DYKES: And part of that is because the

conservation movement matching program where we are

helping to make the cost lower at the point of sale

but to the extent that we have, you know, progress

with these federal standards to basically make that

what is available as the baseline on the shelves

that become less necessary for us to then place

additional incentives at the point of sale to

encourage people to make that more efficient choice.

So that’s why these are highly, highly cost

effective sort of framework for our efficiency

programs and help us repurpose those end dollars to

other types of savings.

MARY SOTOS: And I might just add the analysis that

has been done and not by Connecticut this is by,

again industry associations that are forwarding,

79 MARCH 5, 2019



they are doing research in this area as well as

again examples from other states, that the payback

from the customer perspective for these different

products, these higher efficiency products would

range from zero to three years so again paybacks

thinking in terms of you may pay a little bit more

up front but you’re recouping that in this case,

very quickly through savings on your energy bill.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you and I appreciate that

just making sure that the folks that need to buy

that day, you know, an item that they have to have,

that is affordable granted we would know well but it

will pay off but right now this is how much I have

in my checkbook so that’s what I want to keep in

mind on that. Thank you, appreciate the answers and

thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Thank you, Representative.

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and

thank you Commissioner for bring forward this Bill

today. It seems high time that we consider energy

efficiency standards. But I was wondering if you

had seen the testimony presented by the Association

of Home Appliance Manufacturers that call out at

least one section of the appliances that could be

problematic, putting on my Chair of Public Health

hat, there is the conversation about air purifiers

and striking the appropriate balance between

reducing energy use and optimizing the performance

of a lot of those products to make sure that they

really serve the function, the important health

function to which they are intended. Have you

thought at all about maybe needing to moderate the

80 MARCH 5, 2019



EnergyStar minimum standard in that specific context

or is that just, you know, one association not

wanting to be singled out?

CMSR. DYKES: I think that, I think as we indicated,

you know, looking forward to and would welcome the

opportunity to have the discussion with the

Committee as you consider all the feedback that you

are receiving from manufacturers and others in terms

of these impacts but I don’t know with respect, we

would be happy to have that discussion.

MARY SOTOS: And I think as I was alluding to before

that in other states there have been at least one

product that I’ve said has gotten feedback or sort

of push backed in the industry so air purifiers is

one of those products and so I think taking into

account the high asthma rates we have in Connecticut

and the importance of air quality I think we would

want to look thoroughly, you know, if there were

going to be changes or trade off there because I can

agree with your goal here, you’re Public Health and

I’m sure that not only we have high efficiency

purifiers but purifiers that are actually working to

improve the health and indoor air quality.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Well thank you for your

consideration and potential flexibility. Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Any other questions?

Representative Gresko.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank

you for your testimony. Obviously you’ve heard the

outcry from the solar industry concerning the

81 MARCH 5, 2019



successor tips and I’m wondering do you feel that it

is justified?

CMSR. DYKES: Well you know I think that there are

technical issues particularly with respect to the

implementation for the netting tariff that was

included in Section 7 of Senate Bill 9. I think

there is things that could benefit from better

clarification there addressing the timeframe for the

installation of metering infrastructure for example,

for the utilities to be able to implement whatever

netting period PURA ultimately choses I think is

something that again will benefit from more time to

address. I think that we are, you know, within this

goal we recognize and we hear from folks saying, you

know, there are challenges with metering. You see

jurisdictions across the country looking at how to

you transition to something to what is the next

more, the next 2.0 sort of approach to compensating

this __22242___ generation. We are, you know,

looking at other jurisdictions. We’re listening to,

you know, folks that are suggesting that, you know,

some of the challenges with this particular

approach. But we think that, you know, there’s a

lot of work that’s already underway at PURA and

understanding and addressing some of these issues.

We think that with additional time it is, you know,

we can also work with the Committee to ensure that

there may be clarifications around particularly

there technical issues that may challenge the

implementation. There is a lot of work, you know,

yet to be done but with think the core of what’ in

Public Act 18-50 is what we should be working from.

We think there is a lot of flexibility that is

provided in that Statute for PURA to consider things

82 MARCH 5, 2019



like, you know, electric system benefits, time

abuse, how to address, you know, storage some of

these other elements that are going to be critical

and hopefully informed by the grid modernization

work that PURA has underway. So I think that is

where I’ll end my comment there but we’re listening,

and we’re geared to be a productive part of, you

know, participant in this discussion.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Any other questions? I have

a quick question. Representative Demicco?

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank

you for coming to testify, both of you. I am going

to ask a question or two about 7251 specifically

about the current net metering program. It was

suggested to me by several groups who are concerned

about last year’s SB 9 and Section 7 in particular

that we should hit the pause button and maintain the

current net metering system, net metering program

while we’re doing this study of the value of solar.

Is there a reason why that is not being

contemplated?

CMSR. DYKES: I think and I apologize if I misread

the Bill but, Representative I believe that’s what

this Bill does. It extends the timeframe for when

that metering would sunset which would enable, you

know, a valued source study to be conducted, it

would also enable, you know, the possibility to

address some of those technical implementation

examples that I cited. So we think that is what the

Bill does and not, you know, we understand

additional time may be needed in order to ensure a

83 MARCH 5, 2019



sustainable predictable transition to a new

framework.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Well then I apologize, maybe I

misread the Bill in that case but in any event, the,

you know, this whole I guess we’ll have to wait and

see what the value, you know, the study comes up

with. But is has been suggested to me that

considering the small amount of solar that is

actually present here in Connecticut that this cost

shift that seems to be a big concern is really

unfounded. That we have such a small penetration of

solar, roof top solar in Connecticut that there

really isn’t any significant cost shift and that

we’re kind of exaggerating things, the danger. You

care to comment on that?

CMSR. DYKES: Sure, I mean, well I think that it’s

not so much a question of a cost shift, I think the

question is, you know, we know that behind the meter

facilities tend to cost more to install than let’s

say a grid scale facility just given economies of

scale, the cost of interconnecting and so on and so

forth, right. So the question is kind of two-fold.

One is what are the benefits, are there additional

benefits or different types of benefits that the

state values that behind the meter resources can

provide that, you know, indicates to the state that

it’s important to continue to, you know, ensure that

distributed resources are a part of that portfolio

and how big of a part of our portfolio of resources

that are contributing to meeting our carbon goals,

right. And then at the same time I think there is a

separate question of how do you compensate those

behind the meter resources. Is the way that you’re

compensating them ensuring them you’re also, you

84 MARCH 5, 2019



know, providing incentive for facilities to be

installed in the way that maximizes those benefits.

For example focusing competition in your larger

commercial industrial projects on those facilities

that will be best served optimizing your siting

concerns or on directing, you know, in the

development of the tariffs forms behind the meter

residential facility, you know, incenting those

customers who install them to, you know, do you want

them to be trying to time their consumption right on

site to use the energy that they’re generating on

site or do you want them to be exporting it to the

grid, do you want to try to signal to developers

that they should be focusing on, you know, locations

where the utility may have a distribution system

cost to be avoided by focusing on more deployment of

meter resources. So there’s a lot of kinda planning

and policy that goes into the design of a good

tariff and some of these may be competing and it

also can get very confusing and if becomes really

unwieldy then, or we don’t have enough data provided

to developers to be able to help them find these

opportunities in terms of knowing what the customer

load profile is, where the utilities have

distribution systems, challenges that could be

avoided with distributed generation. Then that’s

part of being successful with this too. So I think,

I didn’t comment on this that one of things that

would be helpful is, you know, to the extend that

PURA is able to make continued progress in their

grid modernization docket while all this is pending

will help to unlock some of those opportunities.

But that is where the value of solar of the value of

distributed generation study can be helpful because

you’re looking at basically all of those different

85 MARCH 5, 2019



benefits right, that distributed resources can

provide and understanding what, just how sizable

those benefits are, design and I think the really

important question is how to design a tariff that is

not just, you know, where we can assume those

benefits will accrue but where you are providing the

right signal so that we can actually achieve some of

those benefits if you will. I guess it’s a more

complicated, you know, I think there is a lot of

discussion about a cost shift but I don’t think that

is sort of the primary driver of moving towards new

tariff designs. I don’t know if that’s helpful.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): If I may, Mr. Chair. So I

appreciate your explanation. My concern is, and I

think the concern of a lot of people is that by

going down the road that we’re going down that

individual solar is being disincentivized and will

continue to be disincentivized to really to the

determent of everyone. And I haven’t heard an

explanation that counters that. I don’t know,

that’s not really a question but that’s my question.

Could you assure me that this incentive is going to

somehow be changed?

CMSR. DYKES: I think that there, this is why we’re

supporting having more time in the process but we

don’t want to end the process entirely because there

has been, you know, discussion going on a record

that is being built so, you know, issues are getting

flushed out and so we think this bill pushes out the

timeframe for that transition and that’s important

because as you’re hearing, right, there is a lot

involved and it is impacting businesses in our State

that we support from the standpoint of a cleaner

energy economy so we don’t want to do something that

86 MARCH 5, 2019



is abrupt, that is going to have unintended

consequences that businesses aren’t going to be able

to plan for these are not regulated utilities.

They’re maintaining, you know, a payroll taking on

that risk themselves so we are very clear eyed

about, you know, ensuring that whatever, however

this transition occurs that is done in a way that

gives enough that has a lot of stakeholder

involvement or we can hear about all the impacts and

make sure that the point of time when the new

tariffs come into place is far enough out people

understand what it is, it is properly informed and

they have time to plan. What the challenge is right

now is that we haven’t nailed down what we are

transitioning to. So I think we know what we’re

moving away from and I think there is that

uncertainty which is concerning to many because we

haven’t allowed what we’re transitioning to. We

have a framework in 18-50 that lays out for the

structure of the tariff but what is open ended and

hasn’t been addressed yet what the price is that you

are paying for example through that structure.

That’s a really, really important part of

understanding the economics of how, you know,

marketable this will be for solar businesses in the

State that needs to be filled in, in addition to

sort of addressing some of the technical issues with

the framework itself. I think the value of solar,

you know, type effort will inform both of those

things to understand. The structure of the tariff

is, you know, critical for how you incent the use,

deployment and operation of these facilities to

maximize some of the benefits that we’re trying to

obtain, right. It also can inform as well as other

kinds of data points how much you pay for the output

87 MARCH 5, 2019



too. We don’t disagree that it is important to do

the evaluation and I understand why there is concern

because there is a lot of these pieces that haven’t

been filled and yet and we think it’s important that

the process can continue and build but we recognize

that it could benefit from more time.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you. I wasn’t planning

to weigh in on this but I do want to comment on a

couple of things that Representative Demicco said.

First of all, as you know, I’ve been lobbying for a

study on the value of solar for a longtime and I am

a little bit less sanguine as perhaps you are that

that’s gonna happen on a timely nature and that

we’ve sought it with PURA why should I believe that

it’s gonna happen now and certainly on the timetable

that has been offered as part of a delay in

implementation of the metering and tariff portion.

So that is my first concern. My second concern is

that while, I think to your point, the causative

argument has not been the only argument used to

justify this shift to this new 2.0 paradox, it is

used by many as a significant justification so my

question is if this is what people are really

concerned about it has been the basis for a lot of,

I would argue, a lot of bad decisions by other

states attempting to address the causative argument

why is it we’re not looking at a new electric bill

transparency whereby we separate it out those things

which are in theory fixed costs that are caught up

in volume metric rather than assume we know what

88 MARCH 5, 2019



that cost shift delta really is. We are taking it

at the word of the utilities that it exists, it’s a

problem and yet we do not know factually to what

degree the fixed costs are not being adequately

captured and being burdened by those who don’t have

solar on their own. I had a Bill in to see if we

could an electric Bill 2.0 that would separate out

for the benefit of consumers exactly what those

fixed costs are to reform our systems so that the

theory of cost shift could be verified by a Bill

that was fully transparent and both costs and

benefits that could be clearly explicated on the

Bill for benefit of all consumers generally it would

be very valuable going forward when we get to grid

modernization and there may be costs that we are

going to ask rate payers to pick up. But going back

to you, I guess a measure of skepticism about

whether we are following the right reasoning to take

us down the path of tariffs at this point in the

game and shouldn’t we have an indefinite pause until

such time as these broader issues are resolved and

not count on the expectation that we can get this

done in the next two years.

CMSR. DYKES: Well, I you know, [clapping}

Representative I think that.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Please, please hold, hold on

that please.

CMSR. DYKES: I know that this issue has been

brought up many times in terms of doing value source

study or we would say value distributed generation

study, you know, I think that we recognize and with

the progress on the grid monitorization docket at

PURA I think it poises us to, that this is a very

89 MARCH 5, 2019



productive time for DEEP and potentially working

jointly with PURA as we recommend to be able to

address and start to quantify what these benefits

look like, what these costs look like. I think

that, you know, I have again the focus this year is

on, you know, we’ve seen those studies undertaken.

We have to understand both what the cost is and the

benefits are of the distributed generation itself as

well as the cost and benefits are of what the

utility may need to install on the distribution side

in order to help us maximize right and actually

obtain the benefits. That is part of why the grid

modernization piece has to be involved in this. The

utilities need to have for example that our

visibility on their side of the systems we know that

CL&P for example should be on the cusp of, you know,

adopting more advance meter infrastructure, that’s

been an issue with the implementation of Public Act

18-50 for example kind of shining a spotlight on the

limitations of the metering infrastructure of the

DLNT currently has so these are sort of all

interrelated if you will and I think this is again

very timely now to have a solar value of

distributive generation study undertaken to be able

to inform how these tariffs can be designed to

maximize the benefits that all ratepayers receive

from these facilities at the same time we can

minimize the cost of, you know, that ratepayers are

paying through the tariffs to get these facilities

deployed in a continued sustained manner. I am not,

I’m just going to very clear, you know to the extent

that you reference the utilities representations

with respect to cost shift. That would be a

question for the utilities. We are not testifying

on their behalf or adopting their testimony.

90 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. STEINBERG (136TH): I take your point and I was

trying to sort of capsulate the entire history we’ve

had here over a number of years but do you choose to

comment or not about the prospect of using the

electric bill to more transparently explicate what

really are fixed costs so that every ratepayer knows

exactly what they are paying for a lot of these

infrastructure things and we could really see for

ourselves to what degree the cost shift is taking

place?

CMSR. DYKES: I think I just entertain the premise on

the cost shift. I mean I think that, you know, I

mean does the legislature for example has put

forward in 2014, you know, directives around the

fixed customer charge for example residential

customers which PURA implemented, you know. Some of

these, there is a lot that goes into rate design and

I don’t want to take up all the time today but I

would be happy to follow. I think this is a real

benefit as we always have from a good conversation

and understanding, more specifically the concerns

and where those opportunities might be to make the

value that customers are getting from, you know,

what they are paying and how they are paying on the

bills more transparent and I would be happy to have

that conversation with you.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Representative Meskers, I’m not going to call you

Senator.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): No, I don’t get the promotion,

thank you. So I guess the question I have is

91 MARCH 5, 2019



concretely and less eloquently than Representative

Steinberg on solar. So the questions arise around

the retail level of solar for the individual use,

the more industrial solar looking at development and

then assigning a weight to battery backup storage

and then trying to figure out the pricing for both

retail and institutional development of solar.

Because the conversation is a lot more complicated

than that [Laughter] and is that where we are in

trying to figure out how we price the solar and the

benefit of solar?

CMSR. DYKES: That’s correct.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Well that makes it a lot

easier for me. Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Yes.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): If the infrastructure was

there to do instantaneous netting would you be

calling for any delay?

CMSR. DYKES: You know, we have. It’s a great

question. I think I’m in my head doing it because I

worked on this docket when I was the Chair of PURA

so I have not been involved in directing the work

that the department is doing in the PURA docket

myself, I recused myself from that for the matters

that I’ve worked on. So we have not had

conversations yet as a department on that specific

question since I moved to this Commissioner role. I

think that there are, you know, I will say the

general matter, you know, recognize that there are

challenges with respect to the implementation of

instantaneous netting that go beyond just the

availability of the metering infrastructure. The

92 MARCH 5, 2019



installers would have to have very concrete

information around the customer load profile to be

able to estimate what the savings would be for a

customer depending on when they are instantly

consuming right at, you know the contemporaneous

with their production so that from a consumer

protection standpoint we can be ensuring that they

are sizing their facility correctly to produce the

savings the customers would expect. So when I

mentioned the technical challenges with some of

these different designs, you know, that’s an example

of one. But I don’t know if that’s helpful.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): That’s enough. Thank you. In

another life I used to represent the professional

employees at your agency and they gave me the crash

course on what you do and what you do is the most

complex work done in state service and having

represented people all over this state I stand by

that. But for us then, most of us, your agency is

like a black box, input comes in, stuff comes out,

what happens in between we have no idea. But I do

have a small idea so my question is when you use

terms like “benefit” and “ratepayer value” let us

pretend that we think your agencies definition of

“benefit” and “ratepayer value” is too narrow. Let

us say that it doesn’t take into account things we

think are happening more globally that for instance

should push development of solar. How would anybody

change either the culture or the definition of terms

that your agency uses to make it more expansive?

CMSR. DYKES: Well I should say first,

Representative I appreciate your comment and I am

disappointed to hear, you know, of that perception.

93 MARCH 5, 2019



It’s certainly not been my experience in the years

that I worked at DEEP.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Which perception are you

talking about, the black box?

CMSR. DYKES: The black box.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Do you think most of us

understand what happens in rate setting?

CMSR. DYKES: Well DEEP does not set rates, we are

participants in the PURA proceedings. And I should

say that, you know, to the extent that we undertake

and we know this has been.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): I apologize for conflating the

two. Go ahead.

CMSR. DYKES: Okay we’ve reviewed the value of solar

studies for example that have been undertaken by

jurisdictions around the country. There is always,

you know, been a lot of debate around which types of

benefits should be considered and should be

materially considered in setting the level of

compensation for the facilities right, that are

associated and I think that, you know, Best Practice

for all jurisdictions that have undertaken this is

to engage in those studies with a robust public

process to hear from a broad range of stakeholders

about what type of benefits are cognizable. But

certainly within the construct Public Act 18-50 it

would be PURA’s discretion and PURA has the

jurisdiction to set the rates that facilities would

be compensated under that Public Act 18-50. And so,

you know, DEEP is a participant in that process. I

think that any development of a value of distributed

generation study, those insights would certainly be

94 MARCH 5, 2019



something that we would want to engage with

stakeholders on, that would certainly be my

preference as the Commissioner of DEEP currently.

But in any case I think to the extent that those

insights would be incorporated into tariff setting

that would also be part of a PURA process which I

believe is a contested case.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Okay so in answer to my

question if we, after all of that, if PURA made a

decision or DEEP and people still disagreed with the

final outcome to expand the definition of benefit or

value we would have to change 18-50?

CMSR. DYKES: You would. I guess I would be

interested to hear more from the Committee about

what the interplay of the value of distributed

generation study or value solar study would be with

the tariff setting authority for PURA and not

circumstance.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. My Co-Chair.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. In

your testimony you suggest that we tie the end of

the current net metering to a specific time and date

instead of the threshold we have in the Bill. Do

you envision that date being further out than

January 1, 2021, if so what I guess would you

recommend if you had one?

CMSR. DYKES: You know, I think we are not prepared

today to suggest a date but we would be happy to

talk with the Committee about it. I think there’s

just two reasons why we suggested picking an end

date and not tying it to RSIP. First off RSIP was

95 MARCH 5, 2019



scheduled to sunset to end, you know, at reaching

300 megawatts and I think that, you know, hearing

from, understanding in the context of RSIP itself

whether to continue the availability of an

additional incentive on top of the current net

metering is necessary to continue to sustain

activity that we are seeing in the solar market it

would be important to understand. And then beyond

that when, you know, I think we’ve seen some of the

uncertainty just in the PURA proceeding to date with

knowing when net metering would sunset where it is

tied to the, you know, subscription of the quantity

of megawatts that’s allowed under RSIP there is less

ability to predict when exactly when that expiration

would occur so we think again to the spirit of

ensuring, you know, predictability that people can

plan around with respect to a transition to a new

program that is why we would recommend that the

Committee adopt this specific calendar date. I would

also say if I may to, that we believe in the

commercial industrial programs however extension of

LREC/ZREC maybe necessary. That again is a long-

term contract for RECs that is available on top of

the current net metering framework and just our

cursory sort of look at, you know, the economics for

those projects that may be necessary to continue.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): I have just a couple of

quick questions. You have a great command of the

facts but I agree that to the layman rate setting is

sort of a black box, it’s not there’s formulas,

there is a lot of thought that goes into it but it

is difficult to comprehend which I guess would be

the black box nature of it. Do you think from a

96 MARCH 5, 2019



residential solar point of view that battery on-site

storage is a gamechanger?

CMSR. DYKES: I do, yes. That is one of the reasons

that, you know, having a new tariff design that

would go forward. I mean currently we don’t,

batteries are not free, right? Customers have to

undertake an additional cost to install a battery.

That ensures that they system, the battery paired

with the solar for example can provide new types of

benefits that solar by itself can’t because then you

can time the deliveries or the export of the

consumption of that power around demand and or

distribution system needs. So it’s like an

additional benefit and an additional cost. And so,

you know, I think that is one of the elements of 18-

50 that is important, that it enables some

consideration of those types of additional benefits

and costs so that you could design a tariff that

could better, you know, incent the deployment of

solar with, sorry, storage with solar.

I also want to say that, you know, to the point

about residential rate setting being a black box I

think it is just important to note that, you know,

where we have the current net metering structure, I

think that has been some of the frustration with the

current net metering that, that in a way is a black

box too because it is essentially tying the level of

compensation to whatever the, you know, the retail

rate is at present. And that is not, you know, the

retail rate reflects the cost of generation, the

cost of transmission, the cost of capacity but also

let’s say if you have, you know, storm, a major

storm or major storms like we saw in 2011 and 2012.

You know that is going to mean that the utilities

97 MARCH 5, 2019



are going to be incurring cost for restoration of

power that is going to be rolled in at the tune of

hundreds of millions of dollars potentially as we

saw from 2011 and 2012, you know into customer bills

which has an impact on distribution rates. So

current net metering has been really, really

successful at jumpstarting, you know, a resident

distributed generation industry. At getting

customers to put solar on the roof in a level that

was, you know, just hard to imagine several years

ago, right. But now we want to be able to

transition into a tariff design that is better

incent to be an inclusion of other types of

technologies like storage, actualizes other types of

benefits in terms of, you know, helping to focus the

deployment in those locations where the distribution

system could especially benefit from it. All of

these different types of things and as part of that

trying to move away from a compensation system that

is just tied to whatever the distribution rate, you

know, the retail rate might happen to be. It’s just

obviously one piece of the puzzle, it is not a

comment that like drives, you know, the whole sort

of policy posture for the Department. But there are

challenges with rate designs, you know, it’s

complicated and there are parts of it that are not

really in our current scheme that are not really

tied to the value that distributed generation can

provide. So I think it is a challenge with the

current construct as much as it is an aspiration

with a future construct to be able to better tie the

tariffs to the benefits that we as Connecticut

ratepayers want to achieve.

98 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): So I understand and we’ve

had other conversations. I think I have a sense of,

I’m new to this game, and understand where

residential solar and the amount that we are

requisitioning here is actually how it plays into

the overall grid taking a lot to sort of go to grid

level thinking on this. Yeah, it’s probably the

most emotionally charged issue because you see we

have a lot of people who are heavily committed to

ensuring reducing carbon at our personal level,

reducing their footprint however they can. So I ask

you, your explanation about the business case about

why we want to move away from subsidies here that

you have a deeper understanding of this market than

I do but it appears that the general consensus is

that maybe we’re looking to move away too quickly

from the subsidy base incentive that we had. The

basic research is no longer being funded by the

government which is the way basis research was

funded when I was younger. Now it is left to the

businesses and with all that is incumbent pluses and

minuses I’m not sure if the public will, you know,

be told here I think there is some incentive that we

might want to keep in place a little bit longer.

CMSR. DYKES: And, you know, I appreciate that,

Senator and that is why we are supportive of having

this additional time in the process. It is

important for us from the standpoint of working on

energy policy for the State trying to, you know, map

this pathway to achieve our carbon reduction goals

at the least cost and maximizing benefits to

ratepayers that we can make sure that the polices

that we’re advancing are informed as best as

possible buy the Best Practices around the country

99 MARCH 5, 2019



and by the, you know, the voices and insight of

those who are, who have helped make this industry,

you know, as successful as it is, today and that

includes not just the customers but the installers

themselves and I think that is where I welcome and

look forward to more conversations where we can

listen and also share our viewpoint to help to try

to achieve a productive sort of next framework here.

We don’t sell solar panels at the Department of

Energy and Environment Protection, you know, the

individuals that are sitting down in the conference

room or at the kitchen table and having the

conversation with the customer to explain, you know,

how they would achieve these savings and what, you

know, a lease looks like and this is a complicated

thing and it only, the success of a tariff is not

that we can adopt something new that is sustainable

from a cost perspective that it is helping to better

optimize for all those different benefits that we’ve

talked about here today but something that customers

can understand, right and so that they’re, you know,

and they’re willing to take action to invest in.

That is a really important criteria for success here

and I recognize without that, you know, this won’t

work so that’s why I’m particularly interested to

hear from those folks, to let this process continue

so that we can understand those insights there from

folks who wee on the ground having those

conversations to convince folks to take part in this

important part of our decarbonization.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, last question.

More of a, yes it is a question. Do you think that

battery storage at this point, the cost of battery

storage on site requires the same subsidies that the

100 MARCH 5, 2019



solar panel industry required to get us to a point

where more people can store their power and not

worry about the value of it being bought back by the

utility?

CMSR. DYKES: I think we are seeing the cost of

battery storage particularly coming down

precipitously. It is really exciting not just from

the standpoint of the electric, you know, power

generation opportunities but also for electric

vehicles, it is going to be an important part of

making those vehicles more cost competitive with

internal combustion engines. So, you know, I think

we know that the focus has been, you know, the value

proposition for customers to install solar right now

may be more focused on commercial industrial

customers who want to optimize and want to better

manage their demand charges or provide more

resiliency at their site, same for residential

customers who want to ensure, you know, backup power

and these sorts of things. But overtime as these

costs come down and we design tariffs correctly we

can ensure that, you know, compensation is there to

the extent that the solar backup is helping to

provide greater benefit to leverage more benefit

from the onsite solar, that tariffs are adequately

compensating for that to incent folks to install

that, the storage as well.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Well, I would think there

would be a relatively calculation for the solar

installers to make because the difference between

what people are gonna get for the electricity that

they sell back to the grid versus what they are

going to be paying for kilowatt hour is going to be

101 MARCH 5, 2019



quite substantial. Thank you for all the time

today, appreciate it.

CMSR. DYKES: Thank you very much for the

opportunity.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): I think we’re gonna start

alternating with public and I think our first member

of the public hasn’t been a member of the public

until recently that I would like to welcome back

Former Speaker Brendan Sharkey. Thank you.

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Thank you, Senator. Good to see

you, Representative Arconti and Members of the

Committee. My name is Brendan Sharkey. I am here

today representing SunPower Corporation.

SunPower is the largest solar panel manufacturer in

the country and they have 11 dealers in Connecticut

through which they distribute their products. You

have the testimony of my colleague from SunPower,

Robin Dutta in your package. But I would like to

just paraphrase his and my testimony within the

timeframe I have.

I think we need to address the elephant in the room

frankly, not to suggest that all the people in this

room are elephants but we have a room full of people

here today who are very concerned about what happens

with SB9 last year. What happened with SB9 is that

we set in motion a regulatory proceeding at PURA

that defines very, very narrowly what their scope is

in terms of implementing a new transition off of net

metering. It specifies that PURA can only evaluate

alternatives and new programs based on either daily

or instantaneous netting, in other words buy-all,

sell-all. That completely changes the financial

102 MARCH 5, 2019



dynamic of how solar installations are financed.

That is why you have everyone here today because

that abrupt transition into a completely different

type of pricing and the fact that this legislature

last year prescribed to PURA that they could only

look at daily or instantaneous netting as part of

the new transition away from net metering is what is

creating so much of the problem.

So it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman that SunPower

cannot support the Bill that this Committee has

produced in its current state. I am somewhat

disappointed by the testimony that we just heard

from DEEP and despite the fact that I have the

upmost respect from Commissioner Dykes and her

expertise in this area, the problem is that I don’t

think that Commissioner Dykes was reflecting the

reality of what I just expressed to you. I think

Commissioner Dykes and DEEP are suggesting that a

delay, pushout of a couple of years is sufficient

and maybe we can all agree that we can do a study

and evaluate but unless we change the fundamental

direction that we’ve already given to PURA to only

go do daily of instantaneous netting all of this is

completely worthless.

We have to actually have to change SB9. We have to

broaden the scope of that PURA can look at if we are

to move to the net metering 2.0 as it’s being

described. I don’t think after last year, after SB9

passed, I don’t want to ask for a show of hands, but

I think everyone in this building left session last

year knowing that there is something wrong about SB9

and that it was rushed through, it wasn’t maybe well

thought out and most folks may not fully understand

what it involves. I think there is a general

103 MARCH 5, 2019



reticent about what we did and why we did it. I

also know that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor

in their campaigns when they were still candidates

did not support SB9 in its current form. And in

fact if you look at specifically whatever SB9 has

and what it did, it is more analogous to Maine’s

system, right. A system that Governor LaPage

introduced and promoted with he was governor that

they are reversing. So it is more like Governor

LaPage and less like Governor Lamott and the way

that this is being presented. We have a real

problem because if, and I can get into specifics

about what is wrong, but fundamentally if we don’t

change this direction and direct PURA to have a

broader scope of what it is that their charge is in

terms of moving off of net metering we’re doomed.

We are going to be just like Maine and just like

Nevada who plowed the same path and saw their entire

solar industry completely disappear in a matter of

12 months because there was no work there.

You’ll hear from all these dealers here today and

installers who will tell you that they are already

downsizing their Connecticut workforce, in some

cases they are going to move out of Connecticut

completely and the 2,300 jobs that we’ve promoted

here in the state overtime will go away. Pushing

the date out and pushing out the implementation

another couple of years is just delaying the

inevitable. We have to fundamentally reevaluate

what it is we did last year, study the issue, look

at what other states have done, positively and

negatively and develop a more comprehensive plan

that really is going to protect the jobs that we all

agree we need to protect and put us on what I think

104 MARCH 5, 2019



the Commissioner and everyone agrees is a more

sustainable path for the solar industry. With that,

I will be happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Yep.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and good

to see you Mr. Sharkey.

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Good seeing you.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): You know so how many states do

you operate in SunPower?

BRENDAN SHARKEY: SunPower, you know I don’t have the

exact number but most states in the country.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): So most states in the country?

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Yes.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): How many different types of

funding’s are there for residential solar? In other

words we’re doing an at metering, you brought up

Nevada, you brought up Maine, how many different

types of metering or metering options are there?

BRENDAN SHARKEY: There are many, I am not an expert

in how those are all, there are folks here today who

will testify later who do have more in-depth

knowledge how other states actually implement their

net metering policies. I raised the Maine and

Nevada example because they implemented a daily

instantons netting scheme and those two states saw

what is happening in Connecticut right now

disappear. Their solar industry has disappeared and

bot now have reversed their own decision, even

Governor LaPage in Maine has reversed his own

position on this recognizing that it was a drastic

105 MARCH 5, 2019



mistake. And instead of evaluating that and looking

at what other states are doing, we’re rushing ahead

and not really stopping for a moment and really

evaluating whether the policy that we set in motion

last year is really the best way to go.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you and I will address

last year for a moment while you’re here. We’ve had

conversations. We have very good dialogue on this

issue I believe and, you know, being on the Energy

and Technology Committee last year we had, there was

no future, there was our municipal portfolios

standard was going to checkout in 2020. We had a new

administration come in. We didn’t know what was

coming in whether he was going to embrace renewables

or not embrace renewables. That’s what we had and

so the Committee worked diligently as far as I’m

concerned in a short, which we shouldn’t have done

in a short, because that is the only option we had.

So we took that bold move on and brought something

out and I don’t want to downplay what we do here but

we put words in books, it called State Statutes and

guess what we can do with them every year, change

them, with your input, your positive input, but I

would love, I’ve asked this too many times as far as

I’m concerned give us some ideas. What is working

in other states? I’ve asked this from last year and

I’ve asked this the beginning of this year. Here I

hear your company works in let’s say 40 states,

right, and other companies work in another 40-50

states, right. Okay this didn’t not work, I could

not make, I could not employ people. We do have a

higher level of pay wage here than other states do,

we have a lot more regulations and licensing. I

know, I live in that world. So I get it we’re a

106 MARCH 5, 2019



little bit higher. So we may not be equal to solar

going in to Louisiana, I don’t know, just saying.

So I am going to ask again, cause I got three, two

other Committees I’ve to be at today, like a lot of

other legislators, so if you see us in and out folks

it’s not that we don’t want to hear about ya, I’ll

stay till midnight, I don’t think we’re staying till

midnight, but we may [Laughter] and I’ll be here.

But gosh sakes so this doesn’t work. That metering

tariff doesn’t work, right? Is it working anywhere?

Is there a tariff process that is working anywhere

or something similar to that? Maybe it is that our

metering, our metering doesn’t work period. Maybe a

metering discussion, Eversource don’t throw anything

at me, but maybe that’s the discussion. But if

we’re working so many states and we’re promoting it,

what is working. Now its just gotta be the old net

metering that ya got, that’s it. We want, and I

mentioned, I’ve met with you and others, I’m a

business owner right? There are other business

owners in here. You don’t want a six month lookout,

you’re not gonna bring your company here if it’s a

six month lookout. You’re probably not gonna bring

it here if there is a two year lookout with

something else that can improve funding. Show us

how we can make solar viable, workers getting paid

solid so that is really, if this is the only way, if

this is the only one way that works, okay then we’ll

have to make it, but give us some say, listen here

is the metrics that work in this state, and this

other and I think we would embrace that in this

Committee. I think we really would.

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Agreed. Representative, I

couldn’t agree with you more. I don’t think there

107 MARCH 5, 2019



is anyone in this room, I may be proven wrong but I

don’t think there is anybody in this room, in the

solar industry who believes maintain net metering

indefinitely is a solution. I think everyone in

this room understands that we do and should begin to

transition off of the pure net metering that we have

now because ultimately it won’t be sustainable in

the long haul. We do need to move some kind of

alternative to net metering as it stands today.

That is the whole reason why we feel so strongly

that that evaluation of what that successor program

should be needs to take a little bit more time and

be evaluated. If you’re looking for states as

examples, I think that most people would suggest

that what’s in Massachusetts is working very well.

What’s happening in New Jersey is working very well

and those are hybrid programs that have adopted and

they obtained certain portions of net metering but

also have instituted other type of tariff issues as

well. Whatever works for Connecticut is as the

Commissioner said is a very complicated subject it

is not the kind of thing that we can evaluate in six

months as we did last year. We need time to really,

fully reevaluate what is the best alternative that

we can transition to and then develop the plan for

how to actually implement that. But the problem is,

I’ll get back to the fundamental point, what was set

in motion last year is a specific direction at PURA

that does not have any alternative. We have to stop

that. We have to change what we told PURA to do so

that we can have this time to really evaluate along

all the lines you are suggesting.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you and I think that is

the key. I think what we want to do, maybe that

108 MARCH 5, 2019



component say, okay we’re gonna check, we’re gonna

pause for a timeframe, right, you know, but we need

to redirect what we’ve charged them with last year

to be more broader involved in that component so

that you go, okay cause whatever you’re gonna make

with that tariff ain’t gonna work. I kinda got the

gest of what Commissioner Dykes was going on though

so but truly appreciate that. I think that, you

know, we want this business to grow, I mean we don’t

want to be the handcuffs of the business so, you

know, we’ve set some renewable portfolio standard I

think is huge. It kinda sets the mark though. We

gotta do something.

BRENDAN SHARKEY: And that was one of the good

things about SB9 last year because of the, yeah it

had multiple sections to it, the RPS expansion was

the great thing but you can’t achieve the goals in

the RPS standard if you’re handcuffing your own

solar industry to make it happen.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Arconti.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Does the industry have any

specific suggestions how long the evaluation process

should last if we decide to broaden the scope?

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Well as you know, and attached to

my testimony and it also attached the testimony of a

lot of those who are presenting today, we actually

have the language that we propose to the Committee

for changes to last year’s SB9 and in that we have

recommended frankly a two-year push off with

specific recommendations on how we could analyze the

109 MARCH 5, 2019



value of solar and use that to inform our decision

not just do it and put it on a shelf but have it

become the basis for this transition and this new

2.0 approach. So yes, the industry does, and I

should add last year, I think it is fair to say,

that because the SB9 Bill as presented by the Malloy

Administration was so varied there was division,

right, I mean I think the environmental community

wanted, all of use wanted the RPS standard to be

expanded but that was married to a net metering

change and so it wound up causing dispirit interests

at the time and it made it difficult to sort of

express clearly what the position should be. Since

SB9 was passed both the environmental community and

the industry itself, the solar industry has come

together with a united message to where we stand and

that is represented also in our testimony. A

document and a letter to the Committee signed by

over 40 if not 50 members of both the environmental

and solar community. So yeah, we do have an

initiative. What we’re thinking is two years

implementation date sometime in 2021, that is

generally what we’re thinking about but the study

has to be real and it has to inform the ultimate

decision on how we go forward.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Implementation of a new

program in 2021?

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Right but maintaining what we have

right now and extending those so that the industry

can stay here in Connecticut while we are

transitioning into the new paradigm.

110 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. LANOUE (45TH): The chairman asked my questions

so when the Speaker answered it, so I’ll yield back.

Thanks.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr.

Sharkey welcome back.

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Thank you for your testimony.

I have a pretty elementary question I guess for you.

I am curious to know what is the rationale for the

instantaneous netting and what is the theory behind

that?

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Well I think you would have to ask

the authors of that. I think it’s felt by some that

the normal system of monthly netting is what is

creating the exorbitant, what is perceived to be or

is fixed by this cost shift that was discussed

earlier. Monthly net metering allows the customer

to back the excess power that they produce over what

they use, right, and bank it and it is netted at the

end of the month and whatever credits they have

carryover to the next month and then at the end of

the year it is trued up and either credit goes to

the customer or not. I think having a daily

metering system or an instantaneous metering system

means that only what you produce is only offset by

what you are using the moment and then everything

else that you produce goes backout the grid and you

get a value for that but it’s not the retail rate.

So you’re asking me to give the other side’s

explanation for this but what I think what they will

say is that a daily or instantaneous buy-all/sell-

111 MARCH 5, 2019



all as it’s called system is somehow leveling the

price structure so that there is not as great a

subsidy to the customer. I think that is what their

argument is but it is a flawed argument.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): But would it be fair to say

that system provides a pretty significant

disincentive to the industry?

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Absolutely. I mean there was a lot

of discussion in the Committee earlier about battery

storage and I know Senator Needleman you were,

battery storage is impossible in the case of

instantaneous or daily netting, it’s impossible

because you are not able to store the power, the

excess power that you’re producing on site, right.

You can’t keep it. You have to send it back out and

you get some credit for it but not the same as you

would whereas so it’s a tremendous disincentive to

battery store it which in Connecticut, in fact my

client SunPower is moving into the battery storage

area in other states but it cannot come to

Connecticut if this type of metering structure is

allowed to continue to go on because it is

expensive, you know, as any system is, it’s

expensive, it completely obliterates the financial

incentive to be able to do that storage.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Anyone else? So, Mr.

Speaker for coming. Just to summarize we’ve heard

from people in the solar industry who have basically

said that leaving the net metering as it is now

written in the new Law is basically the death of

residential solar in the State of Connecticut.

112 MARCH 5, 2019



BRENDAN SHARKEY: And commercial.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): And commercial also. I am

a little unclear about why the, where in the law the

net metering if you have a battery between you and

your meter, between your panels, your battery, your

house and then the meter why wouldn’t the battery

just divert the power? So you’re not allowed to do

that?

BRENDAN SHARKEY: You’re not allowed to do that,

that is my understanding.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): I don’t know how they

would know [Laughter].

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Well there’s a meter attached to

out plug. So there’s two meters in that system, one

to measure what you are taking in and one to monitor

what you’re sending out. So if you’re diverting.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): But if your battery, if

your batter is from your panel, to your battery, to

your outflowing meter, and you’re filling up that

battery prior to it’s hitting the meter going out.

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Our understanding is that would

not, well the financial benefit of holding on to

that power is one thing, my understanding is you can

keep the power in your battery and then send out the

rest. But what you’re sending out, the rest is at a

much lower rate and so, therefore. Yeah, you’re not

getting the retail.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): That I get. I understand

that that’s.

BRENDAN SHARKEY: I’m sure a subsequent speaker can

give you a little bit more.

113 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): But I still think that if

your build your battery large enough and you store a

day’s worth of, an average days worth of power

anything else that goes out, you know, if you’re

building your system to not be a private power plant

where you are looking to supply to the grid but

they’re really looking to meet their needs, if your,

you know, before the meter battery restorage is

adequately sized or correctly sized you would store

the rest of the days worth of power and I don’t know

how they could stop you from doing that.

BRENDAN SHARKEY: Let me allow one of the more

technical folks to answer that question.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you so much for

coming. I appreciate it. Thank you. We’re gonna

flip back to our other list, Representative

MacLachlan is here. Good afternoon.

REP. MAC LACHLAN (35TH): Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman. How are you?

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Great.

REP. MAC LACHLAN (35TH): Good to see you up there,

sir. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to

testify on 7251. Members of the Committee thank you

very much. My name is Jesse MacLachlan, I represent

the 35th District, the towns of Westbrook, Clinton

and Killingworth and I want to offer some thoughts

on how 7251 can, and I believe needs to improve for

the benefit of the State, the solar industry and

hardworking men and women in the industry.

Having formerly worked in the solar industry as a

developer in a Connecticut based company I saw

firsthand how sensitive the industry is to even the

114 MARCH 5, 2019



slightest policy change at a federal level and a

state level. Even when the 51 Trade tariff was

officially field we saw modules disappear off the

market and prices increase by 40 percent. And that

was even before the tariff was implemented so I

wanted to just offer some feedback on language in

this Bill and some suggestions just from some

firsthand experience.

We really shouldn’t rush into implementing a

successor to the net metering policy while also

tying our own hands as to how we do it and limiting

ourselves to two options. I don’t know what the

final answer should be but I think we absolutely

should take, you know, the two to three years other

states have taken to look at the value of solar and

allow PURA to come up with what is best for our

State. As you know the numbers have been discussed,

thousands of industry workers in the State of

Connecticut, even slight policy changes have serious

repercussions from the reasons that I’ve mentioned

earlier. We say, I think a 15 to 20 percent

decrease in the total installed nationwide capacity

just from the federal trade tariffs that passed so

we do need make sure that we don’t fall into the

same position that states like Maine have fallen

into or Nevada. I don’t think this should be rushed

into.

There are some great things in SB9, I voted for it.

We extended the ZREC. We looked at increasing the

portfolio standards, that’s all good stuff,

definitely keep it. But lets now shoot ourselves in

the foot in here. You guys have a hard job ahead of

ya. Love to be a resource anyway I possibly can and

115 MARCH 5, 2019



I hope we can take a step back, take the handcuffs

of PURA and do this the right way.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you,

Representative.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Representative, thank you

for taking the time to testify today. It is good to

see all of us who had hoped for the best in SB9 now

recognize how deeply flawed it is and how important

it is to get it right this time. I’m taken by your

testimony urging prudence and patience to get it

right. There seems to be a general sense ever since

we tried to come to a compromise in SB9 that’s sort

of hurdling to some outcome with perhaps a false

sense of urgency. I think the point’s you’ve taken

about other states having actually damaged the

progress of their solar industry by going down the

path of tariffs without having though through the

consequence. I have actually very good examples for

why Connecticut should take a more deliberate

approach in making sure we get it right before we

start instituting a tariff program so I really

appreciate your coming today and outlining the fact

that this is not a partisan issue it is an effort on

behalf of all Connecticut ratepayers to get it right

at the same time supporting important jobs in the

solar industry. Thank you, Representative.

REP. MAC LACHLAN (35TH): Thank you, Representative

Steinberg for your leadership on the issue.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Anybody else?

Thank you for coming.

REP. MAC LACHLAN (35TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): John Emra. Good afternoon.

116 MARCH 5, 2019



JOHN EMRA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of

the Committee. My name is John Emra with AT&T. I am

here to testify on behalf of House Bill 5152 in

support of the legislation. I want to first start

by commending Governor Lamont and his Administration

for the introduction of this Bill. He has shown

continued leadership on the issue of 5G deployment

and availability and I also want to thank the

Committee for it’s consideration of the legislation.

Making 5G a reality in Connecticut is dependent on

rule that allow for the deployment of wireless

infrastructure. Small cells and typical macro

wireless cells alike. Now Connecticut already does

a very good job in some respects in that regard.

Deployment of small cell on utility poles, the

electric distribution system for example is a very

good process. The system is working very well and

is leading to deployment. Now where Connecticut can

do a better job of frankly is in the use of existing

state property for the deployment of wireless

infrastructure and also making some efforts around

the use of municipal property like light poles,

traffic signals and the like. House Bill 7152

address both of those needs.

Under the terms of the legislation the proposed

Council will provide a process or a front door if

you will for the industry to come and apply to the

state for the use of state property for placement of

wireless infrastructure. Now I want to be very

clear, it doesn’t obligate the state to accept any

proposal we have or request to use state properly,

it just creates a process for us to apply to do so.

The state retains the opportunity to say no to any

application which we think is smart.

117 MARCH 5, 2019



And finally Section 2 of the Bill by trying to pull

together in a collaborative process all the state

actors as well as municipalities to determine a

process that would allow for the streamline sighting

of wireless facilities on municipal property we

think is a good one. There are a lot of important

questions that go into that. I think the governor’s

office to their credit is taking the right approach

which is to try to bring parties together to have a

discussion to figure out what those right rules are

like and then hopefully to make a proposal or

presentation back to this Committee and the

legislature next session to take further action.

With that, I’m happy to take any questions you have.


REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, John for being here today. I appreciate

you’re giving the new administration credit for

being openminded about finding new ways to both

further the goal of access while also ideally

finding some revenue generation along the way as

well. You also heard the Governor recently talk

about the opportunities about public-private

partnerships. I was wondering if you were aware of

models in other states who were able to move forward

with the agenda whereby there is more of a

comprehensive plan rather than a site-by-site kind

of proposal which we could look at?

JOHN EMRA: I think and part of this legislation does

try to speak to that and we had some good

discussions with the administration in that regard

in trying to make sure the industry does a better

job of consulting with the state. So we don’t come

118 MARCH 5, 2019



in with sort of one-by-one examples but to layout

sort of what does our work plan look like the next

six months to a year. We think that is probably the

right approach to take. We suggested some sort of

clarifying language to the administration on some of

the language in the Bill and look forward to working

with them and with you towards that regard. But we

think there is certainly an opportunity for us to

work with this administration in that regard.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): And we know that there’s a

challenge to negotiate with a governor who knows as

much about this as many people on your side but it

does seem to be an opportunity for a potentially

grander bargain that could be a win-win for all the

parties involved and I would like to see more of a

strategy inherent in this rather than an approach

whereby we or the appropriate entity considers a

specific site proposal in a vacuum which may not be

clear as to what the ultimate goal is.

JOHN EMRA: Yeah, understood. I think that’s the

intent of the administrations language in creating

that Council is to have that broader strategy

looking at a whole picture what is going on in the

State of Connecticut.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it.

JOHN EMRA: You’re welcome. Thank you.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH): Just a quick follow up on the

site question. What has been your experience with

trying to site on state properties.

119 MARCH 5, 2019



JOHN EMRA: It has been frustrating to say the

least. I think it very much depends on the

particular agency with whom you’re dealing with

whether it is the Department of Transportation, or

DEEP or one of the universities. Quite often just

trying to get any sort of response at all it will

take six months to a year to get any sort of

acknowledgement of a request in some cases, not all,

and it’s been our experience particularly with DOT

property as an example where they said we understand

what you’re trying to do, or actually that was about

a year of them trying to understand what we were

trying to do and then essentially their view was we

just aren’t allowed to do this under the laws as

they exist today. And we had, I thought, a very

good and frank conversation with them about, no

let’s change the law to allow for it. And I don’t

think it’s something and I don’t want to put words

in the DOT’s mouth that they just disagree with,

they just want to make sure they are allowed to do

it under the law and I think that is really the

intent of what the governor is trying to do here.

But the process today is, to be very frank with you,

flawed. I’ll give you two good examples. We were

trying to build a small cell at a weight station in

Greenwich and also at a rest area in Darian. These

facilities are about 12x24 with two radio units that

are 8 inches by 8 inches. It took like I said six

months to a year to eventually be told, “No.” When

I did an appeal up to the Commissioner’s Office for

further consideration again the answer was “No”

because of the law. But frankly a facility of that

size to me doesn’t seem like it should a) ever end

120 MARCH 5, 2019



in an answer of no and b) shouldn’t take that long

to have an answer rendered either.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH): I guess the follow up to that

with your experience with municipal side.

JOHN EMRA: The municipal side is really important.

So as I mentioned earlier Connecticut has a really

good rule with respect to placing small cells on

wooden utility poles in the electric distribution

system and that works great for large parts of

Connecticut but when you get in denser environments

were there is not an electric distribution center,

where there are not utility poles, you need to use

other facilities so light stanchions and the like

and we have done this throughout the country with a

lot of success. In Connecticut what it really

requires is an agreement with the carrier and

between the city so the property you are able to

use, what the process is to apply to use that

property, the rent, terms and conditions which you

will be able to use it. Even getting redline

comments to a proposed draft agreement, a standard

agreement that we’ve used all over the country, has

taken a year if not longer. We have been working to

try to get agreements in five or six major cities in

the State of Connecticut for the better part of two

years and still don’t have an agreement. So I think

it’s ripe for action. I do think the Governor’s

Office to their credit again has taken the right

approach which is let’s get everybody in the room

and figure out what this looks like not just, you

know, offer up instead of recommendations but let’s

work cooperatively together. That is something that

we at AT&T and I think others in the industry would

be welcome to do.

121 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. PISCOPO (76TH): Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Anyone else?

Have a lovely day, thank you so much.

JOHN EMRA: Thank you, Senator very much.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Next on our list is Beth

Cooley. Good afternoon.

BETH COOLEY: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee

my name is Beth Cooley. I am the Senior Director of

State Legislative Affairs at CTIA. CTIA is a trade

association for the wireless communications industry

and we represent the wireless carriers, handset

manufactures, App companies and their suppliers.

I am here to express our support with amendments to

House Bill 7152. House Bill 7152 outlines a laudable

goal: seeking to create a process for the deployment

of personal wireless service facilities, including

small wireless infrastructure or small cells on

state assets. The legislation is well-intentioned,

but we do have some concerns that there may be some

negative unintended consequences. We look forward

to working with the Administration and this

Committee to address these concerns.

Firstly, House Bill 7152 addresses the key issue in

the State Connecticut the fact that there are more

wireless devices than there are people and over one-

third of residents of Connecticut are within

wireless only households. Now believe it or not,

you actually can make a phone call on your wireless

device. The trend is toward an insatiable amount of

appetite for mobile data which has been breaking

records year over year. Because of these demands

from the wireless industry’s customers, your

122 MARCH 5, 2019



constituents, wireless networks need to be both

updated to meet todays’ demand and readied for the

next generation of wireless networks called 5G.

House Bill 7152 addresses this key issue.

So as Mr. Erma mentioned, we’re talking about House

Bill 7152, what does it do? It recognizes the

existing rules governing wireless networks. They

are designed for wireless facilities that can be up

to 200 feet tall or higher. Tomorrow’s networks

will rely on new small cell technology which will be

placed on structures such as utility poles and

streetlights. These new networks need new rules and

House Bill 7152 establishes a common sense framework

for deployment on state facilities.

House Bill 7152 is also a step towards realizing 5G

or Fifth Generation in Connecticut. 5G networks

will provide needed additional capacity to

accommodate growing consumer demands and help

connect 100 times more devices, up to 100 times

faster than today.

This is also an exciting economic development time

as Accenture has found that 5G and small cell

deployment will provide tremendous economic benefit.

Specifically Accenture estimates that wireless

operators will invest as much as $275 billion

nationwide of their own money, not taxpayer money

creating up to three million jobs nationally. In

Connecticut and specifically in a community like

Bridgeport we could see the creation of 1,300 jobs

and an increasing GDP by over $220 million dollars.

Now you may have recently heard the FCC, the

Federal Communications Commission took action in

this space by setting clear timelines and cost based

123 MARCH 5, 2019



fees for state and local siting purposes. Now what

the FCC leadership in this role in states remain

critical, states still play a critical role in

operationalizing the order and that is what House

Bill 7152 helps to do. Over 21 states at this time

have passed statewide small cell legislation and we

expect approximately a dozen states to consider

similar legislation this year.

House Bill 7152 acknowledges that date certain

action after an application for small cell if filed

is needed and that is compliant with the FCC Order.

So in closing, CTIA and our members support House

Bill 7152 with amendments. We applaud the

Administration and look forward to working with the

Administration and interested stakeholders to move

it forward. Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Beth. Anybody

have any? Yep.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Just one question. Is it the

industry’s belief that the radio frequency radiation

issued by these small cells is harmless despite, you

know, location in buildings or at beaches or

whatever?

BETH COOLEY: So CTIA, we are not a scientific

agency. We defer to those agencies and experts who

are. First and foremost we comply with the FCC’s

radio frequency guidelines so all of our facilities

have to adhere to those emission levels which are

very conservative and hundreds of times set below

any such issues that may have been found to humans

which there have not been. It is important to

remember that the RF emissions for small wireless

124 MARCH 5, 2019



facilities in the spectrum that is anticipated to be

used is nonionizing. So again, I’m not the

scientific agency, we defer to those that are and

the science that is out there which we would be

happy to provide to you did not show a linkage

between.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Are you aware that the Federal

Government forbids the states to take radio

frequency radiation into account when dealing with

or siting these locations.

BETH COOLEY: Yes, I am aware.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.


Thank you so much.

BETH COOLEY: Thank you very much.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Amanda DeVito. Good

afternoon.

AMANDA DEVITO: Good afternoon Senator Needleman,

Representative Arconti and other Members of the

Committee, thank you so much for giving me the

opportunity to appear before you today. My name is

Amanda Devito Trenzy and I am here on behalf of the

Connecticut Industrial Energy Consumers or CIEC.

Take a little break from solar, we’re gonna talk

about energy efficiency and I am here to talk about

HB 7252 which proposes putting a limitation on the

monthly charges that commercial and industrial or

C&I customers would pay energy surcharges --

surcharges that go into the energy efficiency fund.

125 MARCH 5, 2019



So to give you a little bit of background on CIEC,

we are a coalition of large f large commercial and

industrial end-users in the state and we

collectively employ over 40,000 Connecticut workers

statewide. Members account for a substantial of all

of the electricity consumed in Connecticut and

energy is really an integral component to member’s

operations in this state. As we are going through

this discussion it is important to remember that

when we’re talking about energy costs even a

seemingly small number like a 0.001 or mill per

kilowatt hour increase is actually quite significant

and results in an increase of hundreds of thousands

of dollars to these large C&I customers.

So we are here today to talk about how the costs are

collected from the C&I customers to fund the

Conservation and Load Management Plan or the state’s

energy efficiency programs which are then administer

by the EDTs or electric distribution companies.

Importantly I want to make it very clear in our

discussion today that CIEC members are huge

proponents of energy efficiency, sustainability and

in no way want to irreparably harm the state’s

energy efficiency programs and in fact we want to

continue paying into this fund. However the way the

fund is collected is inequitable to large end users,

they are constantly using large volumes of

electricity for their manufacturing operations. And

so when we look at the energy efficiency programs

they have two components: One, you want to reduce

consumption and two, you want to reduce peak demand.

And so collecting the funding for energy efficiency

programs on strictly a volume metric basis or a per-

kWh basis really doesn’t reflect the program. So

126 MARCH 5, 2019



these non-bypassable surcharges such as the CAM the

Conservation Adjustment Mechanism and the Combined

Public Benefits Charge that is what is used to

collect the energy efficiency charges. These

surcharges account for large portions of C&I

customer bills and that is not accounting for the

actual energy supply itself or the poles and wires

to bring energy or electricity to the customer.

So what we have for you today with HB 7252 is we are

introducing a Bill that would place parameter on the

amount of monthly energy that C&I customers would be

assessed their energy efficiency surcharges on.

While obviously the Bill didn’t include the actual

threshold number and that is intentional because we

want to work with the program administrators to

really strike the right balance that says, okay how

can we place some limits here so that it is fair and

equitable and promotes economic productivity, carbon

reductions, all those good things to keep the

savings local to the Connecticut economy, local to

put people to work. We want to create a farm to

payroll type manufacturing network where we keep

things within the State. And what’s the right

balance so we’re not harming the program but we’re

also providing real and meaningful benefits to C&I

customers that are really goin to shape and impact

the way they do business here.

So, just to close I am going to turn it over to

questions, for some questions. I appreciate the

opportunity to present this Bill to you all today

and it is very important to C&I customers in the

state and as they try year after year to maintain

their competitiveness while simultaneously

continuing sustainability and efficiency measures

127 MARCH 5, 2019



and we would be happy to meet with all the Members

of the Committee to discuss specific use cases and

also stand ready, and able and willing to work with

the program administrators who really strike the

right balance on how we could move this concept

forward. Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Amanda. Anybody

have any questions? Have a lovely day. Will

Hershel, Will? Ben Healy. Good afternoon.

BEN HEALY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking

Members and all members of the Committee. My name

is Ben Healy. I work as the Executive Vice-

President for a Company called PosiGen. Until

recently worked with many of the folks in this room

as the finance team member of the Connecticut Green

Banks so I am pleased to be here in my new role and

I am speaking mostly in PosiGen’s role as the only

solar company solely focused on serving low and

moderate income customers with a focus on blue-

collar communities.

The company, PosiGen has operated in Connecticut

since 2015, has an office in Bridgeport. A second

one recently opened in Hartford and is looking to

open a call center in the Northeast hoping it will

be in Connecticut as well based on the right policy

conditions in the state. I am going to spare

everyone the history of the company in the interest

of time and letting a lot of folks speak who are

waiting to do so.

But simply want to say from a low and moderate solar

perspective Connecticut has been a great place to be

thanks to the partnership that PosiGen has had with

Green Bank. The company’s focus is every customer

128 MARCH 5, 2019



when taking into account net metering the RSIP and

an energy efficient wrap to every customer gets will

receive at least $500 dollars’ worth of savings a

year. To put that into very clear terms these are

folks whom $500 dollars’ worth of savings means

groceries, school supplies and the essentials of

living in a high cost state and the existing policy

regime, net metering plus the RSIP has worked

incredibly well for 2,000 plus customers that

PosiGen now serves in the State of Connecticut, that

is 2,000 plus customers supported by 70 direct jobs

that PosiGen has translates to $20 million dollars

in money back into the pockets of Connecticut

customers.

From a high level perspective PosiGen would like to

encourage the Committee in line with the broad

mandate that seems to be moving forward here, to

continue to the net metering regime to restorative

effectively at least through the period when the

federal investment tax credit declines. It seems a

very inopportune moment to disrupt the industry when

you have an elevated ITC that is being used by

Connecticut home owners to be able to take advantage

of those savings. This is especially true for low

and moderate income homeowners who can’t often

directly take advantage of that federal ITC because

of the tax credit nature of it. So having a third

party structure that can monetize it, pass that

value through in the form of savings is really where

the value comes through in terms of making sure the

dollars and cents are going back to those who need

it most.

So, from as PosiGen perspective just keep it short,

an extension of net metering seems to be appropriate

129 MARCH 5, 2019



especially given all the confusion on terms with

respect to the current policy regime and in the

event that is not on the table, nonetheless a tariff

that specifically follows the Massachusetts model

looks to add LMI customers to make sure those who

have older homes, older electrical systems where the

work needed is much more significant can benefit

from an appropriate investment in state dollars that

can translate into savings for those homeowners,

again those who need it most. We are talking about

fixed income, Social Security income, low income,

talking about working folks.

I’ll end with this. The PosiGen model does not

require a FICO check because it looks at solar as an

alternative, solar plus energy efficiency is an

alternative to utility repayment and it uses that

value, the value that customers get as the way

investors get comfortable, private investors get

comfortable financing solar for those who need it

most. So if the companies go and I’ll leave my

testimony with staff is really to say net metering

has worked. We see a path beyond it, the tariffs if

need be but making sure that in the current

environment we take advantage of the ITC maximize

that value and build an industry that can transition

is really the goal. With that I’ll end my comments

and invite any questions.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you so much. You

guys a non-profit?

BEN HEALY: The for profit company but the

alternative underwriting approach makes a lot of

folks think it is a non-profit so it is a not yet a

certified D-Corp but the idea is to move in a

130 MARCH 5, 2019



direction where folks understand there is a value in

mission basis to the company but also all the

capital is the same traditional tax equity

investors, big banks, etc. behind the company just

very much at a higher cost of capital because they

see the population we serve as risker. The whole

missions of PosiGen is to say, listen if you’re

saving money on their bills, they are going to pay

those bills because they are going to want the

lights on and the refrigerator running. So overtime

we bring that cost of capital down and bring it more

in line with the industry. But having a state

partnership on that with the Green Bank has been

critical to showing Connecticut how that can be

done.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): That’s great. Thank you.


Thank you for your testimony today and for giving us

a little different perspective on this particularly

the work that your organization does, does highlight

that people are willing to invest a bit more in

order to obtain certain critical social outcomes and

really very important. You mentioned the

alternative of the Massachusetts tariff model. Can

you tell us, I don’t have your testimony before me,

how long has that been in place and do you have any

sense of their experience with it?

BEN HEALY: The Smart Program in Massachusetts was

rolled out and finally implemented in 2018 so it is

a relatively recent phenomenon to have this LMI as

part of it and from what we’ve heard from industry

colleagues up there and I’ll defer to other because

there are plenty of cross-state players has been

131 MARCH 5, 2019



that having a base level tariff with an adder

structure for the various components it sort of

builds on a net metering framework rather than fully

disrupts it, has allowed companies that want to

serve not just traditional customers but like

PosiGen going down to the lower income, the more

blue-collar communities to be successful and I think

it is a model that we could look to as part of a

broader study. It doesn’t strike me as within the

current regulatory regime or the former regulatory

regime, the evolving regulatory regime in

Connecticut something we have to say, lets turn that

on tomorrow, it seems like there is an evolving

consensus that we are moving too fast but in that

future state a tariff structure with adders are

harder to serve populations, certainly seems like a

very viable approach.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): I know you’ve given

Committee members something to think about given

that we’re already intending or at least thinking

about pausing moving forward with the proposed

regime in SB9 it’s good to hear there are other

tariff models out there that might be very

appropriate to the State of Connecticut and I would

think this argues in favor of a slower more

deliberate approach for Connecticut and making sure

we get it right the first time rather than having to

go through the experience other states did implement

tariff regimes and then have to back off and so,

thank you for that. I look forward to seeing your

testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BEN HEALY: I think the point I would make in

response is simply that given the way we are in time

with the Federal ITC stepdown, this is really, the

132 MARCH 5, 2019



confusion in the industry and the pushing and the

disruption is inopportune just because we have this

ability to take advantage of so much Federal ITC now

that we should maximize that and so it give us the

opportunity to move in sync with that rather than

lose that moment.


Thank you so much.

BEN HEALY: Thank you, sir.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Lori Vitagliano. Welcome.

LORI VITAGLIANO: Good afternoon, Chairman

Needleman, Chairman Arconti and Ranking Members of

the Committee. My name is Lori Vitagliano and I am

here on behalf of the South Central Connecticut

Regional Water Authority. We are a non-profit

public corporation, political subdivision of the

State. We provide approximately 45 million gallons

of water per day to some 430,000 consumers in

Greater New Haven 15 communities and we appreciate

the opportunity to provide comments on House Bill

7115 AN ACT CONCERNING VIRTUAL NET METERING.

We request respectfully that the Bill be amended

clarify the Virtual Net Metering (VNM) hosts. While

state and municipal entities are allowable hosts, it

is our understanding that “political subdivisions”

must be specifically listed in order for Regional

Water Authority as a political subdivision of the

state to benefit from solar power and virtual net

metering. The clarification would allow us to

further our commitment to renewable energy and

environmental sustainability while helping us

mitigate our operational costs through reduced

133 MARCH 5, 2019



energy expenditures that will ultimately lower rates

for our customers.

As a public water utility we operate more than 120

pump stations and treatment facilities throughout

our water district and not all of these facilities

are in locations that are well-suited for the

placement of renewable energy equipment and with

virtual metering the RWA would be able to take

advantage of renewable energy projects, lower our

costs by siting renewable energy equipment at

appropriate locations. One single solar array

installed at one water treatment plant would be able

to help reduce the conventional electricity loads at

the other treatment plants or a pump station and it

would allow the most effectively use our resources

and would help us continue to reduce our carbon

footprint by increasing the use of clean energy

sources. And I’ve heard the testimony and I’ve

heard from last year SB9 so we know there is a

possibility of things changing or holding or

transition periods so we respectfully request that

the host be evaluated to allow us as a political

subdivision to be part of the beneficial host.

Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Anybody have

any questions? Have a lovely afternoon. Debora

Goldstein. Welcome.

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Why, thank you. Distinguished

Members of the Energy and Technology Committee my

name is Debora Goldstein. I currently have the

privilege of serving as a voting member of the CEEMC

Board of Directors and Alternate Member Delegate to

Chair this Legislative Committee and the Chair of

134 MARCH 5, 2019



the Special Committee investigating the activities

that lead to PA 17-73. My eligibility to serve at

CMEEC is a result of having been elected to the

Third Taxing District, I represent the electors and

rate-payers of East Norwalk within the City of

Norwalk. TTD’s mission is to provide the most

reliable electrical service, for the lowest cost,

with the best customer service. Period. And I am

pleased to say that we are beloved as a utility by

our ratepayer-owners. It is important that you

understand how much value we are able to deliver as

a result of our membership in CMEEC.

I am here today to talk about the unintended

consequences that will result from Senate Bill 961.

Make no mistake, the bill before you will serve to

reduce the operational efficiency of CMEEC and

increase costs to the downstream rate-payers;

despite its laudable attempts to do the opposite.

Almost all of the newer requirements in 961 add

little direct value for the amounts of effort or

increased costs involved—whether duplicative audits,

stringent disclosure timelines or finetuning of

voting standards. Taking projects away removes a

tangible offset at the times when energy costs are

highest, and advance power contracts alone simply

cannot capture that value. A municipality as small

as Third Taxing District would be hard-pressed to

reproduce the services provided by CMEEC, much less

to do so at a comparable cost.

CMEEC has taken substantial and appropriate action

to improve the controls and oversight necessary for

a public agency; both in response to Public Act 17-

135 MARCH 5, 2019



73 and in response to a newly configured board that

takes their duty of care very seriously to the

membership, to the rate-payers and to its rank and

file employees. And CMEEC is continuing to deliver

value to its membership, even as it deals with the

continued fall-out from sins of the past.

Among the steps taken was the creation of a Special

Committee charged to overseeing an outside

investigation by independent counsel, reviewing

those findings and making recommendations to the

full board for remedial action. Those are in

addition to the ones that it’s already pursuing.

And while it is difficult to detect bad actors who

are intent on deceiving those who manage them, I

believe that the lessons learned from this

investigation will provide the best guidance for

ensuring that it never happens again.

Our rate-payers in East Norwalk are proud of their

ownership in a system that delivers low-cost

electricity with rates that have not increased since

1985. They are proud of the fact that our lights

stayed on in the wake of storms Irene and Sandy.

They are proud of the living people answer our

phone. They are proud of our local library, and

other community services and our success is a

testament to the success of the CMEEC business

model, which remains sound.

The challenges our industry faces in the years ahead

are substantial. Climate change threatens our

infrastructure, disrupter technologies like smart-

grids, solar panels and battery storage nip at our

margins and we need the time and the expertise to

move our industry away from fossil fuels. It is our

136 MARCH 5, 2019



hope that you allow us to continue to depend upon

one thing that has been working, and continues to

work, as we turn to face those challenges.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you

today and I welcome any questions to someone who is

at the MEU Level in public power.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, anybody have

any questions? Yep.

REP. PERILLO (113TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank

you Ms. Goldstein. Good to see a Norwalk person up

here. It’s all right. Thank you for your

testimony. I was going through it and I was just

curious, I didn’t really see anything about the

funds, energy etiquette. I mean does this

legislation get this part right as far as you can

say?

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Thanks for the question. It is

actually hard to speak to everything that’s in the

Bill in three minutes. My suggestion would be to

leave the language as it originally appeared in 17-

73. The legislature wisely recognized that the

heavy lifting of this engagement would be done at

the front and it set a baseline for what was gonna

go on after the heavy lifting was over. Even under

those conditions all note that the MECA did not use

all of it’s first year fund. They already have

access to all of the expertise and it’s considerable

expertise at CMEEC and it’s at CMEEC’s expense.

Additional funds for consultants is probably

unnecessary and I would add the point that the voice

of ratepayer isn’t only represented by that one

individual or the ratepayer rep that appeared in 17-

73, I am an elected official. I report to my

137 MARCH 5, 2019



ratepayers. We bring our budget to them every year

at an annual meeting and they vote in an old

fashioned town meeting. They see our budgets and

they are not hesitant to talk to us at the MEU

level. We do understand what our ratepayers need,

want and expect.

REP. PERILLO (113TH): Thank you for that. Just

another attack. Love that you’ve spoken about the

idea of Connecticut getting out of doing projects

and that sort of thing and I am a little back and

forth because my concern is that the impact on the

actual NEUs is to me not clear and I am just

wondering if you could clarify some of that.

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Okay fair enough and thanks for

the opportunity to elaborate on the point. Advanced

energy purchasing which is the hedging in the energy

market can only take us so far in avoiding the

costliest energy purchases at the peak demand in the

market. Everything we’ve heard at the federal

policy level on down indicates these costs are going

to keep going up as long as our regional markets do

not change their rules. These projects allow us to

combine our resources as smaller utilities to sell

power when the demand is highest and offset our peak

demand costs when everybody is competing for the

same supply. Basically when power is most expensive

for our customers, it is also most profitable for us

to sell it on the other side in order to offset the

books in terms of cost. These projects also give us

a cost effective way to reach into the future of

electricity markets and to understand where our

investments have to go going forward in order to

move away from fossil fuels. And I know that’s a

138 MARCH 5, 2019



goal Connecticut is committed to with its Renewable

Portfolio Standards.

I’d also like to just note that there is not a

direct line between the cost CMEEC charges its

customers, the six member utilities and the handful

of others. What gets missed is that municipal

electric utilities typically pay pilot transfers to

the local municipality that fund other things. In

our case a public library, a cemetery, a fire house

and a series of other public services. Those things

would otherwise be paid for by property taxes and I

would argue that the visibility that our ratepayers

have to the budget in terms of what they are paying

for with their electric rates is clearer than it

would if it was going through the property tax

basis. Those pilot fees people forget that they add

to the retail rate and they do benefit the ratepayer

but not necessarily in their retail bill and you

cannot draw a straight line between those two

figures.

I am also going to note for the record because there

were a number of questions about passing our profits

back from CMEEC in the form of lower rates, the TTD

did exactly that a couple of years ago after a cost

of service study indicated to use that we could

share some of the value that we were earning and we

lowered the rates for our largest commercial

customer, a wastewater treatment plant by 11 percent

over three years. That effectively benefited

everybody in the City of Norwalk despite the fact

that it was coming from our little tiny utility in

one corner.

139 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. PERILLO (113TH): Thank you. That is a great

answer and I appreciate you doing your homework on

that level. Previously we’ve been talking about

they cannot, you know, really focused on the idea of

transparency and oversight and it has been really

kicked around back and forth here in this Committee

today. The question has been raised what kind, to

what level do we need enhanced transparency based on

last year’s bill that already came through. So I’m

just trying to get a better sense of what the impact

of, you know, additional layers of transparency what

that’s gonna have on the any of this.

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. It’s a good point. I

as a ratepayer and a citizen in Norwalk like to

emphasize transparency, we’re always in beating up

the local town counsel and implementing

__040450___wide challenges. Quite frankly a lot of

language proposed this year is duplicative and were

this legislation to make it out of Committee as I

hope it does not, the way I read this CMEEC would be

subject to three separate regular audits. It’s

already held to meeting posted guidelines that are

far more stringent than other agencies in the State

of Connecticut under FOI and I would argue that the

carveouts from FOI for commercially sensitive

information should remain in place as we have

counter partiers that have indicated to us that they

would refuse to do business with us if this

information is made public. Even the SEC provides

for the exclusion of commercially sensitive pricing

information in publicly traded companies.

Furthermore I argue that there is a lot of

misunderstanding about the information that is

already made public. For example the request here to

140 MARCH 5, 2019



model the CMEEC bill to the PURA bill format, PURA

does retail bill formatting and the customers of

CMEEC or in fact municipal electric utilities with

some exceptions, if we were to follow the PURA

billing format there I’ve been told that it will

actually reduce our ability to see what we are being

billed for. We actually provide more detailed

information at this point in time. As another

example, there is an idea that those accounts up at

CMEEC, the Economic Development Accounts and the CLM

funds accounts and the other things that were

discussed earlier today are somehow hidden from our

ratepayers and for those of you who are able to sit

in on a Municipal Electric Utility Commission you

would understand that it is not the case. We get

audited at the MEU level, those amounts are

accounted for by the accountant, by the auditors.

They are reported to our commission on a regular

basis, they appear in our monthly P&L Reporting to

us and all of that information at the MEU level is

made available in our commission packets for anyone

to inspect or in any response to an FOI request.

Nobody is hiding anything. It is a difficult

industry to understand and sometimes what your

lookin at doesn’t seem to answer the question that

you have but ask us, we are happy to share the

information and we are happy to make it as available

as possible to our rate payers to the extent that we

can explain it and make it better, that will improve

everything we do. Thank you. I really appreciate

the opportunity today.

REP. PERILLO (113TH): Thank you very much for your

answers they have been very helpful. So back to the

Chair.

141 MARCH 5, 2019




Senator Formica.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good

afternoon, thank you for your testimony. May I ask

how long you have been a voting member for the Board

of Directors?

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: I was appointed by my local

commission in November of 2017.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): So that was at or during

all the events of the day?

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Exactly, it was shortly after PA

17-73 we were informed had to start being

implemented and I think we got the letter in the

summer. But I will say it’s not connected to that.

Our general manager would have been the Board Member

there and our longstanding Chairman of our

Commission who had served for 20 years also retired

so we had a couple of openings and some shifting

around. I had been on the municipal utility

commission for four years and it takes us that long

to get up to speed on the industry.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): In Norwalk?

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: In Norwalk. That is correct.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Is it Norwalk or East

Norwalk or is that two different districts or?

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: The taxing district gets ya every

time. So Norwalk’s got an Amalgamated Municipality

Charter that includes taxing districts, they are

kind a like special services districts on steroids.

We are allowed to offer these municipal utility

things and we function like a municipality in terms

142 MARCH 5, 2019



of taxation, property seizures and things of those

nature but we are only here to deliver the services

from the municipal utility and the small amount of

district services that that funds through pilot

transfers. So depends on what context you’re

talking about, municipality, we are a municipality

in our own right in certain legal environments but

we are part of the City of Norwalk.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you for that answer.

I have in my town six, or seven or eight now beach

associations and they operate I think in a similar

way.

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Indeed they do.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): It’s kind a difficult to

keep that up to speed but as a member of the Board

of Directors either you or the people that I guess

worked above you or with you or whatever parallel

with you, they must have been aware of all of this

going on and you said that your rates haven’t gone

up since 1985?

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: That is true of the third taxing

district. I can’t speak to the other municipal

electric utility and to be clear and not to be

misleading to the Committee that does not mean

people didn’t pay more for electricity at certain

times or less for electricity at certain times, if

you remember the CLM Funds flow into rate

stabilization funds and are need to account for when

power is higher or lower is adjusted through a

mechanism called the Power Cost Adjustment. Some

municipalities call it something a little bit

different but our base rate as filed with PURA has

143 MARCH 5, 2019



not changed or increased since 1985. That is

correct.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): So all of these dollars

that flowed out for these various events and

indiscretions if you will that have occurred over

the years it had no effect on any of your rates at

all that you’ve seen, had no effect on you as a

board member, you didn’t speak about it with any of

the people you mentioned, your director or manager

before I forget, the two gentlemen you mentioned?

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Our general manager and

commissioner.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Your general manager, thank

you. None of that, you know, was concerning and

listen, I don’t want to throw the baby out with the

bathwater here, but, you know, the fact of the

matter is we have some problems that need to be

corrected and the people that need to have those

problems solved are still in involved in this

organization and so I am a little concerned that

you’re coming here as a member of the Board of

Directors and, you know, defending the organization

completely. I find that difficult to believe.

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: I don’t mean to suggest that

there was not wrongdoing, please do understand and

I’ve been sitting through some very painful meetings

over the last five months or so as the Chair of the

Special Committee, as an independent counsel does

what I would argue is an investigation that should

have been carried out years ago. As a member of

municipal electric utility I can tell you I was not

aware of the Kentucky Derby trip until they made the

newspapers at the other end of the state. We have

144 MARCH 5, 2019



taken steps at our municipal electric utility to

ensure folks like myself who go up to CMEEC are

clearing the individual utility and more fully.

That having been said, I go back to my statement

when bad actors are intent on hiding things from

managers, sometimes they can be very good at it and

it is unfortunate that we are still finding some

small items, the MECA is helping and going all

through that but I think the point has been made by

some of the previous speakers and may be made by

folks after me, the Board is largely comprised of

new people and there aren’t very many new fact being

found.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): So if I may interrupt while

you’re on that, has the Board taken steps to comply

with the law that is recently on the books this past

year and everything is?

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Absolutely to my understanding

they’ve taken steps to bring forward policy changes

to various policies. The Governance Committee is

looking at even new policies to try and tighten

things up. The bad actors here are not at the

organization any longer. Those who have been

indicted by the FBI they have been removed, possibly

at risk of liability to the Joint Action Agency

because they were removed without pay, right but

many of the Board Members felt very strongly about

making sure that we had the ability to, as Mayor

Hedrick said to you before, turn the corner. If I

had a time machine and I could go back and undo

this, I would.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I think we’re all there, I

think we all are.

145 MARCH 5, 2019



DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: I do appreciate that. Again, I

point out to you that there is not a direct line

necessarily that you can draw from wholesale power

and the layers of cost that are applied at the

retail level, there are complexities to this

business and there is an idea that there is somehow

an ideal and optimal cost for power that we need to

get to. This is a commodity that is traded on the

market. We are constrained in things like gas

supply and everybody goes looking for the same power

sources at the same time.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I think you’ve answered

the question. With all due respect there is a lot

of background in there, there is a lot of

indiscretions that occurred aside of what you’re

talkin about. I understand the purchasing of power

and all that. I understand the mayor’s concern

about what is gonna happen to the ratepayers in his

community if big organizations opt out of this whole

situation. I understand all of that. And I am in

agreement with, you know, some of good things that

they’ve done in order to provide low cost power over

time but there has been a lot, there’s been a lot of

indiscretions here that, you know, for you to sit

here and say that, you know, they are over complying

with things that other agencies don’t have to do,

well for God’s sake the reason that’s the case is

because, you know, they did all of this stuff. And

so I’m not sure where I am on this particular Bill.

I’m not sure where I’m gonna go on this, you know,

in terms of the investments and things but I think

there has to be some very close scrutiny and I think

there has to certainties that consumer advocates

gonna be extremely involved and the members on the

146 MARCH 5, 2019



board in the past probably shouldn’t be members on

the board in the present and that we should, if

were gonna move forward, let’s move forward, it not

we gotta start over. That’s my impression of this

whole thing. So thank you very much for your time

in coming up here and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DEBORA GOLDSTEIN: Okay.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Anyone else? Thank you.

Mark Oefinger. Good afternoon.

MARK OEFINGER: Good afternoon and thank you for

providing me with the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Mark Oefinger and I currently serve on

the CMEEC Board of Directors as the Groton Ratepayer

Representative. As you are aware the ratepayer

representative positions were a requirement of PA17-

73. I was appointed by the Groton City Council in

accordance with PA17-73 to serve on the CMEEC Board

of Directors and have served

I have attended and/or participated in all of the

Board of Director’s meeting since my appointment and

during my first year on the board I attended

numerous committee meetings in an effort to become

familiar with CMEECs operations, practice and

organizational culture. In addition to being on the

CMEEC Board, I currently serve on the Legislative

Governance and Audit Standing Committees and on the

recently established Special Committee that Deb

noted earlier.

As way of background I retired from the Town of

Groton, not the City of Groton, the Town of Groton

in August 2017 after 35 years of service, serving as

it’s Town Manger for the last 15 years of my tenure

147 MARCH 5, 2019



from 2002 through 2017. Prior to being appointed to

Town Manager I service at Groton’s Director of

Planning and Development and it with that 35 years

of public sector experience and that of serving on

the CMEEC Board for the last year and participation

on various committees that I provide the following

testimony today.

I would like to note, you know, given my background

I want you to be assured that I am not conflicted in

any way. I fully understand that CMEEC is a public

entity and I think that possibly some folks prior to

me, that was not always the case. They may have

thought it was hybrid agency or maybe even a private

agency.

First, I am optimistic that the current sixteen-

member Board of Directors, twelve of whom were

appointed subsequent to the Kentucky Derby and other

outings, are committed to insuring that the

processes and procedures are firmly in place to

prevent these types of expenditures from occurring

in the future and that the utmost value is provided

to the municipal utilities and their end-users.

Others today have talked about what has already been

done by CMEEC to address these issues and concerns e

from adopting a stricter ethics and conflict of

interest policy to an enhanced travel policy, etc.

Secondly, the additional layer of oversight added by

the proposed audit by the Auditors of Public

Accounts is, in my opinion, unnecessary and

redundant at this time. CMEEC is already mandated

to have an annual financial audit which it posts on

its website and has been subject to a forensic

examination for the prior five years, is subject to

148 MARCH 5, 2019



FOIA, and has Ratepayer Representatives as well as

the Municipal Electric Consumer Advocate

participating in our meetings and activities. It

should be noted that this bill reaches into all

municipalities and requires such things as posting

budgets within 48 hours as well as posting executed

agreements on its websites without the redaction of

trade secrets. I would offer that most

counterparties to these agreements would not be

inclined to provide lower cost goods and services to

municipalities if information such as pricing were

made public.

Third, the provision limiting CMEEC investments to

the purchase of power undermines the whole of

CMEEC’s value creation and is certainly unrelated to

the activities that has generated this controversy.

CMEEC’s ability to own and prudently manage a

variety of assets to offset swings in energy and

transmission costs provides substantial financial

benefit to the individual municipal electric

utilities and their customers. This model has

worked in the past and continues to work for the

benefit of the State of Connecticut consumers. And

I see no reason to dismantle that.

Lastly, I would like to assure the Committee that if

there is a guilty verdict with respect to the

indictments, CMEEC is already bound by its own

bylaws to recoup legal fees and costs. I have heard

nothing that would contradict this statement.

Lastly, I would respectfully request that this

Proposed Bill be rejected. PA17-13 has served CMEEC

the municipal utilities and the ratepayers well.

Allow it to be fully implemented and give it as

149 MARCH 5, 2019



Mayor Hedrick all the time, more runtime before

making additional changes. This is a very, very

complicated industry which I’ve learned over the

last year. We all need to be concerned about

unintended consequences. Thank you.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Thank you for your

testimony. Senator Formica.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hi, Mark. First let me tell you, I know of no person

that I’ve ever worked with in town government that

has greater and higher integrity than you do and it

was a pleasure to work with you when I was First

Selectman of East Lyme and you were Town Manger of

Groton and we served together on the Council of

Government. So delighted that you’re on that CMEEC

Board because you bring something that clearly has

been needed there for some time and I am grateful to

hear that.

Moving forward, you were addressed in your testimony

some of the things that had been of concern the

legal fees and new Board of Directors. Did I hear

your say 12 of 16?

MARK OEFINGER: By my count 12 of 16 Board of

Directors are, have been on the Board after the

Kentucky Derby episodes.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): And in terms of the

Executive Director and all of those, has that been

finalized yet or is that still a legal issue?

MARK OEFINGER: It’s still a legal issue. Folks

have been placed on leave without pay and as the

prior individual noted there is a Special Committee

that CMEEC has established which is also doing it’s

150 MARCH 5, 2019



own investigation. That really has nothing to do

with the indictments and so forth. It is a separate

activity above and beyond the indictments.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Okay because I remember

sitting here as a member of this Committee last year

when Chairman Reed called for his remove from there

and he was quite arrogant about the whole situation

and it was pretty disturbing at that point,

cavalierly.

MARK OEFINGER: That individual has been placed on

administrative leave.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): So then there is someone

there that is now doing an acting position [Cross-

talking]

MARK OEFINGER: I believe you will hear from him

shortly.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I’m fully aware of the

unintended consequences that would happen if all of

this, you know, fell apart. I really think that

some level of oversight really needs to happen to

make sure that this doesn’t happen again. And I

will relook at this Bill for some of the things that

you brought up in mind because I have great respect

for your ability and your integrity and I am glad

that your are working. Mayor, I’m sorry I wasn’t

here to listen to your testimony so I certainly mean

no disrespect to you. But is there anything that

you may want to add that you haven’t said already?

MARK OEFINGER: Maybe just to reiterate, you know,

certainly bad things happened. And when I first

became aware of them prior to being nominated by the

City of Groton to serve on the Board, I will admit

151 MARCH 5, 2019



based on my 35 years of public sector experience I

had to think, what the heck were these people

thinking of and how could a Board allow this to

happen, not once but a number of times. I am not

sure I’ve gotten 100 percent satisfactory answer to

those thoughts at this point. I think it is fair to

say that not all board members were in the know.

Some were and didn’t feel it was a problem and

hindsight is always 20/20. So I don’t, mistakes

were made and I think people realize that mistakes

were made and, you know, I am concerned of the

unintended consequences. I think CMEEC has done

fantastic work over the years. I first dealt with

CMEEC as a lowly town planner in the Town of Groton

when they used to have their offices located on

Thomas Road and they came in for a potential

expansion. They’ve been around a longtime. The

individuals that work at CMEEC, the worker bees have

an incredible amount of knowledge that I don’t think

could easily be recreated by the individual

utilities or even another organization. So my sense

is we’re better off fixing the problem than to throw

the whole organization out and start over again. I

think there is far more value, far greater upside to

fix the problem and I truly do believe that the

Board has made significant strides in the last year

or so, maybe I can’t speak to prior to that and I

certainly believe that staff leadership understands

the issue and is working hard to correct any past

practices that may still be lingering or not totally

rejected at this point.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you. One last

question, Mr. Chairman. The Auditors of Public

Accounts are named in the Bill and to try to take

152 MARCH 5, 2019



over the auditing on a particular timeframe. We had

a forensic audit, or you had a forensic audit done,

or the organization has a forensic audit done and

those processes are being implemented?

MARK OEFINGER: Correct, I should have maybe noted

in my comments there is not a board meeting that

I’ve been to in the time that I’ve been onboard that

some aspect of corrective measures has not been

discussed or talked about and certainly in some of

the committees. The forensic audit while it was in

this initial legislation took some time to hire them

and to have them do the audit and as I believe was

noted earlier for the last couple of months the

board and staff have been going through the

recommendations and making adjustments, corrections

as necessary. As I think all of you are aware, an

audit it’s a snapshot in time, I mean I’m a big

believer in audits and my negative comment or

comment concerning an additional audit is I think we

would be better off, you know, spending the time to

digest the information that we have before we start

to go off and do another audit by another entity

that may or may not feel compelled that they need to

find something to justify. I don’t believe it’s an

auditor that we would be hiring, this is the State.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): The Auditor of Public

Accounts is an agency here that works, you know,

very, very well in a nonpartisan manner and to me

maybe a good answer to this particular issue at

least in the short-term going forward to take

everybody out of the loop down there and brings it

to a new independent agency. So that is the only

thing. I sense from the previous person who

testified and from you that it maybe a bit of

153 MARCH 5, 2019



overkill at this point, but, you know, I tell ya the

just is still out. I think were still angry about

the events of last year with this and about the

arrogance that occurred with all of this. So in the

interest of time, I am sure I can speak with you

offline but I thank you for coming up here today.

Thank you, Mayor for coming up here today and I

appreciate your testimony. I still think we got a

long way to go with this but I appreciate your

testimony and I’m glad you’re on the watch because

like I said before there isn’t anybody better.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Thank you, Senator. Thank

you for all your work on this concept. Any other

questions? Seeing none, thanks for your testimony.

Mike Trahan? Following Mike will be Steve Pelton.

MIKE LANE: I have our CMEEC’s General Counsel with

me today to answer some detailed questions if

necessary. Co-Chairs Senator Needleman and

Representative Arconti, Ranking Members Senator

Formica and Representative Ferraro and Distinguished

Members of the Energy and Technology Committee my

name is Mike Lane. I am the Chief Financial Officer

and Interim Chief Executive Office for CMEEC.

I want to assure the committee that we acknowledge

our mistakes. We have learned from our mistakes. We

have taken a number of concrete actions to ensure

proper governance and oversight at CMEEC, and

promote transparency and accountability, consistent

with our public charter.

As a bit of background I spent 26 years in

accounting and finance including many years of

developing and managing internal controls. I’ve also

154 MARCH 5, 2019



managed and directed many accounting and finance

departments of various sizes over the past 18 years.

I joined CMEEC of October of 2016 as Financial

Controller.


and have learned from our mistakes. We have taken a

number of concrete actions to ensure proper

governance and oversight at CMEEC, and to promote

transparency and accountability. We believe this

Bill would add unnecessary and duplicative costs to

CMEEC and its member utilities. While mistakes have

been made and oversight has not been sufficient we

also want folks to know that we continue to provide

significant value to our customers.

We provide customers with low cost energy to

residential, commercial and industrial end users

including economic drivers to this states, the

United States Navy, Pfizer Electric Boat, Mohegan

Sun, Backus Hospital and the Groton- New London

Airport. Our projects, owing transmission and

generation assets, solar guards and storage serve as

a strategic purpose. They allow us to hedge against

highly volatile energy markets and other costs.

They enhance our renewable portfolio. We are truly

a joint action agency purposed to leverage scale.

We do believe this legislature took appropriate

actions with Public Act 17-73 to ensure that CMEEC

and MEUs operate in open transparent process. We

respectfully ask that you allow us to move forward

under the controls and transparency provisions

contained in Public Act 17-73 and allow the Board

and the leadership to take necessary actions and

give us time under Public Act 17-73 to regain the

155 MARCH 5, 2019



trust of the legislature and the public. Thank you.

I’ll answer any questions you may have at this time.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Mike.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. Thank you for coming, thank you for

your testimony. And thank you for what you’re doing

to kind of right the ship and I understand that. I

have a trouble balancing, you know, going forward

without repercussions, without safeguards that are

sufficient to make sure not that any of you guys are

gonna do this again. I can’t imagine that happening

again. I can’t even imagine the Board of anybody

that is involved that is allowing that to happen.

But I think there’s got to be a clear statement that

is definitely put behind us. I think the current

Public Act is doing that. I kind a like the idea of

the Auditor of Public Accounts because it kinda

brings it up here where we all can take a look for

the next few years but, you know, I’m willin to

consider, you know, other options. But you and I

have spoken outside of this Committee Room and I

know that your intent is good there and I know again

without repeating myself too much is, you know,

unintended consequences sometimes of overreaction.

But I think the public needs to know where we are,

what’s going on and I think the legislature needs to

act decisively and I think that’s where we are.


our mistakes. We have learned from our mistakes. We

have taken a number of concrete actions to ensure

proper governance and oversight at CMEEC, and

promote transparency and accountability, consistent

with our public charter. I want to assure the

156 MARCH 5, 2019



committee that we acknowledge our mistakes. We have

learned from our mistakes. We have taken a number of

concrete actions to ensure proper governance and

oversight at CMEEC, and promote transparency and

accountability, consistent with our public charter.

MIKE LANE: Just a little bit to that this year in

2019 I will be voluntarily proposing and going out

for RP for an internal control review on our

internal financial controls. So I will be doing

that as well this year.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): There was just a comment,

we were talking about further discussion that may

need to occur within the organization of CMEEC and

the legislature with regard to full disclosure of

what’s happening in a forum like this and you know,

that may or may not be part of it. I’ll let the

Representative elaborate if he likes, but, you know,

again I appreciate what you’re doing and I think if,

again the legislature is just having a difficult

time getting over the arrogance of the testimony

that we saw last year. But I thank you for your

service and your intent. Did you want to have

something to say?

ROBIN KITNESS: Yes, I did. I just wanted to clear

up a couple of points that have been made.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Would you do me one favor,

and I know who you are, but will you introduce

yourself for the record?

ROBIN KITNESS: My name is Robin Kitness. I am the

General Counsel of CMEEC. These are just discrete

points. I think there was some question about how

the municipal electric utilities could withdraw from

157 MARCH 5, 2019



membership in CMEEC and there was some discussion

about whether that requires a lawsuit and I just

want you to know that is not accurate. For a member

to withdraw they just need to let us know that they

no longer want to be a member of CMEEC. This issues

that we need to come to terms with is they can’t

withdraw somehow dealing with the existing tax

exempt status that is on the book. In Wallingford’s

case they sent us a letter saying they no longer

wanted to, they were not a member, they no longer

wanted to be a participant, we honored that.

Arbitration we’re involved with right now has, it’s

a contractual matter and has nothing to do with

whether they can leave participation in CMEEC. So I

wanted to clear that up. The other thing I wanted

to talk about was just about the forensic

examination and the process that we got to in

choosing a forensic examination audit firm. The

first set of legislation that came out, 17-73 we

went out for an RFP for the forensic examination.

We got one response. That response was our current

auditor. The legislation was actually, as it was

written, was pretty much unworkable and I worked

with the Electric Consumer Advocate Ellen Katz to

reintroduce the legislation so that we would get a

broader response. So it was, I think it’s a little

unfair to say that there was a conflict of interest

in who we chose the first time around. We tried to

implement that legislation and we received one

response. So I wanted to clear up those two points.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you very much. Were

you going to add something before I yield to the

good Representative? Thank you very much for your

testimony on my behalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if

158 MARCH 5, 2019



you don’t mind I’m turning it over to the good

Representative.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Thank you very much. I guess

the background information to all of us has been

said multiple times is very disturbing. I hear from

Senator Formica and our questions regarding, you

know, follow through on this level of reporting that

you feel is either onerous or you want time for the

existing legislation to be put in place and a

chance. It begs the question and I’m not sure, this

is my first year on the Committee and my first year

in the House so I would maybe refer to the Chair and

question whether or not either an implementation of

this legislation or whether we’ll consider some kind

of an annual reporting subsequent to the completion

of the forensic exam whether we would have any other

requirements because obviously a follow through from

what you’re hearing sounds like we want a follow

through and in light of that follow through, you

know, we’ve got a law you don’t like and the

question is whether we’ll consider anything else.

MIKE LANE: So we do, we have submitted an Annual

Report and we will do annually, last summer.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): But I’m not sure we’ve seen it

or the details of the forensic report and the

remedies which might be required as well to

understand going forward.

MIKE LANE: We can report that to you, absolutely.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): That would be something

subject to the Committee. I just think made that

suggestion individually.

159 MARCH 5, 2019



ROBIN KITNESS: The Annual Report is sent to the

Committee we could certainly add the progresses made

on adapting the recommendations of the forensic

exam.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Just one

question for my own, what was done was pretty awful

in my opinion but the question came up a while ago

about the impact on ratepayers. The amount of money

that was spent for sort of frivolous unnecessary

expenses was about $1 million dollars over ten

years.

MIKE LANE: Four years.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): And what was the gross

revenue?

MIKE LANE: Our revenues are anywhere between $150-

$250 million dollars.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): So about $800 million

dollars over four years?

MIKE LANE: Yes, sir.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Okay thank you.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Thank you. I apologize for

not being here for most of the testimony. My

concern here is I feel like the tenor of the

discussion every member is entitled to their

perspective and to have concerns of whatever level

they might but, you know, maybe being here as long

as I have been I can recall when I Chaired this

Committee my Co-Chair wanting every town to be a

municipal electric town, every town she wanted and

put legislation in to make that easier to happen.

That is the history of CMEEC and organizations that

160 MARCH 5, 2019



are municipal electrics in this state. The worm has

certainly turned here and I guess I have to ask you,

the CEO, if you have the perspective of what

happened getting so much attention here, in terms of

what’s in place currently would those things have

been caught?

MIKE LANE: I believe so. I believe with our

transparency and our new transparency for our board

reports that some of the specific line items that

would now be reported in our monthly board package

and our Annual Report to the General Assembly.

Eyebrows would have raised in question.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): But short of, that’s in

hindsight, right? That’s a report of but would

things have been prevented. Would there have been

ability under the current system to prevent those

things from taking place in the first place as

opposed to being found out in an audit?

MIKE LANE: Maybe not in a normal audit.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): I’m not speaking about an

audit. I’m speaking about the procedures you have

in place approving of activity?

MIKE LANE: Yes. Yes, I’m sorry. Yes so we

instituted an Ethics and Conflict of Interest Policy

and a new enhanced Travel Policy and those items

would be caught in that.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): And who gets to see those in

terms of the reports themselves? Are there reports

monthly or annual approval of travel, approval of

any of the things that happened here?

161 MARCH 5, 2019



MIKE LANE: So currently the CFO would approve the

CEO’s expenses and I am going to try to change that

to have an Executive Committee of the Board approve

the CEO’s expenses in this year and other than that.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Does the Municipal Electric

Council see those?

MIKE LANE: If he asked for those, yes those could

be provided to him.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Why does that have to be at

the request as opposed to a requirement?

MIKE LANE: Well currently expense reports and thing

like that are not actually required.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Right, but why would you not

make it to be required that the Consumer Council

sees it?

MIKE LANE: Currently, you know, expense reports and

things like that are not actually required.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Right, but why would you not

make it to be required that the Consumer Council

sees it?

MIKE LANE: I wouldn’t be opposed to it for sure.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Is there anything else that

you foresee that you would institutionalize to give

this Committee comfort? My concern Mr. Chairman is

that we are weighing into an area that has

historically been well run and that we not effect

this, not an experiment, it’s been going on for

many, many years and I think the results are clear

in terms of how many people have compared what

ratepayers are paying and there are other reasons

162 MARCH 5, 2019



for it, some of this legislature has said that the

investor owns must do certain things that we do not

require of the municipals but most people in this

state I think would gladly accept a rate reduction

of some 15 percent or whatever in their electric

bills. So is there anything else that you feel that

could be done that would be able to foreclose any

opportunity for malfeasance or what have you?

MIKE LANE: As I mentioned, maybe just before you

stepped in, I mentioned in this year 2019 I’ll be

going after an RP for a Finance Internal Controllers

Review from an independent sources as well as my

background of 26 years in finance and accounting and

managing internal controls and managing and

directing financial and accounting departments I

believe that level of background and knowledge would

sit well with modernizing our internal controls,

accounting policies, etc.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST): Great. Thank you. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Anyone have

any other questions? Yep.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good

afternoon. I also apologize for coming in late, I

missed some of the testimony. There’s a couple

things going on as usual for us. I just want to

make sure I’m crystal clear on the forensic

examination. You said that the way it’s currently

written in PA 17-73 makes it difficult for a lot of

people when you put out the RFP you only got one

request. You think it’s too high of a standard or

the requirements are too strict did I understand

that correctly?

163 MARCH 5, 2019



ROBIN KITNESS: That provision dealing with the

forensic examination was actually amended last year

to make it a workable procedure for us to go out for

RFPs. The existing language is Public Act 17-73

when it was first enacted we only had one response

to our RFP because of the way the legislation was

worded. So I worked with the Municipal Electric

Consumer Advocate and Ellen Katz to redraft the

language which was amended last year. We went out

for an RFP, we had multiple responses and we chose

Tom Resnick.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Okay what was the criteria how

you ended up choosing one over another? How did you

end up making that decision?

MIKE LANE: With their response they were with the

second RFP that went out in Public Act 18-50. There

were five responses and in selecting Cohn Resnick it

was a combination of their ability to do the

forensic examination and the cost involved. So they

were all very qualified to do the forensic

examination and very highly recognized firms and the

cost was a big factor that they were much less than

the others significantly.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Okay, thank you.

MIKE LANE: You’re welcome.


Thank you, folks. Now Mike Trahan followed by Steve

Pelton.

MIKE TRAHAN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the

Committee. My name is Mike Trahan. I am Executive

Director for Solar Connecticut which is the solar

specific state association.

164 MARCH 5, 2019



Our business is installing, designing and developing

residential and commercial solar in the State of

Connecticut. I am going to be the first of four

speakers. I brought with me today three experts to

speak on different part of Bill 7251. There have

been a number of questions I think that have been

posed to some individuals here who may or may not

have had the proper expertise to answer them. The

three gentlemen that are going to follow me have all

the answers so, please ask them the hard questions.

There are 22,00 solar workers in the State of

Connecticut right now. All of them are asking the

same question. What’s the rush? We asked that

question multiple times last year during the debate

on Senate Bill 9. It got us into the position that

we are now and frankly I think that 7251 is

continuing to rush the situation. As far as the

value of solar goes given a value solar six months

to be completed in Connecticut, if that gets done

then we would be the first state in America to get a

value solar study done in that short of a period of

time. Other states are taking upwards of two years.

This Bill never really did have that strong support

that it passed in the State Senate last year on the

night before the last day of the legislative

session. A number of amendments, some courageous

amendments were filed by a member of this Committee

and defended on the floor of the House actually

received a voice vote to overturn pieces of Senate

Bill 9 that we’re back here today asking to be done

again. That’s how weak of a position Senate Bill 9

had last year.

We made some suggestions to the Committee on how to

improve the Bill specifically Section 7 and I think

165 MARCH 5, 2019



there might be some misunderstanding. Those in the

solar industry are not here asking you to overturn

the wholesale change to Senate Bill 9. It is only

Section 7, pieces of Section 7 and you’ll hear in a

few minutes those specific things.

I did want to save the rest of my time, if I could

for some comments that were made earlier by

Commissioner Dykes. She said that cost shift wasn’t

the main driver behind elimination net metering

Connecticut. If it wasn’t cost shift what was it?

It was cost shift. Cost shift was repeated in the

Comprehensive Energy Strategy that DEEP dropped on

this Committee and the legislature 12 months ago,

the phrase cost shift was loaded throughout the

Comprehensive Energy Strategy. It is the reason

we’re here today. If anybody has another reason why

we shouldn’t move away from net metering we would

love to hear it. We hear why it is important to get

the net metering and rushed towards tariffs. People

ask us what’s the best program. What state has the

best program? We’ve got the best program right

here. It is called the RSIP Program. It is the

envy of other installers in other states on the

residential side. On the commercial side ZREC

program we have right now asking sellers and

developers around the country what’s the most,

what’s the best program on the commercial side, they

will say this program right here in Connecticut. Is

it the most lucrative program? It is not. Go to

other states, you’ll make a bigger buck in

Massachusetts if you wanted to. In Connecticut the

Green Back, DEEP and PURA has made developers, made

it very hard and rightly, made it tough on them to

make a buck here. But it’s working and it’s working

166 MARCH 5, 2019



well. After me Senator, Mr. Pelton has left but

we’re gonna hear from Noel Lafayette to speak on the

ZREC Program, Ed Merrick is here from Maryland from

Trinity Solar he is going to speak on how Senate

Bill 9 compares to solar programs in other states

and Stephan Hartmann will speak about battery

storage and net metering. If there’s any questions

I can answer I’d be happy to do so.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): You guys all want to come

up at the same time or do you want to do them

separately?

MIKE TRAHAN: It’s your call.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): No, we’ll do ‘em

separately. Representative Steinberg.


thank you, Mike for being here today. Getting back

to Commissioner Dyke’s testimony I believe she said

that despite the move away from the existing net

metering program the rate of solar installations

continues at the same pace that it did previously.

Is that your experience?

MIKE TRAHAN: I think the pace of residential solar

installations right now is probably faster than

we’ve ever seen and the main driver behind that is

that the program is supposed to expire in a couple

of months. We’ve got 2,200 solar workers in the

State of Connecticut in residential and commercial

programs that are actually about to be fired in just

a couple of months. How would you like to be a

business owner or work for one of those business

owners knowing in the back of your mind that you

might not have a job in a couple of months and a

167 MARCH 5, 2019



number of those people are here. There’s a fraction

of there are here that have been here throughout the

day but there are 2,200 people working on our

industry and there’s a lot riding on what you all

come up with this year in the Bill.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): So to your point, the rate

might be at a good rate but that is really

camouflaging the reason behind it which is we’re

reaching affectively an installation cliff if we go

forward with the program as mapped out in SB 9,

Section 7. One of the things we keep hearing is

that is virtually inevitable that every state will

be moving to a tariff regimen at some point or

another. My understanding is states have had uneven

experiences with tariffs. I understand the desire

to help the ratepayer anywhere we can and we are a

high cost of energy state and that’s something to be

taken into account but do we have, from your

perspective, enough experience from other states to

indicate that tariffs are inevitable or indeed the

only effective model for us going forward?

MIKE TRAHAN: Ed Merrick from Trinity Solar works in

multiple states, he can speak to that better than I.

But I’ll tell you this, no one in the solar industry

feels as though that we need to be tied to

incentives forever. We understand that incentives

are gonna go away. The incentive on residential

solar in the State of Connecticut has been reduced

12 times. I’m not sure that everybody understands

that. People think that the incentive has stayed

steady or maybe gotten more lucrative, 12 times over

the last six years or so the incentive of it the

installers get and eventually pass on to homeowners

has been cut 12 times. I don’t know that we need

168 MARCH 5, 2019



to, you look at states like Hawaii and California

and some states in the Southwest where solar

penetration is big. It is well in excess of 10

percent and at that point in time it’s a good reason

to look past net metering because frankly at that

point in time people who have solar on their

rooftops probably are shifting, net shifting costs

to people who don’t. But you don’t get to net cost

shift until you’ve reached 10 percent solar

penetration. In Connecticut were are in sight of

two percent. Solar in Connecticut would have to

increase five-fold before we would need to think

about moving to a tariff, that is not me saying

that, that is the U.S. Department of Energy research

and studies from other states.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): So to your point,

Connecticut seems to be trying to emulate states

that are many, many years in advance of them in

terms of penetration of solar and maybe there isn’t

any urgency on that score. And I also want to thank

you for your willingness to recognize it.

Eventually we’re gonna have to remove subsidies for

solar in this state and I am 100 percent in favor of

it and I will do it the day we remove subsidies for

fossil fuel exploration in this country as well.

MIKE TRAHAN: I don’t know that we’re looking to

emulate other states, I know for sure we’re looking

to avoid the mistakes that other states have made

and the policies that DEEP has proposed going back

to last year when they tried to force buy all/sell

all on consumers where all the solar you generated

had to go back to the utility that you couldn’t keep

any of it. When DEEP last year came and sat in this

chair and opposed battery storage they changed their

169 MARCH 5, 2019



mind on value solar. Last year in the CES they

opposed value solar. We’re just trying to avoid the

mistakes made in other states so the policies that

DEEP has proposed would take us down that path.

We’ve asked them to give us examples of other states

where these policies have worked. Crickets. We can

tell them multiple states where it hasn’t worked and

we have already.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): I think you also make a

good point, in the original version of SB-9 that was

submitted to this Committee over a year ago, there

was very selective use of data particularly as

relates to tariffs that in hindsight I found very

misleading and I really think that we are owed by

DEEP a much fairer and evenhanded approach to

comprehensive energy strategy than was reflected in

that expressions in SB-9 and it is incumbent on this

legislature to makeup for what DEEP failed to

provide by getting it right this time. Thank you,

Mike.

MIKE TRAHAN: Had we done value solar six years ago

like you proposed we wouldn’t be in this position,

Representative.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): I hate being right so often

[Laughter].

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): [Laughing] That’s great.

Thank you, Mike. Is there anybody else?

MIKE TRAHAN: Mr. Pelton has left, Senator. So Ed

Merrick, next. Thank you.

ED MERRICK: Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee, I apologize I’m a little under the

weather with a cough and cold.

170 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Welcome.

ED MERRICK: My name is Ed Merrick, I’m Vice-

President of Trinity Solar. I’ve been with the

company since 2007, been in the solar industry for

this is my 19th year actually.

Trinity Solar is a residential solar installer.

We’ve been operating since 2004. We opened up our

office in 2008 in Connecticut and started our first

installations back in 20008. Today we employ about

300 Connecticut residents. We are installing about

250 systems per month and just to put that in

perspective that’s more in total than we installed

from 2008 through 2013. So this month we will

install 250 systems. We didn’t install that from

2008 to 2013.

So my point in bringing that up is it takes time to

build a business especially the solar business

because it takes time to build the culture and bring

in the right folks but it takes no time to destroy

one. As I look at SB-9 particularly Section 7 I am

not going to comment a lot about that because I’ve

got to deal with what is in front of me which is

House Bill 7251 but you can anticipate where I would

sit on XB-9, Section 7 and my feelings about that.

Just to give you a little sense of similar but

different solar program, I’m going to talk a little

bit about Maryland which I know quite a bit about.

We had an incentive program there that started

falling apart in 2015 and 2016. We also at that

time the legislators decided to do a Value of Solar

Study and they decided not to do anything about the

incentive program. So we are still in that solar

study, it has taken us two years to get there. WE

171 MARCH 5, 2019



had the Public Service Commission come out with

their study and we are still waiting on the final

study from the legislature.

But what that did is that resulted a loss of 1,000

jobs in the state. We went from installing 21,000

systems in one year to what we will do this year is

probably about 5,000.

Compared to Connecticut’s employees, our employees

in Maryland today in Connecticut we have 300

employees in Maryland I have less than 100, probably

about 75. Compared to our 250 installs that we are

doing here in Connecticut we are doing about 40 in

Maryland. And so I anticipate that enacting SB-9 as

it stands today that we are going to lose probably

about 80 to 90 percent of the installs that we’re

doing and at least two-thirds of our employees.

This is a reality. This is what has happened in

Maryland. I am going to be testifying on Friday in

Maryland to try to get an increase in the RPS there

but this is reality. This is what is gonna happen

if we’re stuck with the results of Section 7 in SB-

9.

So I do see an opportunity with HB 7251 in terms of

the Value of Solar Study but it is not going to take

you, not going to take this three, six months. It

is gonna take two years. That has been my

experience across multiple states so unless you want

a very watered down version of value source study

that doesn’t really get to what truly the different

benefits are as well as costs of solar. So I would

recommend you’re looking at a two-year period there

and as far as the 7251 the 100 megawatts is helpful,

it certainly is and gives us a little bit of a

172 MARCH 5, 2019



lifeline to work through the study as well as what

do we replace net metering and where do we go from

there. With that, I’ll submit for questions.


REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. You

heard the previous speaker hit the 10 percent

threshold as to a level that he felt comfortable

with the State stopping subsidies. You just said

that, I understand that, you know, the cliff is

coming so a lot of people are installing now, 250 a

month. You’re not the only company. At that rate

based on your experience can you give me a ballpark

date that you think Connecticut would even be

approaching 10 percent at this current rate?

ED MERRICK: Ten percent, I’d have to get on my

calculator [Laughter]. It’s gonna be a while.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Five years?

ED MERRICK: Probably longer than that to be honest.

I’d say longer than that. Ten percent, you know,

the way you do that is you’ve got to come up your

retail sales what is your percent of retail sales

and I can’t put a number on that at the moment but

you’re definitely looking at, I’d say at least five

years if not longer.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Between five to ten?

ED MERRICK: Probably.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Thank you so much. Noel Lafayette, followed by

Stephan Hartmann.

173 MARCH 5, 2019



NOEL LAFAYETTE: Good to see you all since last

week. How ya been? Okay. A lot of this has

already been said. I’ve been here all morning

listening to some of the testimony and I’ve listened

to some of the questions and overall I’ve been

listening to the tone. I’ll get to this in a minute

but once again I want to point out some of the

things that the Committee does very well. I really

appreciate the penetrating questions and a little

bit of pressure on DEEP to explain their positions

because a lot of the times for those of use who’ve

been in the auditorium had to watch them and PURA

approach things, somethings leave us scratching our

heads. They really do and it appears that this

Committee is losing patience and applying some

gentle constructive pressure and it’s appreciated.

So, I’ll start with that.

I am here to talk about just extending the LREC/ZREC

Program. Most of you know what that is, I don’t

think we have to spend a lot of time. For those of

you that are new to the Committee that is the

program that has really jumpstarted solar. It was

introduced in 2012. It has been a highly successful

program. I am not a fan of Eversource but I have to

commend the group and office that runs that program,

Cristy Broadway and her team are outstanding. It is

fair, it is rationale, it is well designed. There

is no subjectivity. It’s just run perfectly well.

To continue that for the next two years I think is

imperative. One, just watching what our neighbors

have been through. Two is, it works and it thrives

through competitive bidding once a year. The first

year I was in that program for say a 400 kilogram

rooftop ZREC bids were in 80 or 90, they are now

174 MARCH 5, 2019



down to 50. Okay, so the program does what it is

designed to do which is not to pass costs to the

ratepayers. It does it very well. We’ve been

holding about that level because of costs haven’t

come down any further but the program works.

So we should applaud ourselves for it. It was

recognized as a national model when it first came

out. I don’t think we should be so quick to cast it

aside, okay. That being said, that program was

supposed to be a six year program. As we got

towards year six it was extended for two more years,

however with one caveat. The funding went from $8

million dollars, was cut to $4 million dollars that

is when Ms. Weed was Chair. It still maintains that

level and we have seen the consequences.

Last year one percent of solar in comparison of what

was going on in 2012. Let me clarify that. We’ve

installed less solar in the last two years than we

did six years ago because of that simple change. So

we asked you to please restore it to the full amount

of $8 million dollars so we can get back to 2012

levels.

Some of the thing we’re talking about energy prices

and things and there are other things that I know

some of you talk about as we do this and I want to

make this point. Solar is just not about the energy

it is also about economic development and job

creation. And of the things that concerns the solar

community is when we hear Ms. Dykes give her

position is that she always talks about costs. Now

to be fair to Ms. Dykes it is not DEEPs job to

create jobs. Her job is to get as much renewable

energy as cheaply as possible and she is doing a

175 MARCH 5, 2019



good job. But there is a balance, you know, in any

area of life cheapest cost is not always the only

factor and we’ve become very concerned when DEEP and

PURA just talk about cost, cost, that’s all they

talk about. So there is an inherent conflict in our

State Government, we are trying to get our economy

going. We are trying to create green jobs, we’re

trying to build an industry yet the people running

it are only talking about lowest cost. We have to

work that out somehow, okay and that is a big point.

The LNV program works well.

I want to talk about Massachusetts a little bit.

The Smart Program just got launched several months

ago. It took DOER two and a half years to design

that program, two and a half years. They thought it

was going to sustain the solar industry at a nice

measured pace for four years. Eighty percent of it

was sold out in a week, a week, okay, $1.5 billion

dollars of infrastructure investment from the

private sector. So why am I saying that? I am

saying that because a couple of other questions is,

I think Eversource knows that there is this much of

a demand for solar and I think it scare them right

down to their socks. They just saw it in

Massachusetts where they have about a third of the

market, okay. That is why you have a real-time net

daily netting. If you look at the timing of that

introduction by Eversource it was just as

Massachusetts launched it’s first large scale energy

storage project. That idea was to stop energy

storage from every getting a foothold in this state.

That’s why. That’s why. You can hear all this

nifty confusion reasons but when you look at the

timing that is exactly what happened, okay.

176 MARCH 5, 2019



So Massachusetts has gone three programs, ESRIC 1,

1600 megawatts, ESRIC 2 1600 megawatts, Smart 1600

megawatts and it is already sold out. This is the

boom/bust cycle of the solar industry. This is why

companies get funded. They hire 50 people and a

year later lay them off. That is what we’ve all

learned state by state. We know the LREC/ZREC

Program works. We know it’s fair. We know it’s

rationale. We know it’s well run. Let’s extend it

for two more years and take our time to figure this

out.

You know, you guys have a tough job. Half of you are

brand-new to this Committee. You’ve never seen

these complex energy issues before. Be fair to

yourselves. Give yourselves time to figure out.

Don’t rush like we did with SB-9. We learned that

rushing just makes it worse and we spent time on

doing what we did, okay. There is no reason not to

extend this program at full funding for two more

years. It serves everybody. It’s certainty, it

works, everyone understands it. So that being said,

I’m happy to any other questions.


REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. You

used a highly technical term I would like you to

elaborate on further, in reference to Eversource you

said, they were scared down to their

socks,[Laughter].

NOEL LAFAYETTE: Yeah, highly technical.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Would you explain why you

think that they are so concerned about the trend

177 MARCH 5, 2019



that would actually lead to higher penetration of

solar in the State of Connecticut?

NOEL LAFAYETTE: Yes I do. There is two reasons and

I’m gonna give a “Tale of Two Cities.” Right now

everyone is talking about offshore wind and everyone

loves it, the government has embraced it.

Ironically must to many people’s chagrin Eversource

is an investor partner in those projects, which I

question the legality of. They can’t own generation

but they can invest in a generator? That’s

interesting.

Two, because big wind does not upset their business

model, big wind produces wholesale renewable energy,

they buy it just like they do off the ISO, they

distribute it and they mark it up. Pretty simple.

Solar does not work that way at all. Every solar

system that goes up their business model is

challenged. Their business model loses money.

Their, Eversource’s cash cow is peak demand charges.

That is where they make all their money. Solar

takes that entire revenue stream away from them

simply because it is producing the most energy when

they are producing the peak demand. Cost shift, you

know, I’ve heard lot of nifty analogies, some work

some don’t. In August when they fire-up those

peaker plants to meet the air conditioning, if I

turn my air conditioning on the whole grid goes up,

you know, a penny a watt. My two neighbors that

don’t have air conditioning the have a cost shift,

right. They are paying for my air conditioning

because everybody’s peak demand went up for that

particular month. So this cost shift thing is

interesting.

178 MARCH 5, 2019



Another thing I find interesting is that we’ve been

talking about cost shifts for years now and either

the OCC, PURA or DEEP has asked the EDCs, can we see

a quantitative analysis proving that. Every time the

solar industry wants to do something we have to give

a study, we have to give the report, all those

things to prove it. Eversource says it’s a cost

shift, it’s accepted. Not a single report was asked

for and I find that disappointing. Why is that?

I’ll close it up and its seems like a tangent but I

think it is something we all should be aware of.

I’m a lifelong Connecticut resident. I find it

absolutely disturbing that we have one company that

controls 80 percent of the electricity, 65 percent

of the natural gas and now they are buying up huge

chunks of the water, Aquarian Connecticut water. I

don’t know why this legislature is not concerned by

that. That is a tremendous amount of power over our

lives, one company. Where’s the brakes? Where is

that? Am I the only one that thinks that’s a little

crazy? But that’s just me. To answer are you

scared down to their socks because they realize in

Massachusetts that they would lose huge amounts of

market share to solar and the last Smart Program

when it sold out like that, that quickly, more than

anybody, no one saw that coming, they realized

that’s how much the public wants to go solar. And

they don’t like it.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you for that answer

and also answers what I would pose as my second

question which is why there hasn’t been regular

enthusiasm for storage and the same basic argument

occurs. If your margin is in peak, you don’t want

to necessarily level it out by having storage

179 MARCH 5, 2019



available during those peak hours. So seems to me

that the kicker in this conversation is not merely

solar installation but the importance, and there are

procurements at the very least, projects that

include grid scale solar and a lot more projects

that involve storage as well. That is another

missed opportunity in this State and thank you for

highlighting it.

NOEL LAFAYETTE: And just to finalize that point,

when your energy comprehension strategy came out a

couple of years ago, storage was not mentioned once.

I don’t know how energy professionals can make a

five-year plan and in today’s age and not mention

energy storage until it was forced upon them.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): I think that is

interesting. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Representative Meskers.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Thank you. I would repeat

and emphasize that last comment. I think it is

important for us as a legislature and the public to

understand that solar, I’m definitely in support of

solar, I am not antisolar, the key component for the

entire grid and the key component for the residents

is that we solve the solution of storage so that, I

repeated in three meetings, the issue of having peak

generating capacity and not having storage in solar

doesn’t get us off the hook in paying for assets

that actually only produce at peak hours. So it is

important that we lower that with the proper

strategy on storage. So I don’t know that we have

one yet, but you can count on me that in conjunction

180 MARCH 5, 2019



with solar that I’ll be pushing to see that it

happens.

NOEL LAFAYETTE: Yeah if I can comment to that?

What we saw off the ice on New England reports of

this last summer, that their peak summer demand was

greatly flattened by the solar, by the 3,000

megawatts of solar there. None of that was stored

so it does work by itself but to your point storage

would give us an even greater control and it doesn’t

make sense not to have it our plans but we don’t

have to have them both worked out perfectly yet but

it’s just flat out better.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Thank you very much Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Senator

Fonfara.


Briefly just for a point of clarification when you

said earlier that it is not the job of the DEEP

Commissioner, it is her job, she works for a

Governor who say’s you have to balance all of these

obligations. You are not going to have a

Commissioner that goes off and does one thing and

another Commissioner goes off and does another

thing, they all work for whoever the Governor is and

that is part of her responsibility or any DEEP

Commissioner to worry about jobs as well as cost and

this Committee has historically been focused on

electric costs. Sometimes too much in my opinion

but it has been historically focused on electric

costs and so part of what you hear from your side,

your business, you don’t think about the cost, you

think about running your business. But a

181 MARCH 5, 2019



Commissioner of DEEP and others have to worry about

all of that because they work for someone who has to

worry about all that.

NOEL LAFAYETTE: And I appreciate that point. I

just want to make a point is just, I think all of us

as adults, anybody who owns a home or owns a car,

lowest cost is what you shoot for but it is not

always the best value, so I just keep that in mind.

It just concerns when I hear Ellen Katz speak, when

I hear Mr. Klee speak before Ms. Dykes, I have a lot

of respect for Ms. Dykes, very highly intelligent,

well-informed woman, wonderful professional but what

we’re seeing over time is, I’m gonna call it the

death by a thousand cuts, death by a thousand cuts,

I could give you six examples where the EDCs are

putting forward tiny little things that nobody

notices, or doesn’t believe that is related to solar

or renewable future and only after PURA ratifies it

do we realize there is a problem but it’s usually

small. I’ll give you a case in point. Rate 30 is

one of our electric rate classes, 60 percent of

Connecticut businesses are in this rate class.

Three or four years ago they stuck a fixed demand

charge in there by PURA, three cents, can’t move it.

Now when I approach a public school and they’re in a

different rate class, they are buying power for 16

cents, I build the solar I can sell them power for

11 cents, they save 30 percent, they are very happy,

easy. When a business is a rate 30 class there is

three cents there that I can’t play with to make the

deal work, that’s fixed okay. So the savings just

aren’t there and that is one of the big reasons

solar has slowed down. Now when the EDCs put that

rate 30 class to PURA to fix that, solar wasn’t even

182 MARCH 5, 2019



in the conversation. They had all these other

reasons that they did it. PURA was told by the

solar community if you do this, you’re gonna slow

down solar, too many businesses are in that rate

class they heard us but they did it anyway. We are

still feeling the effects of that, still. Okay?

Two out of five businesses I visit are in that rate

class, there’s nothing to be done there because the

savings just aren’t there. Okay, that’s one of a

million little cuts. That is what we have to,

that’s why we tend to be. There is a perception

that DEEP and PURA are not as objective as they need

to be, there is a perception of that.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): I want to thank you. You

have to say that everybody who has spoken about this

subject is quite passionate and that speaks to me

about the fact that there are jobs on the line here

and there is a movement to do something good in the

State of Connecticut that we need to make sure

continues to happen. It has been suggested to me

that I be somewhat circumspect about my personal

opinion as the Chairman of the Committee but I will

tell you that I don’t believe that bigger is always

better and we, I do believe that there are companies

that seek to control whole markets because bottom

line is profit and controlling gives them an

opportunity to make more profit. I’m not sure that

should be the role of a public utility.

NOEL LAFAYTETTE: Well I’ll say this personal as

Noel Lafayette not as Solar Connecticut, the passion

is frustration and I’ll admit it, some anger because

when you hear these arguments put forward over time,

you come to realize that half of them are absolutely

arbitrary and fabricated. They are arbitrary and

183 MARCH 5, 2019



fabricated. There was no reason to have a 25

megawatt cap for communities solar, absolutely none.

Who made that number? Who said four megawatts is

the limit? Who said all this stuff? It is

arbitrary and after 13 years in this state doing

this, fighting for my survival I’m running out of

patience.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Well, I appreciate that

and as you said, I appreciate your forbearance with

those of us that are new here but we will come up to

speed and I am convinced that we are going to do the

right thing here, so thank you.

NOEL LAFAYETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Stephan Hartmann followed

by Mike Sopchak, I think I got that right.

STEPHAN HARTMANN: Hello, my name is Stephan

Hartmann and I am Manager of Business Development at

Ross Solar. We are a Danbury based C&I, commercial,

industrial and residential solar design installation

firm. I am also a Connecticut resident and a 10-

year solar industry solar professional in

Connecticut as well with a lot of experience in

Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey even all the way

down into Pennsylvania and Long Island as well where

these markets can vary quite a bit.

I will just open by saying that my role as a manger

in charge of a lot of hiring and staffing within our

company and managing a lot of our business

development we are actively recruiting managers,

this isn’t a job recruitment statement, but it’s

more for perspective. We are actively looking to

expand into, more into Massachusetts and into New

184 MARCH 5, 2019



York because from a business standpoint we are

seeing Connecticut as a diminishing value for the

company.

So just to talk briefly about bottom line there and

where our attention needs to go. I personally live

in Connecticut, I want to see the market, I want to

see our company continue to commit to Connecticut

but that is getting harder and harder to do as Noel,

I think eloquently put it, “Death by a thousand

cuts.” So I just wanted to open up a little bit by

reiterating a couple of the points he made. First

is on the peak demand with the air conditioners, I

think it is important under our value of solar study

to understand that solar is directly offsetting

those peak demands at that value and that analysis,

the data that’s behind it, it has been aggregated by

in a large degree by the Connecticut Green Bank.

The Comprehensive Energy Strategy did not have, in

my opinion, a comprehensive analysis that went into

some of these conclusions are cost shifts because

data from the Green Bank was flat out rejected in

that analysis and some of the subsequent requests

for information. So just very curious all this data

exists yet it is not necessarily being leveraged

into decision making.

So in general I support the items in this Bill 7251

but I want to echo the sentiment that more time is

needed and a little bit more of a dedication to a

Value of Solar Study that could look to those surge

benefits as well as any other values that solar

brings to the table and we constructed to find what

those values might be in that analysis.

185 MARCH 5, 2019



I just want to talk a little bit more about net

metering. There was a question posed earlier about

well what do we need, what should the incentive

structure look like and it sounds like old hat to

say more net metering, more net metering but in

reality net metering is meant to be kind of when

you’re filling a bucket up with water, you start by

really just pouring it in, there is a big appetite

and a big carveout where in this case the net

metering can provide help to the grid and help with

some of the peak demand challenges and really to get

the industry jump started. You start by really

pouring in that water to fill up the bucket but it’s

not till it starts to get full where you start

tapering it back and you want to make sure you don’t

overflow that bucket. That is what we’re talking

about when we talk about the penetration being a

one-and a half or two percent where we’re at now and

net metering not being a challenge until ten

percent. Net metering just hasn’t simply run its

course yet in Connecticut. So what we’re asking for

is an extension of the programs that would then

protect net metering a little bit longer to do a

Value of Solar Study and I will reiterate that we

can understand that when the bucket is full a new

program that is designed around the needs of the

grid at that time should be designed and rolled out.

Hawaii for example you can’t import/export any power

at all, it all has to be domestically consumed and

there’s a lot of batteries going in there.

My last point since I’m out of time, is that the

first Comprehensive Energy Strategy and the first

draft of Senate Bill 9 was exclusively buy all/sell

all and had no options for self-consumption and it

186 MARCH 5, 2019



locked out all battery technology. It was the solar

industry that raised this here, in this room,

because we were so boxed into the corner with all

this information coming out in such a short period

of time and so all the excitement and all the talk

I’ve been hearing sitting here in the chair is about

energy storage was very under appreciated only a

year ago with the slogan I kept hearing was,

“Batteries are not ready for primetime.” And here

at our own company we are installing dozens of

batteries all the time. We are doing commercial

scale batteries, we are actually paying people for

space on their roof or space on their parking lot in

other states, that is a program we can’t do in

Connecticut and we were almost shut out in

perpetuity because of what Senate Bill 9 would have

done. So there were a lot of last minute changes.

We protected at least some options for self-

consumption. Unfortunately another question was

asked was why the real-time netting and that’s

because I think a decision was made that they really

wanted buy all/sell all so by putting real time

netting into the Statute this will make the self-

consumption less viable because it will essentially

require batteries which are admittedly a little bit

on the expensive side but it is coming down quickly.

So I just wanted to touch on that as well. So the

value of solar, the map is missing, the conclusions

are there and I think it is really important that we

give it the due time to make sure we can let the

data reveal to us what the next program should be

not just take a survey and with that I would be glad

to take any questions.

187 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Anybody? No.

I just want to say that to me as a layman coming

into this solar without batteries is not a complete

system, I think you absolutely need it and we need

to do what we can do to make sure that they become a

critical part of the equation. Anybody else with

anything. Thank you. Next on is Mike Sopchak. I’m

assuming I got close on that name? Okay.

MIKE SOPCHAK: My name is Mike Sopchak and I am a

volunteer with AARP.

AARP is a nonpartisan, social mission organization

with an age 50+ membership of nearly 38 million

nationwide, and nearly 600,000 members here in

Connecticut. AARP supports livable communities for

all ages, aging in place initiates and financial

opportunity and resiliency for everyone as they

work, age and retire. We are before the General

Assembly every year on a multitude of bills that

support these issues.

AARP supports H.B. 7152, “AN ACT ACCELERATING THE

DEPLOYMENT OF 5G WIRELESS FACILITIES,” because the

Bill would establish a transparent and informed

process for overseeing the siting of 5G equipment in

Connecticut.

As Connecticut transitions to fifth generation

cellular networks (“5G”), carriers will be deploying

different hardware from the equipment they now use

to deliver wireless signals. With 5G, they will

need to deploy smaller equipment, often on

streetlights or utility poles, some estimate at an

average of 500 feet apart. The placement of these

many small facilities throughout the state,

especially in urban areas where the initial roll-out

188 MARCH 5, 2019



is expected to occur should happen in a thoughtful

manner. AARP supports well-informed transparent

processes that guide the reasonable deployment of

these new facilities, especially where public land

and property is concerned.

H.B. 7152 provides a well-reasoned blueprint for

such a process, appropriately balancing the state’s

interest in cutting-edge technology with the state’s

interest in protecting public safety and aesthetics.

It is fitting and appropriate that the state guide

the placement of these facilities. The Bill creates

a process by which the 5G Council will review

wireless carriers’ requests “for the use of state

real properties for the placement, construction,

maintenance and operation of personal wireless

service facilities and small wireless facilities”

and provides a process for affected state agencies

to comment on such placement. In light of the

substantial value to wireless carriers of being able

to place their equipment on public lands and the

impact on the public interest of such placement, it

is entirely appropriate that the state ensure that

it occurs in a manner consistent with the public

interest, public aesthetics, and public welfare.

The Bill would ensure that the deployment of

potentially hundreds of new facilities does not

happen haphazardly. 5G technology will bring faster

wireless service and improve latency which in turn

will enhance not only entertainment (allowing one to

download movies within seconds), but also will

support advanced applications supporting medicine

and other fields that rely on high-speed

connections. Thank you.

189 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Well that was absolutely

perfect timing [Applause and laughter]. I say,

“touchdown.” Have any comments? Thank you so much

for coming.

MIKE SOPCHAK: You’re welcome.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Steve Cowell. I like

that smiley face on here, that’s great.

STEVE COWELL: Been here all day.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): And you’re still smiling.

STEVE COWELL: I’m still smiling. I must admit I

was not ready for the difficult back and forth on

the CMEEC issues but you know, there are some really

difficulty questions we have to grapple with and we

just have to keep going and keep figuring it out.

I am here to talk about, I represent really two

organizations today, one is my own non-profit, E-For

the Future. I was here a week ago. The four E’s

are energy, economy, equity and environment. Those

are the four E’s we represent. We were called CSG,

Conservation Services Group. This is now my 40th

year doing energy efficiency and my 23rd year

working on solar. So I didn’t have gray hair when I

started, that’s for sure but I have it now.

Okay, very quickly I want to run through some Bills

and maybe I want to start with one issue that I want

to take with, not the previous speaker, but the one

before on the issue of the role of the utility and

particularly Eversource. The fact is that

Eversource is a wires company, if there is lower

sale of electricity they are not hurt because the

structure that was put in place in 1988-1989 of

190 MARCH 5, 2019



decoupling and performance based rate basically

takes the utilities profits out of their sale of

power. And that is important because what it means

it’s much easier to work with them in a way that

creates a set of goals and rates based on achieving

those goals rather than just selling electricity,

right? And I am proud to say I was involved in

designing that system in 1988 and 1989 here in

Connecticut and around the region. So that is

important. I don’t want to throw rocks at anything.

Number one, I want to support 7151 which is, I’m

jumping to the appliances Bill. Almost exact

similar legislation is being heard in Massachusetts

and one thing that’s clear and important is having

as much consistency between stated based appliance

standards so that industry is not looking at one

thing here and something different there and

something different there but they can look at a

consistent block of sales for a set of appliances

that meet a certain set of standards. So looking at

modeling after California and with Massachusetts and

Connecticut and Vermont all doing it, that creates a

good base of working together so they are virtually

identical and there is a good team of folks who are

working here to make sure that happens. So that’s

one that’s critical.

Second one, I support Act 959 around the Green Bank

because I think it is important. Green Bank does

some great things in terms of helping facilitate

resources getting into the state and I think getting

opportunities to pull more federal resources in

would be really exceptionally positive.

191 MARCH 5, 2019



Third, I want to raise the issue of costs versus

rates. It seems like that raises constantly, higher

costs, higher costs. The fact is that particularly

with energy efficiency using less, even if you have

a five percent higher rate the result is you have a

20 percent lower cost, you’re way ahead of the game,

right and that is what’s happening if you have

aggressive good energy efficiency efforts.

Third, in 7272 I would not support limited, reducing

the commercial industrial allocation to the

additional rates because they get the benefit from

that and we don’t want the residential ratepayers

subsidizing commercial. It ought to be equal,

everyone ought to be paying their fair share and

getting their fair share of resources.

Jobs, I won’t go into that, it’s critical. Energy

efficiency we put out a jobs report on energy

efficiency which was included in the Lamont

Transition Document of the 34,000 energy efficiency

jobs by congressional districts in the State of

Connecticut and every congressional district in

America.

Okay I want to talk about the value of solar because

that is something that really seems to be, you know,

rolling in everyone’s thoughts these days and we

work around the country. We have worked in almost

all the states on this issue of how to value

distributed resources. We did our first manual on

energy efficiency, that is being used, that

framework and that manual is being used by DEEP to

prepare for it’s analysis and we will be working

with them to work on that. Just one example which

is, right now, there is a cost shift which is the

192 MARCH 5, 2019



people putting solar are shifting benefit, are

paying for benefits for their neighbors, right. The

shift is from the uses of solar to the benefit of

the users of non-solar. Why, because if you put

solar on your roof you’re creating electrons. If

you’re not using them yourself they go to your

neighbor, right. No cost of generation, no cost of

transmission, virtually no cost of distribution but

they are being paid for as if those costs were

there, so they’re in a sense subsidizing and the

other challenge with the value of not just solar but

all distributed low carbon resources, what is the

value of eliminating carbon. There is huge debate

over that question. What is the cost of climate

change, right, overtime? And that is being debated

and one of the values of solar and efficiency is

reducing or eliminating carbon from our environment.

That is something that we have to put in the value

proposition and in the equation and it’s somewhat

being struggled with around the country in how to

put the dollars number on that. So we are working

very closely and very.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Can we sort of summarize?

STEVE COWELL: I’m almost there. We are also

supporting obviously 7715 to extend net metering and

lastly while it’s not being heard today, the Bill

5030 on the diversions. It’s something that is

critical as well to the industry to keep going and I

know I respect and appreciate Governor Lamott’s

clear statement that no more diversion should be

carried out but we need to also stop some or all of

the diversion that is going to happen in July.

193 MARCH 5, 2019




any questions? Really appreciate your time. Paul

Yatcko. Welcome.

PAUL YATCKO: Members of the Committee, good

afternoon. My name is Paul Yatcko I am the General

Manger and CEO of South Norwalk Electric and Water,

also known as SNEW and we appreciate the opportunity

to be heard on Senate Bill 961.

SNEW is one of the smaller members of CMEEC and

purchases 100 percent of its electric power

requirement from it under the member’s agreement and

as a member of CMEEC our customers derive

considerable value from that relationship as our

costs from electric energy are perhaps as much as 20

percent as they otherwise be. This translates into

a saving for SNEW customers of about $2 million

dollars annually.

And while my written testimony deals with a number

of items, I would like to leave you with only two

thoughts this afternoon on a very local level.

First, Bill 961 has the potential to raise SNEW’s

cost of electric energy and will do economic harm to

my customers and why is that.

CMEEC creates value in three ways. First, it allows

us to be part of a bigger buying pool and creates

economies of scale that we can’t achieve by ourself.

Second, CMEEC has expertise and systems that enable

it to effectively participate in the New England

power marketplace and third, it invests in

generation and transition projects which give CMEEC

a physical hedge and create an income stream for the

194 MARCH 5, 2019



project participants and that income provides a

significant offset to the members power costs.

The proposed Bill would prohibit CMEEC from

investing in projects, thus depriving its members of

the associated income stream. The estimated value

of that income in 2018 was perhaps $10 to $15

million dollars and the value to SNEW and its 6,500

customers at current levels is about $1 million

dollars annually, which is over 10 percent of our

annual power cost. In addition to driving up the

cost of power to my customers, the legislation could

conceivably require CMEEC to divest its entire

portfolio of bulk power projects and unwinding the

existing portfolio will likely result in significant

“breakage costs” which would have to be borne by our

customers and the customers of all the other MEUs.

While the actual cost of such divestiture is

unknown, the only beneficiaries of such divestiture

will be lawyers, investment bankers, and power

developers and if any of those groups are in this

room I apologize to them.

Second thought I would like to leave you with is

that in its attempt to address clearly questionable

spending at CMEEC the Bill imposes corrective

regulations not only on CMEEC but on SNEW and all

the other member utilities. And despite the fact

that SNEW personnel had no part in the questionable

spending. It is very important to note that no

offices or employees of SNEW, nor commissioners of

the Second Taxing District of which we are an

instrumentality attended any of the Kentucky Derby

retreats, the Greenbriar trips or have been

associated with questionable spending. No officers

or employees of SNEW have been indicted or accused

195 MARCH 5, 2019



of any wrongdoing and we strongly object to being,

in effect, regulated for actions that we did not

commit.

ON behalf of our 6,500 customers we ask you to

reject this Bill and thank you and I will answer any

questions.


Anybody have any questions. Appreciate your time.

Claire Coleman followed by Christopher Phelps.

CLAIRE COLEMAN: Good afternoon

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Good afternoon.

CLAIRE COLEMAN: And Members of the Committee.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify today. And

thank you for brining to the public the opportunity

to talk about key issues, clean renewable energy and

energy efficiency. These are really the pillars of

our clean energy economy and we appreciate your

efforts to make sure that you receive input from the

public on various proposals. I have provided

written testimony on five different Bills. I’m just

gonna give you some quick highlights.

I am testifying in support of HB 7115 raising the

cap on virtual net metering. This is a win-win

situation saving our municipalities money while

reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and helping

tackle climate change. We’re very please to see

that Bill raised by this Committee.

I am also supporting, Connecticut Fund for the

Environment is supporting HB 7151 the updated energy

efficiency and water efficiency standards for

appliances.

196 MARCH 5, 2019



CFE is also opposing HB 7252 which would limit

commercial and industrial customers contributions to

the state’s award winning energy efficiency

programs. I’ve put some documentation in my

testimony regarding the enormous financial and

energy savings benefits of commercial and industrial

customers so it seems only fair to contribute

equally to those programs when receiving enormous

benefits back.

Most importantly I am here to testify on HB 7251

which you’ve heard a lot of really thoughtful

testimony and I really appreciate hearing the

questions of this Committee on when talking about

the future of distributed generation solar here in

this state. CFE does support several of the

concepts put forward in 7251 particularly the RSIP

extension.

In addition to the benefits you heard talked about

today I did want to highlight the value that this

program brings to increasing solar parity across

race, ethic and income groups, the Green Bank only

since 2015 has really focused on LMI and minority

populations and we really just started seeing the

benefits in solar deployment uptick in these

communities and I’d say it is too early to pull out

the rug and would continue supporting that 100

megawatt extension.

We also support a Value of Solar Study, Connecticut

Funds for the Environment has been one of the

environmental groups asking this legislature for

that Value of Solar Study for a longtime prior to my

joining the organization. We do think that it is

key that the Value of Solar Study is linked to

197 MARCH 5, 2019



ensuring better solar net metering and solar tariff

policies. I think a lot of the discussion today,

we’ve heard the acknowledgement of the technical

challenges with some of the restrictive provisions

in Section 7 of SB-9. Those technical issues cannot

just be fixed by delaying the elimination of those

programs. We need to look back at the substantive

language in the Statues and make sure that PURA is

given much more discretion. I’m happy to answer

questions on that. But having a Value of Solar

Study when we’ve also got this clock ticking to have

the elimination of our current programs doesn’t

help. We need the Committee to look at linking

those to make sure we’re informing our the

evaluation of what types of future successor

programs are necessary.

Finally I just ask the Committee, Section 7 of SB-9

was a comprehensive deployment of different solar

programs, one of those was the shared solar program

which Connecticut Funds for the Environment

supported and was really glad that the legislature

was willing to adopt a statewide program but we

would liked it have been bigger and feel that there

is some technical language in there that may prevent

the success of some of the deployment so we’d love

to work with the Committee on making sure we can add

some technical fixes there as well to make sure that

we can rollout a successful program. Thanks for

listening, I’d be happy to answer questions.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Claire.

Anybody have any questions? Thank you. Chris

Phelps.

198 MARCH 5, 2019



CHRISTOPHER PHELPS: Thank you, Senator and Members

of the Committee. I’m Chris Phelps, State Director

of Environment Connecticut. We’ve submitted

testimony on HB 7151 and 7251. You have my written

testimony. I’ll summarize some comments.

First, regarding 7151 AN ACT CONCERNING ENERGY

EFFICIENCY STANDARDS, we strongly support this bill

and applaud Governor Malloy and DEEP for introducing

it. We speak to some of the reason why we support

the Bill in our testimony but I will highlight one.

I know there are some folks that come after me who

can speak even more detail about this Bill. But the

product standards contained in this proposed

legislation are estimated to save Connecticut

consumers $80 million dollars a year by 2025 on

their energy bills. That is a real tangible

economic benefit to our state with absolutely no

pain attached to it. So it’s a no brainer of a Bill

to pass just on that basis alone. It also has

environmental benefits too which our organization

does care about.

But what I want to focus the rest of my comments on

is 7251. Again I provided more detailed written

comments, we provided some specific thoughts on this

Bill. We don’t support it in tis current form

because we don’t feel, as has been discussed earlier

today, it doesn’t address the problem that this

state faces and, you know, I’ve been working on this

issue solar power in Connecticut for over a decade

now. Ten years ago folks who were in the building

then now, or might remember, that the solar industry

in Connecticut barely existed. There were maybe a

couple of hundred jobs in the state. Solar

installers were leaving Connecticut for fertile

199 MARCH 5, 2019



grounds to places like Massachusetts and New Jersey.

They were going gangbusters there. They were

building solar power, creating job, benefiting the

environment and the economy in those states and we

were getting left behind. After three years of

effort by this Committee and the Legislature

legislation to fix that problem in Connecticut was

enacted as Public Act 11-80.

And over the last eight years, we’ve seen the

tangible results of that. We’ve seen about a

tenfold increase in solar jobs here in Connecticut.

Hundreds and hundreds of megawatts of solar power

built in our state based on those policies that were

enacted about eight years ago. And that mirrors

what’s been going on nationwide. I heard on the

radio on my way in this morning something I’d

forgotten that’s a fact, the number one job, the

fastest growing job in American today is solar

powers dollar. Unfortunately Public Act 18-50,

Senate Bill 9 from last year threatens to slam the

breaks on the progress we’ve made in Connecticut

both in growing jobs in the solar industry, getting

more solar power online and meeting our

environmental goals that are so important that way

and it does that as a number of people spoke to

earlier, by simply taking Connecticut and taking us

down the path when it comes to elimination of net

metering replacement with by all/sell all related

types of tariffs that you’ve heard talked about

taking us down that path, that’s already been

traveled, by states like Maine, Nevada and Utah. In

each of those states when they did that as you heard

already, the solar industry went off a cliff. Jobs

were lost by the hundreds and thousands and solar

200 MARCH 5, 2019



installations dried up. That is not the future I

hope anyone in this room wants to see for

Connecticut and therefor as out testimony speaks to

and others have spoken to, we need to fix that Bill

from last year to put a pause on implementation that

rushed down that pathway towards that cliff and give

our state a chance to actually move forward with

sensible solar power policy. I heard the timer go

off, it’s been a long day. I’ll stop there. But I

would be happy to answer any questions you might

have.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you Chris. Anybody

have any questions? We’re getting worn down.

CHRISTOPHER PHELPS: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Mary Ann

DiMascio. Welcome.

MARY ANN DIMASCIO. Thank you. Chair Needleman and

members of the Committee. I am sitting here

thinking if there were endurance awards this group

here would get it for being here this long day. My

name is Mary Ann DiMascio and I am here to speak

about Bill HB 7151 concerning the appliance

efficiency standards and I work at the Appliance

Standards Awareness Project and we are the group

that did the research that forms the basis for this

Bill so I am happy to answer any technical

questions.

We have done the analysis, we had a repot in 2017

which we updated in 2019 so I know there are a bunch

of questions this morning I could elaborate on if

there is any further questions.

201 MARCH 5, 2019



I want to make just five quick key points and Chris

who was just up here, indicated that the Bill would

save energy, save water, good for also saving

reducing CO2 emissions and the $80 million dollars

in utility bill savings is an annual amount which

will grow as more people by the more efficient

products. I did want to add from one of the

questions today that all these products are on the

market already. It’s not like this Bill will say

well the manufactures will have to go out and get

new products. So all the products in the Bill have

about 50 percent market share already except for one

product has 27 percent. So when you go out all

these products are already on the store shelves so

manufactures are not having to introduce new

products.

Standards we like to say are the best climate and

energy policy you’ve never heard of. It’s kind of a

quite policy because it doesn’t require a lot of

activity to implement it, it just changes what can

be sold in the state but it has really big impact.

Connecticut consumers, if we’re looking at national

standards they save about $648 dollars a year

because of national standards so this Bill would

actually add onto those savings of the state

standards.

Also Connecticut has played a role historically in

2004, 2007 they set standards that eventually became

national standards that lead to massive savings in

this room like the exit signs behind me, the

lighting, the whatever is heating this room or

cooling this room, those all have efficiency

202 MARCH 5, 2019



standards around the country. These have very big

savings that Connecticut is garnering also.

So anyways Connecticut has played a key role

historically and can update these standards at keep

track with the newer standards and the savings and

then as part of a regional effort, I work nationally

with these standards, we have about 11 states that

are filing bills this year that I can’t say they are

all identical, some might have one or a couple of

products slightly different but the standards are

all the same and the states in the Northeast, Maine,

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New

York have either filed a bill or plan to file a

bill.

Finally I would say they are very low-cost effective

ways to achieve the states goals and I’m happy to

answer any other questions.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Thank you. Thank you for

your testimony. Any questions from Committee

members? Seeing none, thanks so much. Pat

McDonnell.

PAT MC DONNELL: Good afternoon, Representative

Arconti and Senator Needleman, I’m Pat McDonnell,

Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for UIL

Holdings Corporation. With me today is Jane Lano,

she’s the Manger of our Conservation Management

Group.

I am going to speak today about House Bill 7251 and

House Bill 7115 and Ms. Lano is going to speak about

House Bill 7252.

So we support BH 7251 as well as 7115. Public Act

18-50 last year did some very important work but the

203 MARCH 5, 2019



time frames within which to implement that are very

tight and we feel that it is very important that we

extend the current structure so there is adequate

time for us to get it right. No one wants to

terminate the solar industry in Connecticut, there

is a lot of anxiety from the solar installers

because there is a lot of uncertainty because many

of the details have not been flushed out yet. So

these Bills allow us to do that.

We would encourage you to reduce the quantities.

Residential solar runs about 50 megawatts a year

rather than raising to 100 I would recommend you

raise it 50 and you can always revisit it next year

if we haven’t made sufficient progress and also I

would leave DEEP to determine who should do the

Study of Value of Solar so they can get an unbiased

opinion.

As far as some of the comments today that utilities

are trying to kill the solar industry and we’re bad

guys and we want to do horrible things, that is

completely untrue. Utilities are agnostic in terms

of whether or not a customer gets their power from

solar installation or traditional generator. We are

made whole through the rate making process. I think

what we think about is a way forward to a future

where there’s not caps and subsidies and tariffs but

there is ways of market mechanisms where customers

can select their provider and they can buy from a

third party that has solar power that maybe is

generated down the street. Much like we have Uber

today we never had Uber in the past and you can do

these transactions. I see a future that’s how we’re

gonna do the solar for work.

204 MARCH 5, 2019



And we also need to make sure that we send the right

time signals and vocational signals to solar

developers so they put the solar in the right places

and we can allow for things like battery storage to

shift the generation from what it might be the

sunniest to when we need the power the most.

Lastly but not least we heard a lot today about the

subsidy. There is no subsidy and unfortunately I

did not bring copies but I do have a copy of the

cost shift. Every year we are required by PURA to

file under Docket 15-09 (03) a list of cost

subsidization broken out my month, by the various

rate classes that the netting doesn’t cause that

customer to, those customers to pay and for UI for

2018 it was for all Class 1 solar as well as fuel

cells it was a little over $13,000 million dollars

for 2018 and that subsidy continues on at the time.

That subsidy doesn’t come from the utility, that

subsidy comes from other customers who then have to

make up for that contribution that wasn’t made by

that netting that occurs. So, I’m gonna turn over

to Ms. Lano and I’ll be happy to answer any

questions you have.

JANE LANO: I am here to talk to talk on House Bill

7252 AN ACT CONCERNING THE CONSERVATION ADJUSTMENT

MECHANISM AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS.

So I am the Manger for Conservation and Load

Management. I have responsibility for design and

delivery for all of our energy efficiency and demand

response programs that are predominately funded by

the Conservation Adjustment Mechanism.

So when we were looking at this Bill’s concept we

really understand it as an economic development

205 MARCH 5, 2019



concept for large commercial and industrial

customers to save money while they increase their

electric load. So we are supportive of the concept

but we’re opposed to the Bill in it’s current form

for a couple of reasons.

So the first is when we’re looking at rate

structures that are going to promote economic

development and retention with the state, we want to

make sure that the costs that are incurred to do

that, that provide clear benefit not to just all of

our customers but to the State of Connecticut as a

whole and we also feel that the Public Utility

Regulatory Authority, PURA, has the jurisdiction to

do that and merely implementing a cap on a single

component of a customers sell is probably not the

best way to achieve that. We also recognize that

Connecticut is home to a really diverse commercial

and industrial customer base. We have hospitals,

universities, manufactures so they have really

different needs and so we considered this when we

were designing our Conservation Load Management

Program and one of the things I’m most excited about

in our recently approved three year Conservation

Load Management Plan is a program that’s

specifically for our large commercial industrial

customers. It is called the Customized Solutions

Partnership. It is a demonstration project and what

that does it looks at this particular customer class

to come up with customized strategic energy

management solutions for them that we then pair with

electric and natural gas incentives along with

technical assistance to help them deliver energy

efficiency and operational efficiency savings within

their site.

206 MARCH 5, 2019



So we are very committed to collaborating with our

commercial industrial customers but we are opposed

to this Bill in it’s current form. So I am also

happy to take any questions that you might have.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you both. Yeah.

REP. DAVIS (57TH:) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got

the nod so I think I’m on, I got the floor. Through

you to the witnesses. I know there has been some

back and forth today about how solar cuts into

profits of the utilities and you had just mentioned

that it didn’t under Connecticut’s regulatory model.

Is that because those costs are bourn through the

other half of the Bill essentially the delivery

charges?

PAT MC DONNELL: Well, so if a customer net meters,

the netting piece that goes into their “bank”

obviously there is no physical netting. The power

goes out into the grid which is a good thing and I

think the customer should be compensated for that.

And the credits if you will that come back those

shifted costs of the various bill components

including the distribution charge, utilities are

allowed an overall revenue requirements by PURA and

the cents per kilowatt hour that we charge a

customer is merely a mechanism that we have to

spread the collection of that cost over the

consumption so we don’t get enough sales in a given

year, we allow to collect that from other customers

so if everything stays the same, and we didn’t

collect that $13 million dollars I mentioned, we’d

be allowed to then at the end of the year go back

and collect that revenue from all the customers. So

that’s the cost shift.

207 MARCH 5, 2019



Conversely, if there is a really, the load went up,

hot summer, we sold more kilowatt hours, the way it

works is our revenue requirement is what we’re

allowed to collect from customers. So if we collect

more money we refund that to customers.

REP. DAVIS (57TH:) So there could be, if it’s a hot

summer I think you used the term of that, a very

sunny summer then other ratepayers would actually be

getting refunded for?

PAT MC DONNELL: No because the cost shift is really

the bill components, the distribution charge, the

energy conservation programs, the renewable energy

charge and the Green Bank creates the incentive

program. Those are the components that when the

customer has a netting situation, when they are not

actually taking kilowatt hours out of their “bank”

they are not paying those bill components on that

consumption that they used. So that is the cost

shift that I referred to. So it doesn’t matter, if

actually it was a very sunny summer and there’s more

solar generation that increases the cost shift to

other customers. But the utilities are agnostic.

Think about that, it’s really other customers that

pay those components.

REP. DAVIS (57TH:) So at the end of the day the

utility makes the same amount of money and ends up

having?

PAT MC DONNELL: I like using analogies. We’re like

FedEx or UPS, we don’t decide if you shop at Amazon

or LL Bean or Lands End, but we deliver the power to

you so you can pick whatever kind of power you want.

208 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. DAVIS (57TH:) Okay. Thank you. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.


Representative. Representative Meskers.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): So the question on the $13

million dollars to my mind at least it would seem on

solar that seasonally in the sixth month period

where we’re billed by Eversource we are billed for

peak demand and for the generation of energy on peak

demand. I can’t imagine even though we don’t have a

storage component that what we need to purchase in

the way of energy and what we need in the way of

physical costs and physical plan to produce carbon

based energy is gonna be lower if we increase the

solar component?

PAT MC DONNELL: Absolutely.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): So wouldn’t that reduce our

costs in terms of what we’re paying to have that

cost available?

PAT MC DONNELL: Well I think the other thing that

policymakers certainly you gentlemen as well as the

folks at DEEP and PURA need to consider is there are

more places to get new energy from today than there

were in the past. Talk about offshore wind, there

is a lot of discussion of water scale, solar farms,

and the question is what is the relative cost to buy

comparable zero carbon resources and what is the

right blend of how much do we have on businesses and

homes, how much do we get from large scale solar

farms, what is the right blend of offshore wind or

maybe hydro and what is the right mix of these

209 MARCH 5, 2019



resources in the future and how do these all fit

together.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): And the last component I

would continue would be the what do we have in

landed costs or stranded costs, how about carbon for

peak demand because we need a reliable sustainable

system, right?

PAT MC DONNELL: Well I think the other piece to the

energy system of the future that we need to

contemplate because we do need to manage our peak

demand because maybe there are times when the wind

doesn’t blow and there are certainly times when the

sun doesn’t shin, right. So we need to be able to

manage that. So I think that storage will become an

ever increasing part of that landscape and I think

storage is a question of how and where we use it to

extract the most economic value and also demand

response when we get to the point where we can maybe

reach into your home through your wi-fi connected

devices and reduce your demand on peak periods.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): That’s what I’m suggesting

right now, the $13 million dollars in which were

spreading around, we haven’t yet reached a system to

measure the benefit to peak demand to reduce the

landed costs for our generation production.

PAT MC DONNELL: So I think there’s a lot of value

and understanding what some of the benefits are so

particularly because I think one of the things about

net metering doesn’t maybe represent the full value

of solar is the fact that solar installations,

probably most of them if they are netting are

generating more on the peak period than that host

site is using and that has benefit because it’s on

210 MARCH 5, 2019



peak, most of it’s summer, much coincidence with the

peak flow periods so it has a high value for that

solar.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): So we may not be compensating

accurately on this today?

PAT MC DONNELL: Well today now we might not be

compensating actually effectively. But I think we

need to work through these details and that’s why I

think we need to extend the status quo for some

additional time to allow us to put these things in

place and make sure we get it right.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Okay and Mr. Chairman if I

could indulge you just one more question related to

the observations on the energy cap for industry?

What I heard from you was that you’re gonna work

with the companies, we have a program in place to

teach them how to use their, to conserve energy, to

be more efficiency, to work with us and you would

prefer not a cap on the tax or the transfer the six

percent. I think the industry on it’s side

presenting a flat tax to a company that’s

intensively demands energy because they are in the

productive phase of manufacturing, is not a way to

encourage them to locate the production to

Connecticut. So even though you can make them more

efficient, I would argue that most of the companies

that are already high users of energy are probably

very efficient and what we really need to look at is

a declining tax rate on energy consumption if it is

combined with job creation. So there should be an

incentive for them to bring more business to the

state and this six percent is a flat tax, it is the

211 MARCH 5, 2019



worse thing if you’re trying to attract business to

the state.

JANE LANO: So I can certainly understand where

you’re coming from. My concern with creating a

carveout for one customer class is that we would

have to potentially need to do that for others in

the future so I think that Steve Cowell earlier said

it best that we would be asking those residential

programs to subsidize some of our programs for our

commercial and industrial customers and I think that

some of the programs that we have now are really

quite innovative and we had a lot of great success

working with manufactures in the State of

Connecticut and really digging in and helping them

analyze their production line so that we can reduce

energy consumption per unit or per widget so that as

they scale up, their costs go down compared to what

they would have had then done things the same way.

So I am confident that we can continue to deliver

value to these customers in a way that goes beyond

just the cam charge.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): I’m just, I’m sorry an

inordinate amount of the revenue stream of the state

is personal income tax so anytime I get more people

making more widgets in Connecticut I’m voting for

that versus a flat tax.

PAT MC DONNELL: So I think, Representative Meskers,

I think I would a positive thought before we leave

today and that’s many years ago we used to have the

ability to do economic development riders when we

were vertically integrated and so that was so if

there was more sales and there was more energy to

spread our fixed costs over we could sell those

212 MARCH 5, 2019



incremental additional kilowatt hours at a lower

rate. So maybe what the Committee needs to do is

focus on the specific energy efficiency charge, is

look at giving PURA the tools to say if you have

someone who’s gonna increase the consumption in

Connecticut by “x” amount they should be able to get

some discount on that block.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Well what I want is more

traffic on the roads and more people who are

working. Thanks.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Steinberg.


thank you for your testimony today. I particularly

appreciate your comments that perhaps the utilities

are unfairly portrayed as being resistant to

evolution of the business model but I can’t help but

notice some of the differences between the rate of

change so to speak in the State of Connecticut

versus surrounding states. It could be argued

perhaps there is more that Connecticut can do to

encourage utilities to make larger investments in

both distributed generation and in storage. Do you

have any ideas on, for example, if the State were to

make it easier for utilities to participate in grid

scale and other kinds of large projects whether that

would make a difference to your business model in

this state?

PAT MC DONNELL: So, both Ms. Lano and I spend quite

a bit of time in New York and they’ve got a lot of

new and different ideas in New York. I’m not sure

that any of those necessarily are mature and I think

that, you know, within the confines of the

distribution system certainly there are places and

213 MARCH 5, 2019



we actually have some installations of solar and

fuel cells within our distribution system where they

make sense that I think storage could also fall into

that same category so PURA actually as a

distribution system 2.0 that they’re in the middle

of to examine some of the things like where are the

good locations to put solar farms or fuel cells

within the distribution system then how might we

send price signals to developers to locate there.

So there is a lot of work currently going on at PURA

on those issues.

In terms of the large scale like offshore wind I

think those are best done by DEEP with large

procurements because they are really significant

scale and they need to be done in a competitive

basis.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Thank you for that. I guess

I was really referring to how interested would the

utilities be in becoming involved with good scale

solar projects like getting more skin in the game

which might actually be when we get that final

docket report out of PURA with regard to good

modernization would help the utilities become less

dependent on just managing the grid and have other

incentives in sort of a new generation landscape?

PAT MC DONNELL: I think the sort answer to that

would be we would be open to those types of

discussions.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Look forward to having these

conversations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Any other

questions? No. There being none, I think I’m gonna

214 MARCH 5, 2019



jump the order now, someone has to catch a plane

Katie Reilly.

PAT MC DONNELL: And I’m gonna leave the cost shift

with the Clerk if anybody wants it.


KATIE REILLY: Thank you, Senator Needleman for the

flexibility in pushing up the time, I appreciate

that. So Senator Needleman, Representative Arconti

and Members of the Energy and Technology Committee,

thank you for allowing me to be here today. I am

here to testify on House Bill 7151. My name is

Katie Reilly.

I represent the Consumer Technology Association, we

go by the acronym CTA. We are the trade association

for the Consumer Technology Industry which employs

about 15 million people here in the U.S. We have

2,200 members, 80 percent are small businesses and

the remaining are a lot of the retail and brand

names you guys probably know and hopefully love.

For many decade plus we’ve worked aggressively on

energy efficiency issues for consumer electronics.

We have been able to quantify in peer reviewed

studies that while the number of electronic devices

in U.S. homes has increased 21 percent since 2010,

those devices account now for 25 percent less

residential energy consumption over that same

timeframe. This is due to our industry’s innovation

and investment not due to mandated state or federal

efficiency standards.

So within this context I would like to respectfully

request the removal of a few items from House Bill

No. 7151 as it stands right now.

215 MARCH 5, 2019



First I would like to request the removal of the

outdated energy efficiency standards for compact

audio players, DVT players, DVRs and televisions.

The California standards that are currently in

California law were outdated at the time of

adoption. So Connecticut when they adopted the

California standards those were also outdated at

that time. I’ve demonstrated in my written comments

we’ve provided support for how those calculations

were off at the time of adoption both in California

and later in Connecticut.

Second, I would request the removal of standards for

computers and monitors. The devices that are sold

in the California market in complying with the

California regulations are the exact same products

that get sold here in Connecticut. So residents of

Connecticut are already going to be receiving the

energy efficiency benefits of those California

regulations and what we’d like to see is not having

the regulatory burden on our industry to comply with

regulations here in Connecticut.

Third, we request the removal of the broad authority

language both existing and new for DEEP to adopt

regulations on any consumer product. We feel it is

more prudent for the legislature to retain this

oversight of product categories requiring any energy

efficiency standards if needed.

And lastly we require the removal of the language

requiring consultation with other interstate energy

efficiency collaborative organizations. The

inclusion of this language opens the door for any

NGO to be consulted without similar difference given

to us as industry, the regulated community.

216 MARCH 5, 2019



So we feel the requests that we’re making are inline

with the goals of the law which are to promote

energy conservation, be cost effective for consumers

and not impose unreasonable burden on businesses.

So just to stress kind of two final points, you

know, this is a regulatory burden on us as an

industry. The cost savings that are already

happening because California has regulations in

place, the residents of Connecticut are already

reaping those benefits so adopting those into law

here in Connecticut really is only just a regulatory

pain on industry. So thanks for your time and happy

to answer any questions.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Well that was

another one, on time. Anybody have any questions?

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good

to see you and thanks for your testimony. So I get

some of the ideas on some of that. Now when you

mention the computers and monitors piece to be

removed from that, I get, you know, regulations but

the computer monitors and computers we’re selling

would meet the standard regardless?

KATIE REILLY: So the computers and monitors that

would be sold here in Connecticut already will have

to meet the regulations that California has passed

and is implementing. Our manufactures, our member

companies do not sell products state-by-state. They

fall into a national U.S. Market or an even overall

North American Market. So if they have to comply

with the California standards the products being

sold here in Connecticut are already reaping those

benefits. It’s kind of an unnecessary duplication

of a regulation.

217 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. ACKERT (8TH): So they wouldn’t make a computer

monitor California version and a Connecticut?

KATIE REILLY: Correct.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Is that a fact though, is that

true?

KATIE REILLY: Yes, that is true. I’ve never seen

any studies out there quantifying or refuting that

what gets sold in one place is different than what

gets sold in another. That’s what our manufactures

have told us.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you. And I didn’t see the

numbers on potential, what the efficiency, I mean

one of the things we do know energy efficiency no

matter how it is created is actually played in our

energy distribution from ISO New England. So do we

know what the savings, the overall savings since you

brought it up, that Connecticut would see in terms

of reduced energy going to this, with the passage of

this legislation?

KATIE REILLY: For which product category

specifically?

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Well, I’m not going to go

through all 80 of them. I’ll look into it a little

bit more myself.

KATIE REILLY: Yeah, I’d be happy to followup via

email.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Yeah, I’ll do a little bit more

research on my own but I didn’t know if you said, oh

this products does this amount but that’s fine.

Thanks. Thank you for testifying. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

218 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Gresko.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a

quick statistical clarification. You said 21

percent more electronic devices now than in 2010.

KATIE REILLY: Correct.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): But 25 percent less energy

usage?

KATIE REILLY: For the same electronic devices over

that timeframe. So while we’ve seen the number of

devices go up in peoples homes by 21 percent, we’ve

seen the energy consumption of those products go

down over that same timeframe by 25 percent. So just

some of the energy efficiency efforts were

voluntarily making as an industry.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hope

your voice is settling in. Thank you for your

testimony. I guess I have a question, there is a

lot of outdated things on here and a lot of this is

already being done and I heard your testimony where

you’re against the implementation. I guess my

question is, is there anything in here that’s

revolutionary or necessary as far as legislation is

concerned? I mean they are all wonderful ideas and

you already buy all of them now, I guess that is

just my question. Is there anything in here that,

in your opinion, you would say, “Yes” we really,

really have to have that?

KATIE REILLY: Yeah and I can only speak to the

consumer electronics aspect of the Bill.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Of course.

219 MARCH 5, 2019



KATIE REILLY: But no, the standards that are being

referenced are already on the books in California

and our members are going to have to comply.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): It’s so simply an outdated

concept to be putting forth as legislation right

now.

KATIE REILLY: Yeah.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Great, thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. I think that

savings is because I got rid of my old Sony TV.

KATIE REILLY: [Laughing]

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thirty-five inch,

weighted 400 pounds. Just got rid of it.

KATIE REILLY: There still out there.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): I know, I know. We have

a trailer load of them in town. So thank you for

your patience and have a safe flight.

KATIE REILLY: Thank you very much.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): We are going to go back

to our list right now. Erica Dahl and Steven

Lassiter.

ERICA DAHL: Thank you for having us today. I am

Erica Dahl. I am the Vice-President of Government

Affairs for Vivint Solar. My colleague Kyle Wallace

and our colleague at Sunrun, Steven Lassier. We

are two of the largest residential solar companies

in the U.S. Our offices are in North Haven and

Hartford and many of our employees were here today

220 MARCH 5, 2019



because they are concerned about what Senate Bill 9

will mean for them and their families.

Our companies are fierce competitors but we’ve come

together to address the impending crisis that SB-9

created. Without legislative action this session

Connecticut’s residential solar market will face

unprecedented danger in October or sooner. Our main

concern is this, HB 7251 as drafter will only

postpone the implementation of SB-9’s policies, not

fix them. We strongly disagree with DEEP that more

time is all that is needed. It is the underlying

structure of the tariffs that is so problematic. HB

7251 does not change the SB-9 polices that

negatively impact the solar in other states. We are

referring to buy all/sell all and instantaneous

netting. To be clear these polices are not common.

Few states have tried them and several of those have

replaced them.

STEVEN LASSIER: Again Steven Lassier with Sunrise.

I just want to get a more into the detail of those

programs and what we’ve seen in other states given

that we have the luxury of operating in about 20

states across the country. We have a wide view of

the polices that different states have implemented

and, you know, we want to help bring the Committee

up to speed on what we think has worked well and

what we have seen and know what does not work well.

So for example, in Maine, former Governor LePage

championed a by all/sell all program, they called it

gross metering. Policy makers thought it would save

money for rate payers but it was actually much more

complicated and expensive than anyone anticipated

including it’s proponents. As a result the Maine

221 MARCH 5, 2019



Public Service Commission repealed buy all/sell all

in Maine in December just a few months ago for large

customers. Two weeks ago the Maine House repealed

buy all/sell all for all customers including

residential customers. They reinstated net metering

to allow themselves more time to do a study to

figure out a better program and the Governor is

expected to sign that Bill as soon as this week at

which point, Connecticut would, once net metering

goes away in Connecticut as currently scheduled,

Connecticut would be the only state in New England

without net metering. And just for reference about

38 states across the country have net metering

including places like South Carolina which likely

will vote this year to extend it for two years.

In terms of instantaneous netting, in Utah, they

tried it in 2017 so my colleagues and fierce

competitors in the marketplace can personally attest

to the impacts there because their headquarters is

in Utah. A large group of Utah stakeholders

including the solar industry, the governor’s office

and others tried to design instantaneous netting in

a way that would work. The solar industry signed

onto the settlement thinking that it could work.

But because of the tariff’s extreme complexity and

uncertain value proposition especially for customers

who did not understand it, everyone was wrong. Well

intended but misinformed policy shrank Utah’s

residential solar market in the past several yeas by

70 percent, meaning lots of jobs were lost. These

same policies unfortunately are locked into

Connecticut Statute and the current Bill today does

not change that. Other states have pursued much

better policies and our view and Representative

222 MARCH 5, 2019



Ackert have said, what are they, we are happy to

talk about them and would love to with the

Committee. DEEP said it had a lot of work that it

has already done on these programs but it doesn’t

change the fact that you’re still continuing down

the same path, toward the same outcome, terrible

outcome that we’ve seen in other states. The

solution is to allow PURA to consider other policies

not just those locked into statute currently.

We urge the Committee to pause the implementation of

SB-9s damaging policies and continue current

programs that have worked until a Value of Solar

Study is completed including taking a look at what

other states have done that has worked well. That

is the conclusion of our remarks. We are more than

happy to answer questions.

I would also love to make a couple of points from UI

if possible. We had this discussion about a cost

shift, we agree with DEEP that there is not a cost

shift in Connecticut as was stated by the

Commissioner earlier. The U.S. Department of Energy

has also taken a look at this issue and found the

same as long as your solar penetration is under 10

percent or so, they have found that a cost shift is,

“imperceptible.” Connecticut as we’ve discussed

today is probably around two percent so the amount

of solar in Connecticut would have to quintuple

before there is even a material cost shift

occurring. One more point there, you heard a $13

million dollar figure, I don’t know what the

definition is that they’re using but I am pretty

sure that it’s not taken into account the benefits

of solar, right? You’ve got costs, you got benefits

what is the net? Is there a net cost or is there a

223 MARCH 5, 2019



net benefit to solar? We don’t currently have the

answer to that because the State has not yet done

the Value of Solar Study that everyone today has

asked for. I guess I’m way over time so I apologize,

it’s late and really appreciate the Committee’s

attention.


any questions? Yes.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. You

know you make reference to the possible solution

beyond a pause of empowering PURA to consider other

options to free them from this path they are

hurdling down and will result in the cliff this fall

unless this legislature takes action. Has any other

state required their Regulatory Agency to do this

kind of exploration and how long did it take em to

do so?

KYLE WALLACE: Yes, we’ve seen these type of. Oh,

I’m sorry, Kyle Wallace with Vivint Solar, Manager

of Markets and Regulatory Affairs. We have seen

these type of settings done in other states, New

York has been doing a value of distributed energy

resources for several years. Utah is in the middle

of also doing a value type solar study required by

the legislature. It is going to be a multiyear

process to collect data to be really well informed

and it will help determine the successor to the

current program which is already not done well.

California is about to start it’s NEM 3.0

discussion. They’ve already done what Connecticut

is trying to do once and they are now going to do it

a second time, so there is definitely models out

there that PURA and others can look at. Where this

224 MARCH 5, 2019



has been done well and not so well and that’s what

we would like them to do.

STEVEN LASSIER: And we’re happy to provide to the

Committee a list of the states that have completed

Value of Solar Studies. There is a minimum of 23 by

my count. Maryland as another speaker addressed

earlier probably has done the most recent one and we

would be happy to share that with the Committee as

well.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): I guess what I’m asking is

slightly different which is, what has been discussed

in this Committee is postponing to a date certain

any implementation of Section 7 of the former SB-9

which as you’ve just testified doesn’t rally change

anything. Short of coming up with a totally fresh

strategy that would be enshrined in the Statue

legislatively this session, what is it other than

doing the Value of Solar Study which may take some

time that you recommend that we ought to do to

forestall any bad outcomes for the solar industry in

this state?

STEVEN LASSIER: As the Committee has proposed we

are absolutely supportive of adding 100 megawatts to

the residential solar incentive program and we view

that as absolutely necessary to avoiding a market

cliff once that program ends given that the new

programs are not yet ready as all the stakeholders

who have been over at PURA for the past year have

acknowledged. To the point about what can it do in

the meantime, I mean with the extension that would

allow for continuation of the status quo programs in

place, this would simply be what has been going on

in Connecticut the past few years. It’s not a new

225 MARCH 5, 2019



program, it’s the net metering program everyone is

familiar with. That could continue along with RSIP

and, you know, once RSIP would run out of the next

100 megawatts most installers at that point could

probably sustain, you know, just staying on net

metering without a further continuation of the

incentive and then the real point of the study,

right, is to use it to inform the best, next policy

after net metering or it might say, you know what,

there is a net benefit in Connecticut currently from

net metering, there is no justification for changing

it. All ratepayers are benefiting as well as the

solar.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): If I may Mr. Chair, a quick

question.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Sure.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): You also made reference to

the circumstances PURA encountered when they try to

determine the feasibility of daily net metering and

ran into the issue of the availability of

appropriate technology by the utilities, has any

other state sort of run into this problem whereby

they’ve been waiting on the utilities to install

sufficient numbers of the appropriate metering

technology before they’ve gone forward and is any

state sort of arbitrarily set a date which this

would need to happen? In other words even if we

extend for two years, then in that two year period

we are presuming that the technology be in place,

then, which isn’t now, is that even from your

experience a reasonable assumption?

KYLE WALLACE: Yeah, I’m not aware of any other

state where that has happened where they have had

226 MARCH 5, 2019



technical limitations yet they then push forward

with the program anyways even knowing that it may

not be feasible. I can’t think of any off the top of

my head.

STEVE LASSIER: I mean we didn’t even realize the

gravity of what had happened until we have been

sitting through all the proceedings at PURA over the

past year. I mean this was a big moment for a lot

of folks, I think, to realize that the utilities, UI

has more advanced metering than Eversource generally

but everyone in the room kind of stopped and said,

woah, like the utilities don’t even have the meters

to implement the policy yet and they may not for an

additional two years. Why did we pass this policy

already? I mean this is obviously part of one of

many problems of SB-9 but I think it’s just further

evidence that, you know, the policy unfortunately

was not very well thought out or thought through,

both on the utilities side from whether the

utilities could implement it but also on the

installers side because we, of course, heard a lot

about certainty and predictability, of course we

have to train, do everything from updating the type

of equipment we use down to training our sales staff

and you can’t do that overnight if you are selling a

completely different product with a different

system.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you for that and

that’s why I still have a problem tying ourselves to

a specific date certain for the conclusion of this

pause. Not having any certainty as to when we

should actually be able to implement this program.

So it is, I’ll give it consideration. Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

227 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Buckbee.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Wow, that’s the first time

I’ve heard my name today from you, that’s good.

Good for you. [Laughter] Thank you so much for

your testimony and for your passion. I guess I have

a couple of questions for you if I may. One is you

talk about the Value of Solar Studies is there a

significant variation on these from state-to-state.

Obviously the climate difference from us to Georgia

is not gonna be something that matches up that we

know of well with Connecticut at this point or?

STEVE LASSIER: Yeah.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Kinda arbitrary?

STEVE LASSIER: No, there is a lot of variation in

part because there is a lot of variation in the

methodology and what the inputs are. I think there

are certainly Best Practices for how to set up the

study that have a lot more integrity than some of

the others we’ve seen. So for example, just not to

criticize DEEP too much, but we took a look at kinda

what their cost benefits, they only did a cost

analysis in there.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): A good day to criticize, go

ahead. [Laughter]

STEVE LASSIER: Okay, sure. I don’t need

encouragement. So if you look at the 2018

Comprehensive Energy Strategy at DEEP like the title

of the section really says, “Cost Analysis” right,

it doesn’t even say Cost Benefit Analysis and they

too try to quantify, you know, what they describe as

a cost shift but, we talked a lot about that, I’ll

defer to Kyle.

228 MARCH 5, 2019



KYLE WALLACE: Yeah and I think what we saw when we

looked at that, there were very large methodological

issues with how that was done which wasn’t done in

the stakeholder process where we could really have

the Best Practices from other states formats so we

really guess what the value is. I know Maine has

done Value of Solar Study prior to them implementing

their bad tariffs and it actually found, and correct

me if I’m wrong, that the value of solar was greater

than the retail rate so that means net metering was

saving ratepayers more than if they had gone with

value solar approach. And so that is a regional

example but it does vary state-to-state,

environmental compliance things like that, RTS

standards play into that of what the value of voided

environmental costs or compliance costs. So there

is a lot of studies out there but I think there is a

really good Best Practice that we could follow.

ERICA DAHL: And I think it could also help inform

the goas behind the RPS and some of the other things

the State has stated they are interested in doing in

the future and we want to be part of that larger

plan and that discussion for moving Connecticut

forward.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): So I guess to that it seems

like a lot of it’s changed. Technology changes on a

regular basis and we’re talking a lot of these

things are two years out. I heard some people

suggest today we wait two years on the study, we get

more data. I guess my question to that is has this

industry changed drastically in the last two years,

I would assume the answer is the technology’s

changed and how much to you expect it to change in

the next two years? So I guess it’s a lead in to

229 MARCH 5, 2019



say wouldn’t you be more in favor of something

sooner than later and not wait two years on a study

before we put something out there because it will be

obsolete by the time our study’s done?

STEVEN LASSIER: The technology costs have gone on

down a lot in the past two years. I mean it hasn’t

been as great as in the preceding ten or so. I

don’t think the findings of the study would be

obsolete. I think it’s critical that the State

establish some baseline to figure out, you know, to

answer questions like what is the value of net

metering is a cautious cost actually occurring, if

not what might it might it? Five, ten years into

the future. What is that cost compared to the

benefits of solar? And only then once you’ve got an

honest crunching of the data do you have, can you

really be in a good position to formulate good

policies.

KYLE WALLACE: And the key part of the Value of

Solar Study is to setup essentially the formulas and

the methodology so those can be agreed on so that

you can regularly update input and so, one you have

that initial foundation, you can update it to just

keep pace with changes in the industry and changing

environmental factors just by changing the inputs

once you have the methodology in place.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Considering that is as long as

the technology doesn’t take another drastic shift.

We need a base. We need to start at a base, okay.

One more question if that’s all right? Has any

other state, any other area done any combination of

net metering with maybe a personal use or even a bid

process sell back? Has anyone done that where the

230 MARCH 5, 2019



customer, the person, the individual who owns a home

can have a bid process for buying it back if they

want to use it for personal use and sell back what

they would like to sell back. Has any of that been

approached or tried anywhere cause I just see it as

a possibility for more of a market for that

homeowner that has the panels on the roof and want’s

to do something with it. They want to use their own

power first off. I think a lot of people thought

that when they first got into this, right. I’m

gonna power my house with solar. That was the

initial thought I think from a lot of the

homeowners. So has anything else been done aside

from net metering that has been proven to work or

has it not?

STEVEN LASSIER: That has been proven to work,

absolutely and like I said we would be happy to

share those examples with the Committee. I mean you

can point to the time of use rate for example that

states often transition to from that metering that

better aligns with the cost of the overall system in

terms of the price of electricity throughout the

day. To answer your other, the other part of your

question which is very exiting actually can we

create, you know, in the future some type of energy

marketplace where say you have two households right

beside each other. One has a sunny roof one has a

really shady room and they can’t go solar but their

neighbor can.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Was worried about what you

were going to say about “shady” I was afraid of what

you were going to say there but thank you.

[Laughter]

231 MARCH 5, 2019



STEVE LASSIER: So if I am the homeowner with the

shady roof and my neighbor is exporting power to the

grid and they are getting compensated via net

metering whatever, say I really value clean energy

and I would pay even more than the retail rate

what’s stopping you from buying you, your literally

buying your neighbor’s excess energy that they are

exporting to the grid and paying even more for it

than they would get on the net metering. That is

kind of like a transactive energy marketplace that

what is it, not Bitcoin but blockchain, may get

there at some point.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): A little bit different.

Blockchain is really the ledger right? That’s where

you are tracking and keeping it, but yeah.

STEVE LASSIER: Right but if.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Virtual currency of energy

itself isn’t a horrible idea at all but.

STEVE LASSIER: Right. I meant to say blockchain

but you could track exports and purchases, right.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Right.

STEVE LASSIER: In a marketplace with millions of

participants. We are getting off topic a little bit

but.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): It’s a little off topic but

that is kinda the point I’m trying to make here is

that while net metering, some people are completely

anti-net metering, they want it to go away and I

think there is too much for us to learn from here

yet and I think there’s a lot of opportunities for

us to see some more marketplace open up in this

232 MARCH 5, 2019



entire industry. So I want to listen to what else

is said on this but thank you for your input today.

STEVE LASSIER: One more if I could just on that

point of the marketplace, right, so our companies

are currently deploying energy storage. We are

selling home batteries with our storage systems. It

is very new. We are only operating in say half a

dozen markets. We would love to start selling

storage in Connecticut and it has a lot of benefit

one of which being backup power so when the grid

goes down your solar system generates power, powers

your home during the day, powers your battery. You

can use your battery to power your home at night and

then the next day when your battery’s drained the

whole system starts over again. So in the case of

multiday outage you’ve got power, right? You’re

cruising. And it could offer, you know, on a time

of use rate for example, when the grid most needs

power in the late afternoon or evening those

batteries can discharge either to provide power to

your house or to the grid and reduce rate for all

ratepayers, right because all aggregate energy is

not as much as demanded.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Or the batteries could provide

a whole new marketplace as well in lieu of

generators and more along that line. But again all

great new things and I love that this session

energized it at the beginning of the dinnertime

hours, but this is good stuff. Thank you so much.

STEVE LASSIER. Absolutely and the key point is net

metering has been the engine of the solar industry.

The solar industry is going to be engine of storage

233 MARCH 5, 2019



but without a viable solar market you’re not gonna

have anyone to install storage.


Representative Meskers.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): I will be a little less

electrifying no pun intended. So first you’d like

to see a rollback of the entire regulation. In lieu

of the rollback in Regulation 9 the old one and you

commented that you wanted the mega raised from 50 to

100, right.

STEVEN LASSIER: We are supporting the Committee’s

Bill that would add 100 megawatts under the RSIP

Program.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): So if we add 100, if we add

50 or we add 100 what kind of employment are we

talking about? Can you give me a guesstimate?

STEVE LASSIER: If you add only 50 megawatts, right,

we might go through, the industry may install all

that amount of solar at the current rate in even

less than a year and utilities themselves have said

they will need at least two years to update the

metering and everything else for the new program

that’s currently locked in to take over in that

metering. So if it is 50 megawatts they may not

even have enough time to set up the new program.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): No, no, I guess the question

is increasing to 100 what do you think that does for

employment, period.

STEVE LASSIER: So on the jobs piece even from over

the last year with this uncertainty looming over the

industry, Connecticut’s solar market did increase by

234 MARCH 5, 2019



three percent for jobs from, year over year and that

was with the chilling affect from the legislation

from last year. If there was certainty for a longer

period of time, I do think you would see more of

investment from companies in the State saying we

think this is a long-term viable market. We are

going to hire more. We are going to be more

aggressive in Connecticut because when you look

around at the neighboring states and say I have

certainty in Massachusetts, I have certainty in New

York, I have certainty in Rhode Island, it is real

easy to say I am going to focus on those markets and

wait to see what happens in Connecticut and that is

going to stall growth. So I do think having some

longer term predictability that this pause would

have, then also having a long-term certainty of a

better and more well though out successor tariff

that could spurt that job growth substantially.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Okay, thanks.

ERICA DAHL: If I could just add as well this is a

very capital intensive business as you can imagine.

We have tax equity partners who are paying a lot of

attention to the policies in various states to make

decision about whether or not they are going to

continue to invest in the industry and without those

investments we can’t continue either. It’s not just

jobs, it’s not just customers it’s actually our

investors as well. So, as you know, the ecosystem

and this has been a big topic of conversation with

our Capital Markets team. Our boss who runs Capital

Markets Government Affairs doesn’t report to legal,

it doesn’t report to external affairs, it reports to

the Capital Market. He’s based in New York. He has

a home in Connecticut. He would have been here

235 MARCH 5, 2019



today if he wasn’t meeting with institutional

investors, that’s how important this is to how and

where we invest in the 22 states we do business in.

And for those of you that worked here with us from

the beginning, you know, this morning we did have

our Northeast Sales Director who has been here for

four years and as we were texting this morning about

what today was going to look like, he was very

nervous to have his team members here to hear the

intricacies of what this is because that is

messaging directly to them that this is

unpredictable and unstable and have already been,

and we have been working on this collectively the

two competitors for a year this week. We got

involved in this and all I can say is that we are

doing the best we can to educate and advocate and be

partners with the legislature and we are confident

that we are going to find a fair solution but he has

a district manager who asked him today what the

prognosis was and I said, you know Troy we have

until June 5th. We’re gonna give it our best so

your attention to this and willingness to be open as

a partner with DEEP so that we can find a win-win

means a lot to us.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): And now that you mention

that, if you have some of the presentation material

that you’ve made to the Wall Street investors it

would be very helpful for us because there you’ll

give us a competitive background on the entire

industry across the 22 states and we could maybe get

some insights on the regulatory side.

ERICA DAHL: As you know we are both publicly traded

companies so anything that is public information

236 MARCH 5, 2019



that we can certainly compile and give you a

snapshot.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): If you’ve got any roadshows

that are public I’d love to see them.

ERICA DAHL: Absolutely, you said the magic word,

roadshow. So yes, thank you for asking.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Senator Formica? No.

Anyone else? Senator Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Through you, Mr. Chairman.

Years in the past when someone called me senator I

said, “No way, ever.” [Laughter] It almost happened

a couple of years ago, not that I would have got

elected, but who knows. But thanks for being here.

You know, and I get the uneasiness part of it but I

hope that the people that are in the room, were not

here cause we don’t want to fix this. We’re here

because we want to. We’re listening and want to

get, you know, maybe we won’t get it 100 percent

right this time but understand that we’re committed

to making sure that we have people working. I mean

most of the Committee’s in here, some Bill in their

Committee is about job creation and support it. So,

I mean it’s truly the key. I don’t think any of us,

hopefully everyone of us has met with one solar

company and heard about their stories. But Steven

when you mention South Carolina recently, now they

were going to another metering structure, is that

what it was and then they and was that like ending,

going and rolling in this year type of thing and can

you talk about that for a moment?

237 MARCH 5, 2019



STEVE LASSIER: I can I am actually going to let my

colleague Kyle talk because they have an important

story to tell on that.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): That would be great, thank you.

KYLE WALLACE: Yeah, South Carolina was a little

different where they had a net metering cap of two

percent similar to what Connecticut has and so

that’s basically they were running to that cap.

Their major utility hit that last year, the second

half of last year and the other main utility was

expected to hit it here any day now. So that’ where

they were going then to basically an instantaneous

netting style program where everything now that is

exported would be valued much less than under the

net metering. It essentially cratered the industry.

I mean we personally had to pull out last year when

the main utility had hit their net metering cap. We

had to close up shop and so now that in the

legislature they are looking to expand for another

two percent, on the cap, increase it to four percent

but we’ve already left and the jobs are gone. And

when a company is gone, it’s difficult to jump back

into that. So that’s what kinda was going on there.

They weren’t, they didn’t have a very clear

successor program. It was kind of left up to the

utilities after the net metering cap was hit and so

they kind of defaulted to where we’re gonna pay the

wholesale rate for everything you ask for and this a

qualifying facility under PURPA.

ERICA DAHL: So that legislation has passed at their

state senate unanimously and we’re waiting for

action now in the house. It’s something that we are

watching carefully. Sunrun is still in that market

238 MARCH 5, 2019



so our company still had to make a decision if we

stayed or went and our employees were telling us, we

can’t sell in the uncertainty of this market and

we’ve had employees pack-up, move to Florida, move

to other states in the surrounding area where they

have more certainties. So we are anxiously looking

at it and we are hopeful there is a chance the

legislature rolls this back.

I also want to use the example of Nevada quickly if

I may. I know that has been used today but that,

with the market, we literally that was the first

month that I started at Vivint, April of 2015 and we

were making plans to enter that market. Given that

we are based in Utah we have a lot of employees that

were very anxious, have family in neighboring

Nevada, great cost of living, wanted to move there.

We literally had employees in their cars, we had 100

open job racks. We had employees in their cars

driving across the border to start their new lives,

had little kids, signed leases in homes when the

utility hit their cap and it was over. So we then

had to sit out for two years while changes were

happening at the commission, at the legislature and

after sitting on our hands for two years, we are not

back into the market because they brought net

metering back and they did it in a thoughtful way

with which our industry could participate, bring

Best Practices. It’s now one of our top five markets

now. We are serving customers, we’re making a

difference, we are providing energy choice and we’ve

created a tremendous amount of economic development

from the jobs. Obviously we pay payroll taxes, sales

taxes on our equipment, etc. ourselves so that is

sort of a cautionary tale of why go through the

239 MARCH 5, 2019



topsy-turvieness of that when we can get it right by

looking at other states and that is really again

what we are asking for today is give PURA the option

to open aperture and we welcome continuing to be a

part of that discussion.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Was the Nevada net metering

comparable to what we are doing now or is it a

different structure?

ERICA DAHL: So at the time it was in it’s original

form. It was a 1:1 credit and Kyle can explain what

we negotiated for.

KYLE WALLACE: Yeah, and the compromise that brought

net metering back, it’s essentially use can still

net over a monthly basis any credits at the end of

the month are valued below the retail rate and as

they deploy certain megawatt amounts, value declines

overtime. So it started at 95 percent of the retail

rate, went down to 88 which is where it currently is

and will go down to 81 and then 75 as they deploy 80

megawatts per residential solar.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Would you call that a hybrid

metering tariff model type of thing?

KYLE WALLACE: It is, cause the current structure in

Connecticut is basically annual netting, right.

Your credits can roll over month to month at the

full rate for up to a year. So this was kind of a

first-step compromise of dealing with those exports

on a monthly basis and kind of stepping down over

time but, while it is loss of value and somewhat

versus retail net metering, it is a compromise that

the industry could live with in Nevada.

240 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. ACKERT (8TH): So a good help for last year,

Ryan Wolf would call penciling out a project. You

can pencil the project out he would call that,

right. Sell it.

KYLE WALLACE: Yep.

ERICA DAHL: We have certainty.

KYLE WALLACE: Yeah and when you’re looking at a

customer’s utility bill you have their monthly

usage, you can estimate pretty accurately what

monthly production will be from the system and you

can make those economics work. The values are

known. It is fairly simple. People can understand

it. It does work.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Yes.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): And just lastly, are any of

the states at this point encouraging a system that

includes storage on the personal basis?

STEVE LASSIER: Yeah, absolutely. Like we mentioned

time of use rates do a better job of encouraging

storage deployment. New York is about to rollout

storage incentive to reduce the cost which is still

very significant. In Massachusetts with the SMART

program comparable.

KYLE WALLACE: Yeah, well I really want to focus on

the California one as well because it is finally

getting to a place where just the time of use rate

alone can help make the batteries economical now for

customers without separate incentives. So I think

that is a really.

241 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. MESKERS (150TH): Basically because they can

sell at peak moments because they have control of

the energy because it is in storage.

KYLE WALLACE. Yeah. Exactly it helps make the

economics for storage work even though the costs are

still fairly high. Now it will just get better and

better with time.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): And for the regulators that is

going to be more interesting in reducing peak demand

and reducing generating.

KYLE WALLACE: Yeah, and they’ve already had to

respond to that where their peak period had kind of

shifted to later in the day because they were so

successful with solar and now with energy storage

they’re addressing those later peaks when the sun is

not shining by holding that solar from midday when

they don’t necessarily need it and using it at

night. So it’s created a really interesting dynamic

there and it also plays really well into the

electrification of vehicles and other things that

they are trying to do. It is getting customers more

engaged because they have control of their energy

bills through time use.

ERICA DAHL: And I will note California did pass 100

percent clean energy mandate by 2045. So they’re

all in and they know they can’t do it without the

progressive polices that include the innovation of

storage.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): I want to thank you.

Have a great night. Did I miss you? No, no, I’m

242 MARCH 5, 2019



sorry. Amy McLean. Thank you for being patient all

day.

AMY MCLEAN SALLS: Thank you for giving me the

opportunity. I actually work really closely with

all three of these people in the efforts that

started last March. We’ve been talking since last

March about what’s the best solution. My name is

Amy McLean Salls. I am with the Acadia Center and

once again I fell as though I don’t have a lot to

add and it certainly is not as exciting as what you

just heard. I think that the smart way to go here

is to listen to the people who know best and I think

on the issue of solar, these are some of the best.

I did want to bring your attention, I’m going to say

I am in support of HB 7151 which is the Act

concerning energy efficiency because we believe that

everything you heard today, which is all positive,

is a very important step forward.

And then I also want to comment on HB 7251 which is

this Bill we’ve been hearing so much about. In my

testimony I sort of give a little bit of a history

of what happened and then where are we now. In my

testimony we’ve done a lot of modeling at Acadia

Center and you can look and see some of the

comparisons to where we are in New England compared

to where other states and how they are moving their

stuff forward. It goes up to 2017.

But Vermont has installed four times as much

distributed solar per person than Connecticut and

Massachusetts is nearly two times more per person.

These higher deployment rates in the nearby states

indicates that Connecticut’s in-state solar industry

could expand if we have effective solar policies.

243 MARCH 5, 2019



So I’m just gonna cherry pick a couple of facts from

this testimony.

The current deployment rate will also prevent

Connecticut from meeting its climate goals as you

heard earlier. As Acadia Center has modeled through

its EnergyVision 2030 project, Connecticut will need

to more than double its current annual rate of

distributed solar installations to stay on track

through 2030.

I also think to capture, this is the other piece I

wanted to mention, to capture the full economic

potential of rooftop solar for Connecticut, existing

policies will need to be changed. This is what

we’re here to do today. The legislature now has the

opportunity to revisit the policies, the negative

policies that were unintentionally most likely put

in place. I’ll give us all a pass. We didn’t know

it was gonna be that way. So we have to take this

opportunity to change it.

I think the other folks that talked about, you know

what does this do? It’s 2,200 solar jobs are at

risk. It harms the solar growth that puts our state

at risk for missing our climate goals. It is based

on an unfounded cost shift theory. Solar only

provides one to two percent of Connecticut’s total

electricity. A U.S. Department of Energy study

found that cost shifts to non-participating

residents are “imperceptible” again you have heard

this in areas with less than 10 percent solar.

Then the last thing I want to say here is that we

worked very hard to give you the information that

you might need to make these decisions and to

understand how serious we all are. So I’m just

244 MARCH 5, 2019



gonna hold these things up because you have them.

But this is a letter that was written and there are

50 names or 50 organizations on this letter, that is

across the board. It’s energy, it’s environment and

it’s solar industry. I think that shows there is a

cohesiveness and an energy that we’re there to help

you to get to what you need.

Then lastly, just the fact that we actually did take

time to look at the actual language and make some

suggestions. So thank you for your attention. I

have been impressed by the thought you all have put

into this and you really wanting to understand it

and I just really appreciate it very much. Thank

you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you so much. Yes.


Thank you, Amy for the documentation you provided

today. Those charts are highly illustrative of

exactly the opportunity that we are on the brink of

missing here. And I am concerned about your point

we are actually making all our climate change goals

even more difficult to achieve if we continue down

this path rather than creating a Green New Deal we

seem to be creating a Green Bad Deal and we need to

get back to get back on course very quickly because

the lost time is only going to compound our problems

going forward. And most importantly we thank you

for actually going beyond simply agreeing that we

have a problem and helping us try to find ways to a

solution. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

AMY MCLEAN SALLS: You’re welcome.

245 MARCH 5, 2019




Representative. Anyone else? Thank you so much.

Dave Sutherland. Good evening.

DAVID SUTHERLAND: Thank you, my name is David

Sutherland and I am here today on behalf of the

Nature Conservancy to discuss Bill 7251.

And I think it is important to not conflate net

metering with incentives. RSIP is an incentive and

as a couple of other speakers have pointed out, it

has been ratchet down appropriately so, 12 times I

think in the last six year. And net metering again

there are quite a few studies and I referenced one

of them in my testimony my testimony that have shown

that net metering is a net benefit to the whole

system. You can disagree with some of those but

there have been quite a bit of studies on that and

it is an open question.

So, we’re in favor of keeping net metering in place,

reversing last year’s provisions in Section 7 of PA-

1850 and then ratchet down RSIP. Don’t stop it

completely but keep ratcheting it down, we think

that is the appropriate way to sort of deal with

incentives. An on the issue of incentives, I didn’t

include this in this years’ testimony but in my

testimony on Senate Bill 9 last year, I quoted an

article from, it’s called “Incentives for Energy

Production.” It’s on the website for the Nuclear

Energy Institute, “All electric generating

technologies have received various levels of

financial incentives from the Federal Government.

For decades the government has provided incentives

to support research, development and deployment of

energy technology.” I then also referenced a 2015

246 MARCH 5, 2019



report by the U.S. Treasury Department that noted

that, “The United States Government has identified

11 Federal fossils fuel production tax provisions”

and over the last century quite a few of these types

of energy sources have received state subsidies as

well, especially if there is an economic development

or job creation angle on it.

So I think if you look at the overlap between people

who directly or indirectly pay federal taxes, and

the people who directly or indirectly pay electric

rates there is quite an overlap. So for the

purposes of this argument there have been subsidies

for all electric generating sources over the past

century either from tax benefits or rate payer

subsidies. So solar is a very new industry compared

to most of these other sources or you are talking

about nuclear or hydro or fossil fuel plants, so we

think it is very appropriate that they get subsidies

and that they be handled very strategically. Thank

you very much.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, David.

Anybody have any questions? Gettin off easy. Thank

you and for staying too. Donna Carroccia. Welcome.

DONNA CAROCCIA: Thank you all for the opportunity

to testify before you today. It is good to see you

all again. Last week seems like it was just

yesterday. My name is Donna Hamzy Carroccia and I

am speaking today in support of House Bill 7115 on

behalf of CCM a statewide association of

Connecticut’s Towns and Cities.

CCM appreciates the Committee for raising this Bill

and recognizing that virtual net metering is an

important program that many municipalities have

247 MARCH 5, 2019



benefited from and would like to benefit from into

the future. We support the expansion as mentioned in

the Bill however we would ask that the Bill go

farther in eliminating the cap and then to also

eliminate any of those buckets particularly the

state bucket and agriculture buckets and industrial

buckets and instead create an open program that

would allow for more first come - first served

program that would create some flexibility and also

I think expand the virtual net metering option for

municipalities in this case particularly.

I will stop there because it has been a long day so

if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Yes,

Representative Steinberg.


Thank you for testifying here today. You made

mention of the arbitrary buckets the legislature

created in order to encourage more activities than

virtual metering across a couple different areas.

And you also make mention of your desire to have the

cap eliminated altogether. Help us understand why

that would be a good thing. I’m aware that for

example, that there are municipalities that had

contemplated putting forth proposals to do virtual

net metering projects but chose not to because they

felt that the cue was so long that there would be no

prospect of them getting in under the cap. Are you

aware of roughly how many municipalities in the

state have indicated interest either have joined a

que or chose not to based upon the limits that we

currently put with the cap?

248 MARCH 5, 2019



DONNA HAMZY CARROCCIA: Thank you, Representative

Steinberg and thank you for your leadership on this

issue. I do not have a specific number for you but

I did know that you were going to ask that question,

I had a feeling. But I will absolutely get you that

information in a survey of our membership.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH): Thank you, yes. Cause my

understanding is we’re talking about scores

potentially of communities in the state that would

be interested in doing so if the cap was lifted and

it is very hard to figure out where the cap ought to

be not knowing how many municipalities might be

interested in the order of magnitude of their

projects that they are, you know, maybe a megawatt

or more in some of these cases they could

potentially hit another cap really fast and that is

perhaps a better argument for no cap at all. Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Yes,

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and

thank you for being here and sticking it out also.

So are we, how quickly do we get to the $10 million

dollar do you know that and hope we get to $20

million dollars would we cap it? I’ve been in

support of having no tranches but I think maybe we

can do it a little bit differently if one group gets

to it, one hasn’t used it type of thing that they

can jump into that because the state wasn’t using

their at all. So the Ags and municipalities were

getting there and the state was using nothing why

don’t we just give it to them. And they’re like,

no, no, no. So maybe you don’t know the answer how

249 MARCH 5, 2019



quickly we get to the ten and is 20 unreasonable.

Granted we always have caps, there always seems to

be some around here, so is that an approachable

number you think especially with the municipalities?

DONNA HAMZY CARROCCIA: We absolutely support the

$20 million dollar expansion I want to be clear. I

know that lifting the cap is a big ask. But I do,

opening it up absolutely will free up the state’s

credit as mentioned that we’re not using and I do

think that there are, there is a potential for

municipalities to eat up a lot of that $20 million

dollars, there’s a big interest I think on behalf of

towns that create some energy efficiency where there

might not be some now with the cap.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thanks. I do want to make sure

I’m protecting agriculture so I wouldn’t want it to

be that, you know, first in option cause, you know,

municipalities, you know, staff whatever it may be

could apply much quicker than maybe an Ag tranche so

I would say that we would need to keep some kind to

make sure there is some still designated but if one

group is not using theirs type of thing that the one

group that maybe moves quicker could get it,

something like that.

DONNA HAMZY CARROCCIA: I appreciate that.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thanks for being here and you

know I think the dialogue would be important so

thanks.


Have a lovely night. I missed somebody, Claire. I’m

sorry it was written to the right in the column.

250 MARCH 5, 2019



CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: No problem, glad to be here. I’m

Claire, I’m sorry. [Laughter] No, I’ Claire

Miziolek and I am with Northeast Energy Efficiency

Partnership and I am really glad to be talking to

you guys and I’m really, really impressed with

everybody who is in here. I’ve been in this

building since about 8:00 a.m. and I am sure plenty

of people have been here longer and it is impressive

that you guys are still going. You have stamina here

in Connecticut.

So I work regionally throughout the Northeast and

Mid-Atlantic. We are a non-profit and we are here

to advance energy efficiency and I actually work a

lot with different businesses and manufacturers of

different products to help them grow those energy

efficient products, make them more available and

work with the utility programs but I also work on

the appliance standards side because that has been a

really winning strategy, bipartisan supported

strategy to get energy savings and one of the

cheapest ways to achieve major energy savings.

So I am here to talk about 7151. You guys have seen

it. It clocks in at 29 pages here which is pretty

impressive and very long so I would like to

volunteer anyone who has any technical questions, I

know there were questions earlier about the

penetration levels of certain products and a little

bit about how products come into markets and things

like that, that is what I love to answer to you but

I’d also like to let you know there is a couple of

handouts that folks at DEEP have helped put together

that kind of provide a little bit of color

commentary to this issue and these will be

251 MARCH 5, 2019



distributed after the fact so folks can see it and

have the information.

I was planning to comment and tell you guys that

this is kind of a winning strategy that, you know,

win, win, win for customers, good for utilities,

really great for the environment, you have water

savings, energy savings, gas savings which results

in carbon savings certainly. All that is very true

however I am realizing that it is the end of the day

and time is short and I know there has already been

some folks who spoke in opposition to the Bill and I

anticipate there might be some more folks speaking

out after me and so I just want to point out a

couple of things about the nature of the Bill.

So quickly the idea is that Connecticut would be

passing a set of new appliance efficiency standards

for products that don’t have standards federally.

That doesn’t me they don’t have standards at all and

many do in fact have California standards. There

was a comment earlier that the computer standard

would be problematic and really unnecessary because

it already has the benefits of the California

standards in Connecticut are already being reaped.

I’ve never been able to see that data, we’ve asked

for that data to be supplied showing us that what is

sold in Connecticut is completely compliant with

what is in California and when the regulations would

be written they would be pointing to that California

list so they wouldn’t be asking manufactures to

comply or additionally provide anything. They’d

essentially be saying if you are on the California

list you’re good in Connecticut and that basically

locks in and makes sure that things sold in

Connecticut. That does mean there would be a

252 MARCH 5, 2019



legacy, older products that maybe less efficient or

some manufactures maybe aren’t members of the major

trade groups but are still potentially producing

inefficient technologies, those would not be for

sale. And so there is still a lot of benefits left

to be had.

Just a couple of things I wanted to point out, kind

of a counterpoint to earlier testimony around the

energy savings that happened in the electronics

industry, we’ve seen that kind of across the board

in homes and businesses a lot of things have gotten

a lot more efficient. A lot of this actually behind

the scenes due to energy efficiency standards and

earlier it was quoted that, you know, no standards

were involved for the electronics, that is not

actually true. We found battery chargers, we have

external power supplies, the power bricks, that

wouldn’t be necessarily the manufactures of the

products are focused on but those provide huge

energy savings and are covered federally. There

were television standards in a lot of different

states. So these are actually happening behind the

scenes and have brought a lot of the benefits

forward. I think that it is, I know I heard the

buzzer, and I don’t want to keep anyone here any

longer than I have to although I know you guys still

have a long night ahead of you but I really want to

say. Oh, just on the states, and reiterate that

Massachusetts, Rhode Island have just actually

introduced it today, Maine, New York is planning to

do it the governor stated it. These are all states

that are planning to do this and I know DEEP is

really eager to make any adjustments or compromises

to really work with this Committee to get this Bill

253 MARCH 5, 2019



right and make it happen for Connecticut so that

there $80 million dollars in annual savings and

ultimately huge energy and water and carbon savings

do get realized. With that, I’ll see if there are

any questions. I’d love to handle technical

questions on anything, I’ve got a lot of fact sheets

here if you want em. I’ll stop talking. Thank you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Wow! [Laughter]


REP. ACKERT (8TH): I’m glad you got that much

energy and I appreciate you bringing that to us. So

you mentioned a couple of things. Other states

similar in New England have this language, similar

language.

CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: Yes, so the way it was

established, by colleague from Appliance Standard

Awareness Project mentioned it before. Her

organization put together a package of 18 standards

and a model set of them and states have basically

taken that package and they might leave one thing

off here or they might just take this part of it but

it is all based on the same set of standards. What

you look at in Rhode Island for example there are 17

standards there and it is all but one of these

products that they are introducing. The one that is

being left off in Rhode Island is air purifiers,

that is one that is the only product that does not

have a standard right now. Vermont passed all of

these except for air purifiers last year and the air

purifiers is based on an EnergyStar level so it

hasn’t been codified in state standards. I know

there are some concerns about health and the cost

associated with them although in doing further

254 MARCH 5, 2019



research we found some similar reports that says a

cheap air purifier is doing nothing to clean your

air and you’re wasting a lot of energy and money on

operating it so they still make sense of standards

though I know I think DEEP and hopefully the

commission of the government so it’s open to

reaching compromises there if that makes sense. But

yeah it’s the same set and each state is kinda

taking their own, a little bit of their own twist on

it but just about identical. I should mention

Washington State, Hawaii, Colorado, Illinois are

also pursuing it but they are outside of the region

so I’m not as up on them.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): There is ton of definitions

here, we’re up to 80 something different definitions

and so the reason why, you just mentioned the number

80 million could you respond to what that 80 million

is.

CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: Sure, yeah. So of the, so I

should say the definition, I know I heard you say

that a couple of times about the 80 definition so

Connecticut has been a leader in states historically

and so the higher suite of definitions and what is

in these 29 pages are all these distinct standards

that are already on the books for Connecticut plus

these 17 new ones so we are only focused on the 17

new ones because the savings from the other ones

have already happened and calculated utility bill

savings for the State of Connecticut for the 17 new

standards if $80 million dollars annually and that’s

if the standards go into effect in 2021 and that

number is how much would be achieved in 2025. As

they sell through it takes a little while for the

savings to be kind of realized is because people

255 MARCH 5, 2019



aren’t just going out, you know, January 1, 2021 and

buying all new everything. So it takes a little

while, actually by 2035 the standards grow, they

basically double the savings because by then just

about all the stuff has switched over. So the

annual savings and I will say that those are, we

uploaded in the testimony but we will also make hard

copies available.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): So the $80 million dollars, you

said from 2021 to 2025.

CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: Right, annually in 2025.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Annually in 2025? Thank you.

CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: Yeah so it takes four years

basically. After four years.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): They gotta break. Some gotta

break, gotta buy something new. Okay, thank you.


SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Representative Buckbee.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And

again the energy if we could bottle it, it seems to

be unbelievable and I guess when you wait the entire

day to get your three minutes you’re gonna have a

lot to say. So that’s good, thank you for your

energy. So I just really have one question. I

questioned earlier if, since all these products are

available currently and labeled properly and are

already out there, my question is if there is, in

your opinion, I asked someone earlier if we need

legislation on it if it’s just a choice, and part of

that to its California law, Connecticut law which

ever it might be most people are, I mean the online

256 MARCH 5, 2019



market owns it all anyway so most of it is being

done through online orders, the Amazons of the

world, so does it impede on your choice on what you

want to use for a product, where you want to go and

the product you want to buy. I mean if your are

gonna buy a faucet you want to see what this flow is

on this faucet when you go to buy the faucet. The

same with the lightbulb, whatever it might be. So I

guess that’s my question, is you see this as being a

hinderance to that free market?

CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: Yeah, so most of the products

have really high compliance already with the

standards so we’re really talking about removing

mostly older, like I guess ST versions of the same

equipment the ones that are still available for sale

and to the online question, online retailers and

retailer are the same. The law would affect them.

But in terms of limiting sale there certainly on

it’s face was happening, if you have ten options and

two of these are really inefficient we are actually

not goin to allow that to be an option, then you

only have eight options. With that being said,

that’s the kind of numbers we’re talking about where

you still have a huge, thousands of products

available that meet each of these technologies that

meet these specifications so it’s less availability.

That would be a lie if I said it wasn’t, that’s how

the standards work. However so a huge range and

kind of healthy market share and have the research

backing it up.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Okay, so I guess a quick

follow up about that then. For that person who,

that business who owns some of that outdated stuff

and wants to sell it cheap, that kind of thing, they

257 MARCH 5, 2019



are in a tough spot now, right because that can’t

really highlight that product to be sold in the

state, so would it be better as opposed to a law

that says you have to sell the standard to, there’s

a benefit to buying that standard. There’s a

benefit to it as opposed to it. You know, I guess

it kinda comes with the territory. I’m not big on

instituting new laws or forcing the customer to buy

anything a certain way but do you think that would

be a better proposal for this than a forced purchase

of this product or that?

CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: Yeah, so from my perspective this

is really, this is taking out the worse performers.

It is not even limiting good options, it’s taking

away the bad, the bad ones that consumers on their

surface don’t really understand. You mentioned

labeled products and unfortunately that is really

not the case, it’s not products that are covered

federally so they don’t have kind of a universal

federal labeling. The ones that meet an EnergyStar

certification or WaterSense certification those ones

do but the other ones that lack it the customer may

not even realize that they should be looking for

something that they don’t see. So in terms of the

policy, all of the levels have been pretty

exhaustively selected based on their, not negatively

impacting consumer availability and making sure that

there are plenty of options across different

technologies. I will say that the idea of providing

benefits and, you know, looking at the high

performers and EnergyStar most efficient or really

what the utility programs are doing is providing

incentive is great and I spend most of my day

dealing with that world. Unfortunately not everyone

258 MARCH 5, 2019



knows about that. You know it’s renters as well as

low income customers who are just given something

and they don’t realize that, you know, they have to

pay for the monthly utility bill that they didn’t

actually buy the thing in the first place and so

they’re the ones that are, you know, most negatively

impacted with some of these really inefficient

products that are out there. So a lot of it is, if

there was transparency I think there would be no

need for it but unfortunately that is not the

reality.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Yeah, thank you. I’m still on

the side of education being the key component to

this that people really need to be self-educated on

it and I’d rather see more energy put into that

education than I would into forcing, you know, what

people cannot buy whether it is a high producing

value to what it is, there’s still some business

owner with a warehouse full of em now who can’t seem

em in Connecticut if that is gonna be the case.

CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: Yeah, I will say there is no one,

no local customer, no local businesses in

Connecticut who’ve come forward actually only folks

that we’ve seen come forward against these are the

national trade organizations representing

manufacturers who are working international. You

know these are the big trade associations and they

don’t really have the little guys in many cases. So

if that is a true issue, then I think I know that

DEEP would be open to making, you know, making an

arrangement or maybe there is a product category

that really specifically affects Connecticut and

maybe that makes sense, you just take it right out

and I think there could be a solution there but no

259 MARCH 5, 2019



one has said that and I will say compared to

something like a utility program this is basically

the labor that goes into this work. Now DEEP will

have to write some regulations, have some staff time

that goes into it but it is essentially a free Bill.

Writing regulations and having them on the book as

opposed to something like an incentive program where

you’re pumping millions of dollars to provide those

customer incentives, it’s a much, its frankly

cheaper, more cost effective way to achieve a lot of

these energy savings. I think both of them

operating in parallel is kind of the best way for

Connecticut to reach it’s goals.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Okay, thank you. Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Okay thank you. Anyone

else? Great, thank you for your patience tonight.

CLAIRE MIZIOLEK: Okay, thank you. Good luck with

the rest of your day.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Michael Boucher.

Welcome.

MICHAEL BOUCHER: [20 seconds of blank recording]

meetings over the last two years. More than two

years ago I stood here to testify for ratepayers

supporting action to reign in CMEEC. CMEEC fought

these actions claiming they had everything under

control. They claimed proposed Bills would cause

CMEEC a significant financial harm. Now I stand

here again and ask the State of Connecticut to

protect ratepayers and reign in CMEEC.

In these short two years much has changed. It is

the ratepayers who have suffered financial harm.

260 MARCH 5, 2019



The Kentucky Derby trip, Greenbriar golfer’s trips

have cost ratepayers well over $1 million dollars.

The fallout cost from these trips will exceed the

cost of the trips themselves. Five derby

participants face federal corruption charges.

Another derby participant faces federal narcotics

and money laundering charges. Numerous officials

from Norwich to Groton were found guilty of ethics

violations but the problems go much deeper than

these lavish trips.

With few regulations and no oversight ratepayers

were forced to fund what was described in a local

newspaper as essentially a slush fund buried in

CMEECs budget. There are many such funds. CMEECs

Economic & Development Fund and Rate Stabilization

Funds were used to cover losses of millions and a

sale cabled utility company run by Groton Utilities.

Almost $40 million dollars was lost and the public

was never told until the cable utility was ready to

be dumped for pennies on the dollar in 2012. Groton

Utility ratepayers are still paying millions every

year for those losses through their electric rates

and will do so for many more years to come.

How about jobs? One 2016 derby participant then

also had in son-in-law invited to the derby. That

son-in-law soon had a job at CMEEC. Another 2016

derby participant who is a CMEEC Board Member also

has a son who started working at CMEEC soon after

the 2016 derby trip. Even though the failed GU

cable company was sold, ratepayers and taxpayers had

been denied FOI requests to review the financial

reports due to trade secrets and business

strategies. Really, this is not trade secret and

business strategy how to lose millions every year.

261 MARCH 5, 2019



Now you understand the need to stop CMEEC from

running any business other than local power electric

suppliers. Ratepayers cannot afford to pay millions

extra in failed projects.

A forensic audit which should have been started back

in 2016 leaves only more questions than answers.

Yearly audits have also left more questions than

answers on why the margin fund and the contra-margin

fund which the yearly auditor new about were not

more closely looked at. The number of insiders

knowing about the derby trips is shocking but no one

had the moral compass to stand tall and raise

concerns. Are ratepayers any better off today? Two

weeks ago at the Groton Utilities Commission

Meeting, the new interim CEO Mike Lane said, “Really

no new news out of the forensic examination?” No

questions were asked about what was going on at

CMEEC by the commission members. Political

appointments to the utility commissions and

ratepayer representative positions on the CMEEC

Board do more harm than good.

Two weeks ago at this meeting, Groton Mayor Keith

Hendricks and our GU Chairperson and member of the

CMEEC Board was at this GU meeting. Neither he nor

Mike Lane brought up all the new information about

questionable spending by CMEEC uncovered in the

forensic audit. Last week at CMEEC the Board Meeting

under public comments consumer bill advocate voiced

concerns about the more questionable spending CMEEC

uncovered in the forensic audit. Kowalski requested

an itemized list of expenses for which the auditor

could not find a legitimate business purpose. Why

is CMEEC downstream payers subsidizing CMEEC staff

closing for purchases, Kowalski asked. CMEEC and

262 MARCH 5, 2019



its member utilities still have a serious problem

with truth, transparency and accountability.

Everyone had a great time at the derby. Those that

face federal charges, those that may face federal

charges, CMEEC and municipal utility employees,

local politicians, vendors, friends, relatives and

other guests, even a CMEEC lobbyist here at the

state capital enjoyed a lavish Kentucky Derby trip.

Bill number 96 must be passed. We need third party

oversight of CMEEC operations. Ratepayers need

protection and we need the expertise and hard

driving work of consumer advocate Bill Kowalski for

many more years. CMEEC can succeed and provide

value but the ability to charge ratepayers extra to

support various funds will cause CMEEC to fail again

and again. Unsupervised kids in a candy store will

continue to fill their pockets anyway they can

because it is that easy. That is my opinion from a

ratepayers perspective. Thank you very much.


Anybody have any questions? Senator Formica.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good

afternoon, sir. Have you been here this afternoon

hearing the testimony of all of the proponents of

CMEEC that said rates are the same and going and the

benefits of the organization? You seem to be

painting a different picture.

MICHAEL BOUCHER: I am painting just a more complete

picture. I think you’ve heard the arguments about

rates, the comparison, Bill Kowalski has brought

this up, the comparison to Eversource is probably a

false comparison and they are asking for better

comparisons of other public utilities our consumer

263 MARCH 5, 2019



advocate is. So when they say they are saving 20-25

percent that is comparing it to Eversource and that

is not really a true comparison. I would get more

information from Bill Kowalski the consumer advocate

on that. But it is not a fair comparison.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you very much. I

thin we’ll follow up with that. But I think we did

ask some pretty tough questions of them today and

made some statements on the record with regard to

our belief about what’s happened over the past and

we apologize to the ratepayers for that but we are

ferreting that all out and I think the answer is

somewhere in between what they want and perhaps

what’s written in 961 but I think we need to come to

an answer so I agree with you 100 percent and I

thank you for taking the time to be here today and

share your testimony.

MICHAEL BOUCHER: I am concerned with the, Mike

Lane’s inability even two weeks ago to talk about

the new forensic examination and the other expenses

that were questionable. He didn’t bring that up and

had to be brought up by our consumer advocate at

CMEEC meeting a week later. So they knew about this

but they still didn’t want to talk about it in

public. And the other grave concern I have is as

far as the indemnification issue at a recent Joint

Governance Committee I attended, while the

conversation centered on indemnification a Board

Member stated where’s the effect, the whole idea is

to settle without pleading guilty. As a ratepayer

who does not want to pay legal fees so this concerns

me very much and I think there is an attitude inside

of CMEEC you’re just not getting a grasp of because

264 MARCH 5, 2019



you’re hearing from CMEEC and your are hearing the

bright side of the story.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I think quite frankly the

hearing that we had last year with the Director of

CMEEC gave us a full flavor of what it is and that

is what predicated the legislation that we passed

last year and this legislation at some of the

outrange that was exhibited by Senator Somers when

she testified. So I think we’re there. You know, I

think we want to make sure we have a solution and

that the solution is not worse than the problem and

I think that is what we’re trying to balance so I

appreciate you telling us where we need to go and I

couldn’t agree more. I think, yeah, were getting

closer and one of the answers part of this Bill that

I like is the Auditor of Public Accounts. I think

they maybe able to a third party that might be able

to help us maintain stability moving forward. But I

thank you very much for your testimony and please

feel free to keep in touch with my office moving

forward. I don’t know if Mr. Chairman has any more

for you.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you, Senator. A

little contest going on over here. Representative

Buckbee followed by Representative Lanoue.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t

even have a question for you, sir. I guess I do.

You don’t represent any organization except

yourself? Am I correct in that? You’re not here

from a group or an organization.

MICHAEL BOUCHER: Myself and the other ratepayers

who have concerns about what’s been going on, not

organized, no.

265 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Right and thank you for that.

We sit here all day and people talk about, you’ve

been here all day. You came up, you signed up, this

is what the whole thing is all about and to me this

is the inspiring moment you took the time, you took

the day, you came up here, you told us your story

and it’s a lot of times we see a lot of different

groups here. I’m not saying you’re the only one

that does this but we see a lot of people who are

lobbyists and their different organizations doing

what they need to do and doing their job and doing

the job well. But to see a constituent come up here

and sit down with us and go through the process and

sit her on the sidelines for the day and listen to

everybody else, I certainly commend that and thank

you for doing that.

MICHAEL BOUCHER: Thank you for taking the time to

listen. It is an important subject to me.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): And you know that’s what’s

important to us, I think and you hear politicians

saying this stuff all the time but that is super

important to us. I know I can speak for myself only

but to have somebody come up, that you know, wants

to state their mind, speak their piece, and is

willing to spend the entire day sitting in a room

listening to a bunch of people go on and on about

topics you’re not concerned about, God bless, I love

seeing that. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.


Representative. Representative Lanoue.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me

echo the comments of Senator Formica and

266 MARCH 5, 2019



Representative Buckby and commend you for being here

today. I certainly have share your outrage and

others. When I questioned the Mayor, you know,

earlier and it’s very disturbing to me when you see

ratepayer dollars abused at the Kentucky Derby,

Greenbrier and some others. I guess a question I

would have for you, sir is going forward what would

you like to see as the biggest reform if you were

crafting this legislation, voting on it, what would

you like to see as the biggest reform going forward

for CMEEC?

MICHAEL BOUCHER: Two points, the continuation of

the consumer advocate position and I don’t

understand what the big deal is but the third party

oversight. If somebody has big brother watching

them, they are not gonna abuse the funds that are

available to them and it’s really that simple, third

party oversight. You have to answer to a higher

power. CMEEC has to answer to a higher power. They

cannot contain or control themselves. It’s just too

much money, to easy to spend, to easy to get.

Anyone is gonna do that.

REP. LANOUE (45TH): Thank you for that answer. I

appreciate it, thanks.

SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): I want to thank you and I

want to echo what Representative Buckley said, this

is, you’re the only one that I think we’ve spoken to

tonight that doesn’t get paid for being here. So,

you did a yeoman’s job spending the entire day

listening to all this testimony and thank you for

birddogging their Board Meetings cause that’s

probably no easy task either.

MICHAEL BOUCHER: No, it’s not.

267 MARCH 5, 2019



SENATOR NEEDLEMAN (33RD): Thank you. Sarah Pierce.

Good evening, almost evening.

SARAH PIERCE: Almost evening, 5:48 I guess you can

call that evening. We would in the Midwest anyway.

All right, well good evening Members of the

Committee. Thank you so much and I do want to echo

the compliments of having the ability to stay here

and be thoughtful. I think thoughtfulness, I’ve

noticed all day is really surprising in a very

enriching and, you know, great way so thank you so

much for that.

Sarah Pierce here, I’m the Director of Government

Relations for the Association for Home Appliance

Manufacturers. I appear today to strongly urge the

Committee to oppose HB 7151 the Act concerning

appliance efficiency standards. HB 7171 has a

number of problems relating to home appliance

products most importantly this Bill would remove

from the market products that would adversely harm

low income populations particularly those who suffer

from asthma and allergies.

My comments and opposition to this Bill will touch

on the following: Expanded Authority for DEEP

regarding Energy Efficiency Standards and energy

savings for air purifiers, portable air conditioners

and commercial clothes washers which are the only

products in this Bill that I represent in the member

companies that AHAM represents.

So first, Expanded Authority on Energy Efficiency

Standards. We strongly oppose the Bills continuance

and expansion of DEEPs authority to establish new

standards for any new product at any point in the

future. H.B. 7151 continues an unrealistic one-year

268 MARCH 5, 2019



minimum time period for companies and manufacturers

to redesign a product. The DOE standard is a

minimum of three years just so you have a reference

point.

Now on to energy savings. The goal of saving energy

is important but it should not be considered

irrespective of other consequences such as impact on

healthy indoor air quality and product availability

to lower income and disadvantaged populations. So

first: Air Purifiers/Cleaners – This Bill would harm

low income and disadvantaged population by requiring

that air purifiers meet the ENERGY STAR minimum

standard and it should be deleted. No other state

has established this type of standard for air

cleaners, and for very good reason. It is not in

the Vermont bill, it is not in the Rhode Island

bill. It is not in the Rhode Island bill because we

went to Rhode Island last year and testified to the

consequences that this Bill would have to those

populations. California does not cover air

purifiers. They studied this issue many years ago

in 2004 and they elected to not put a standard out

for air purifiers for this very reasons. For many

people including most importantly the low income

segment as I had just mentioned, air cleaners are

purchased for health reasons and I’ve included a

report that shows that the standards that HB 7151

proposes could destroy retail price points for units

under $50.00 dollars and those between $50.00

dollars and $100.00 dollars. This is likely to have

a profound effect on consumers who depend on some

availability of smaller air cleaners with a lower

clean air delivery rate value. This would be a value

that measures how clean your air is. This is the

269 MARCH 5, 2019



important value when you’re looking at your air

cleaner not whether or not it is an ENERGY STAR

rated or not. This may be especially true for those

consumers as I said over and over at those lower

price points.

The second point here is establish an ENERGY STAR

level as a mandatory minimum completely and utterly

undermines the ENERGY STAR Program. ENERY STAR was

created to acknowledge and highlight the top 25-30

percent of the most efficient products in the

marketplace, only 33 percent of air cleaners are

already rated at ENERGY STAR levels so that would

eliminate 66 percent of air cleaner products from

the Connecticut market unless they are purchased

through the internet thereby negatively impacting

brick and mortar retail stores. On portable air

conditioners, there is a compromise on the Vermont

Bill that was passed last year that we were neutral

on. We prefer portable air conditioners be

regulated by DOE that is caught up in litigation

currently but we would prefer to have preemption for

that product at the federal level.

Then on commercial clothes washers, the Bill is

referencing compliance to a California standard that

has been preempted by the Department of Energy and

so at the very minimum if you’re gonna keep this

particular product in your Bill, it should actually

be updated to reference the proper Statue.

There’s a few other things maybe we could talk about

in the Q&A that the DEEP Commissioner referred to

about the legislation but I just prefer maybe to

have a back and forth if there are any questions at

this point. Thank you very much.

270 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Thank you for your

testimony. Any questions from Committee members?


REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you and Sarah, right?

SARAH PIERCE: Yes.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): So thank you for testifying.

What products do you, you’ve got you say AHAM which

covers all, it’s like a lot of.

SARAH PIERCE: Sure, it would be major appliances,

portable appliances and floor care. We do have eight

companies here in the State, Whirlpool Dyson, Helen

of Troy, I-Robot, just to name a couple household

recognizable names.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Okay and I asked the DEEP

Commissioner at the time, I have concerns, not

saying that because I know that, you know I’ll go

into a store and there will be a $99.00 dollar, you

know, microwave. Probably not high efficiency type

of thing and things like that. So sometimes I look

at, you know, we don’t price out, someone loses a

refrigerator and this is the example. The

refrigerator goes out, right and are we pricing that

and granted we don’t want, we would like to have a

high efficiency product as possible, somebody

mentioned that well over the life of it you’ll get

your money back. But on that day I’ve got enough

money to buy that one, that low, the cheap stove.

You know with the electric burners on top that you

know is not energy efficient, but you know, at all

but that is what they can afford. Are we in that

market, you said three years to develop a product or

to get into the stores kind of thing?

271 MARCH 5, 2019



SARAH PIERCE: That would be a redesign, retool so

there would be a new standard that would be put in

place so your examples of a stove or a refrigerator

are regulated by the Department of Energy through

the Federal Appliance Standard Program so there is a

minimum standard required for all products. So that

is your floor and what you would see manufacturers

do which would actually go to another question that

you had asked the Commissioner and just kind of

easily fits in here, is that products are, there is

more than one model of a refrigerator, right, and so

we have a lot of different designs and features that

consumers have access to and so depending on the

design and the feature that is what is going to

dictate your price point. Your price point is also

dictated to a certain extent by that minimum

efficiency standard just as it’s dictated when you

are buying a refrigerator that is rated at ENERY

STAR. So you have options. So if it’s not static

but there is a baseline that you must meet and so if

you’re thinking about then looking at products where

you want to establish a baseline minimum that is

ENERGY STAR that is completely undermining the whole

point and spirit and intent of that program which is

to make something more efficient than what that

baseline level that you have out there. And so

you’re creating different points at the market at

which consumers can make their own decision to chose

and of course as I think has been noted by others,

there are labels on those products that will help

consumers understand that.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you for that

clarification. I would just trying to get to the

point that, I mean, you know, as long as in this

272 MARCH 5, 2019



direction that we’re moving to try to get things as

efficient as possible, I didn’t notice like an

appliance but a water heater. I didn’t see water

heater in here at all. Electric water heaters are

like the worst energy hogs that I could ever think.

SARAH PIERCE: We don’t represent those.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): You don’t [Cross talking]. It’s

not an appliance right?

SARAH PIERCE: But maybe if I could just, but also

remember that energy efficiency also is a

competitive tool for manufactures so I’ve heard a

few themes here that a manufacturer could produce

something that is less efficient because they

weren’t a member, I think she said, of a trade

association and I was very confused by that because

again these are competitive tools and ENERGY STAR is

a competitive tool. Companies are in that game

because they want to be putting the best out there

and they want consumers again to have choice. So we

don’t want to limit choice and, you know, just to

reference something else.

Products, there are two different things, there are

covered products at the federal level and there are

products that aren’t covered at the federal level

which means they won’t be subjected to that federal

appliance standards program. So our products that

are in this Bill are not covered as a DOE covered

product. So I just want to make sure that we are

not doing apples and oranges and we’re doing oranges

and oranges or bananas and bananas or whatever you

want to say but just keep that in mind as well is

that these products aren’t covered products by the

DOE at least the ones that I’ve talked about today.

273 MARCH 5, 2019



So except the commercial clothes washer, excuse me,

but just keep that in mind is that they’re not

acting in these areas because they haven’t

determined those products to be part of that

program.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you for your responses.


REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Representative Buckbee.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank

you for the testimony. I’ve been waiting to hear

that kind of thing, you heard me say it earlier and

I’ve been kinda waiting to hear that all day.

SARAH PIERCE: I’ve been waiting to tell you

[Laughter].

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): Thank you. Is there any piece

of this on this Bill, this legislation that you

think is important for us to put forward as opposed

to suggestions on what might, from what I see again

what someone with a warehouse full of product out of

business in the state, is there anything that stands

out a necessary to you?

SARAH PIERCE: I think the market has been very

effective at dictating products that manufacturers

are gonna deliver to consumers and on other issues

I’ve testified before around the country that

particularly for home appliances, we are, we have

such a close personal relationship with the

consumer, the consumers tell us what they need and

what they want and we respond obviously as long as

we are in compliance with the laws and the

regulations but for us it makes very little sense to

have a patchwork of state laws. You cannot

274 MARCH 5, 2019



manufacture and design and innovate when you have a

separate law in Vermont, a separate law in

Connecticut and Rhode Island. These three states

are incongruent today and I know you’ve heard these

assurances that everything is the same except that

it is not. And all three of those bills are

different and so what are manufactures going to opt

to do? You have to ask yourself that question, what

is the manufacturer going to decide to do, are they

going to design a product for those, three different

products for those three different states. I mean

how do you, I mean it’s a struggle. It’s a question

you need to think. I’m sorry, I need to encourage

you to think about how that is gonna play out

ultimately and what, you know, ultimately what you

want, you know for the consumers of Connecticut to

have access to.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH): I would agree. I think it

really handcuffs the manufacturer or the distributor

whoever it might be to limit what they can sell,

where they can sell and different markets because

it’s really a tough thing to tie their hands up that

much but thank you very much. I appreciate your

testimony and willing to hear some more of what the

fun stuff is tonight.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Representative Meskers.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): Yeah, I appreciate your

concerns on the regulatory environment. I’m a big

believer in consumer choice but when we sat down

today we had a number of conversations about energy,

about green energy, about efficient production and

lower the carbon footprint. So I probably not going

to sit in agreement with you. I think that we do

275 MARCH 5, 2019



need to maximize the level of choice and price and

choice for our consumers but providing a baseline

for energy consumption and efficiency I think goes

toward fulfilling our standards to get to a lower

carbon footprint. So the real question is what

price point do we set that barrier? If he federal

government doesn’t want to move in that direction to

the extent that we have publicly rated Energy Star,

etc. we have other programs, we are not forcing

manufacturers to produce to a customized range we’re

just limiting the number of products they can sell

within a market where the cost of energy is

somewhere about 20 percent above the national

average because the bottlenecks we have here. So my

concern would be reducing energy costs, if you’re

looking a low income and moderate income households,

if we’re looking at energy assistance programs there

is a purchase price on the refrigerator which I am

assuming is borne by the consumer and then there is

aid provided by the state for their energy bills

which is borne by us. So we can control those

energy costs. I’m in favor of that. So I’m stuck

between where you are in choice and where I stand on

energy efficiency.

SARAH PIERCE: Sure and I think, lets be careful

with the refrigerator example because it is

regulated by the DOE and has been through a number

of different rule makings. A refrigerator in one

year, just aside because you are interested in this

issue, then the amount of energy that the

refrigerator uses in one years’ time is the

equivalent of a 50 watt lightbulb. I mean that is

the bottom, we go up from there and again you have a

number of different models and products that you

276 MARCH 5, 2019



have available to you for that choice. I think with

regard to the air clearer which is our primary

concern in this legislation and we strongly urge

that this be eliminated is that if you’re going to

set the minimum in Connecticut at an Energy Star

level you are taking products off the shelf for

people who likely need them the most and that is a

big concern.

REP. MESKERS (150TH): I would tend to agree with you

100 percent on that. I sure can understand that

totally. I think the other issues and products and

the ratings, I think if we’re not killing choice,

I’m just telling you that.

SARAH PIERCE: Sure, I understand. Thank you,

appreciate it.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Representative.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): That statistic that you just

quoted would that be a 50 watt incandescent bulb

burning 24 hours a day?

SARAH PIERCE: Oh, that’s a good question. I do not

know the answer. If I were to speculate it I would

say probably what the average consumption would be

per household.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): So for a HEPA air filter what

price point would be eliminated if this Bill passed

as is.

SARAH PIERCE: The $50 dollar and under and the $50

dollar to $100 dollars.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Okay. So basically small

models? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

277 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Any other questions from the

Committee members? Seeing none, thank you for your

testimony.

SARAH PIERCE: Thank you. Appreciate it.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Madeline?

MADELINE BUGEL: Great. Mr. Chair, Members of the

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to give

testimony on House Bill 7151, I am Madeline Bugel

with the National Electrical Manufactures

Association or NEMA.

Our member companies make everything from a broad

range of electrical products, everything from energy

management systems to lighting products to electric

motors to name a few. In the State of Connecticut

our members have a strong presence. About 24 of our

member companies maintain 34 facilities employing

over 3,800 people. NEMA opposes House Bill 7151

which includes language to create unnecessary

standards on general service lamps and high color

rendering in DEX fluorescent lamps.

First with regards to general service lamps or GSL,

they are a federally covered product under the

Energy Policy Conservation Act or EPCA and state

regulation is expressly superseded and preempted by

EPCA. House Bill 7151 explicitly acknowledges that

these lamps are subject to federal preemption.

There has been concern that the lighting standards

are being drastically rolled back at the federal

level. These concerns are unfounded. The Daily

previously published a GFO was not in line with

congresses intent. The rule making now underway to

278 MARCH 5, 2019



make the regulation in line with what congress had

intended.

Second the standards in this Bill for High CRI glass

and lamps would have the effect of banning the sale

of P12 High CRI fluorescent bulbs in Connecticut.

These lamps are often in residential fixtures and

have specific ballast that will not operate properly

with other replacement lamps. This will put an

undue burden on consumer that have fixtures using

these lamps compelling them to purchase a new

fixture when all they want is a new lightbulb. IN

this case the cost to consumers will outweigh the

energy benefits. Additionally the energy saving

being reported by some advocacy groups including the

Appliance Standard Awareness Project are very

questionable. NEMA did a study of their numbers

that they put out in their publication talking about

the energy savings that could be deemed from banning

these high CRI lamps and we found that only three

percent of the energy savings would actually be

realized. So we ask you to consider the burden that

would be put on consumers for the questionable

energy savings with this and also to consider the

legal debacle that could ensue with this GSL

language in House Bill 7151. You must report on

energy efficiency but we do ask you to consider the

other obstacles included in this Bill. Thank you.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you for your testimony.

Any questions. Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you for your testimony. So I read that so the

standard, you’re talking the standard T12 lamp that

I put in my four foot fixture in my basement.

279 MARCH 5, 2019



MADELINE BUGEL: So this is slightly different. It

is a high CRI P12 lamp. Basically it shows the

colors a little bit better. Some people use it in

jewelry and seed cutting things like that. But in

the 90s they were very popular in shop-light

fixtures like in your garage so a number of people

still have them in their homes.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): So color rendering lamp is what

it is?

MADELINE BUGEL: High color.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): CLR color rendering. Yep. So

okay, is there, I don’t know what the market is for

this. I’m trying to think of the color rendering

that you’re thinking of cause I know the color

scale. It is a grow lamp, a daylight.

MADELINE BUGEL: No it’s not a grow lamp.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Daylight lamp or?

MADELINE BUGEL: No, it’s pretty much your basic

T12, four foot linear fluorescent but it just has a

slightly different phosphorus mix in it, to just

show the colors a little bit better and like I said,

in the 90s the fixtures would be with the

electromagnetic ballast that works with these lamps

were very popular and the fixtures are still going

strong but some of the lamps are burning out.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Okay, I just can get really

technical cause that’s an area that I understand so

I just kind of figured out, you know, standard T, we

encourage people to get out of T12s and go to either

a T5 or an LED replacement, retrofit which you can

just buy an LED retrofit and put in a T12 lamp

280 MARCH 5, 2019



fixture right. And then the other one was this

general service lamp. It says it is under energy.

What would, could you describe if you know what this

lamp is, the general service lamp.

MADELINE BUGEL: So general service lamp is a broad

category of lamps. So congress put it to DOE to

figure out what a general service lamp is and create

the definition and create a standard on that. The

previous rulemaking was not consistent with

Congress’ guideline and so now they are

reconsidering it to make it more consistent. In

House Bill 7151, 26 types of lamps are listed under

the GSL definition.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Twenty six different lamps?

MADELINE BUGEL: Yes.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): All right. Thank you for your

testimony. I’ll be interested in lookin into it.

We do a lot with worksite lamp fixtures, things like

that, I don’t think that’s what general service

lamps. I’ll be looking into that. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Okay representative. Any

other questions? Seeing none, thank you for staying

late and sticking with us. Anthony from Signify.

ANTHONY SERRES: Mr. Chair and Members of the

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity Thank you

for the opportunity to provide comments about House

Bill 7151.

My name is Anthony Serres. I am a standards and

regulatory professional, representing Signify, one

of the world’s largest lighting companies. Signify,

281 MARCH 5, 2019



known as Philips Lighting until about 18 months ago,

is a global leader in lighting, employing close to

30,000 people in 70 countries, with the U.S. being

the company’s largest market. We continue to

manufacture in the U.S. and employ about 3,000

people in this country. We are proud to lead the

transformation from traditional lighting to

connected lighting and anticipate all our LED

products will be connectable by 2020. We applaud

the efforts of the Appliance Standard Awareness

Project to reduce our carbon footprint through the

deployment of energy efficient technology.

My comments today are designed to provide further

explanation about some of the lighting products

covered in HB 7151 that you just heard from

Madeline.

High CRI fluorescent lamps in general serve lamps.

As background the Department of Energy exempts high

color rendering fluorescent lamps, i.e. lamps that

have a color metric known as the color rendering

index which is 87 or greater from federal regulation

because at the time the regulations were created the

high CRI lamps could not meets the efficacy

requirements in place.

The linear fluorescent tube is on a path to become

extinct. With the market shrinking every year

according to the data from NEMA, one type of high

CRI fluorescent lamp, the T12 (which is a four foot

tube, an inch and a half in diameter, cannot meet

the current efficacy limits established by the DOE,

because it is not technically possible to make a

high CRI T12 fluorescent lamp that meets the current

DOE limits which are the same limits that are being

282 MARCH 5, 2019



called out in this legislation. Should this bill

become law, it would have the effect of banning the

sale of this high CTI T12 fluorescent product in

Connecticut altogether. Now if T12 lamps are no

longer available for purchase in Connecticut the

consumer may try to substitute a different type of

fluorescent lamp known as the T8 lamp which is one

inch in diameter. Now if you think about a basic

screw in household lightbulb, swapping out an

incandescent bulb for an LED is a seamless exercise.

Florescent lamps however are matched to an

electrical device called ballast which actually

operates the lamp at a specific electric voltage and

current. A T8 florescent lamp will likely not

operate correctly on a T12 ballast creating a lamp

that will not work which leads to consumer

dissatisfaction. The typical consumer will be

forced to incur significant cost to hire an

electrician and either replace the ballast or the

entire lighting fixture if the florescent T12 as a

replacement is not available.

Those more inclined to do things themselves may look

to a tubular Led or T-lead lamp. While there are

available markets very few of these will actually

operate reliably on the ballast typically found in

residential applications. As I mentioned, the older

less energy efficient products are in sharp decline.

We expect in just a few short years all consumers

will have converted with more energy efficient LEDs.

To abruptly ban these products would cause

unnecessary inconvenience and expense for

Connecticut citizen. Perhaps more effective than

regulating high CRI fluorescent lamps would be

283 MARCH 5, 2019



provide additional incentives for the ubiquitous

adoption of LED lighting.

Regarding general service lamps and following up on

what Madeline just spoke about, we wish to point out

to the Committee that the DOE has recently opened a

rulemaking for general service lamp definitions and

will open a second rulemaking to set GSL standards

or efficacy limits. Until the effect of these

actions are clear it might make sense to wait and

see what happens before regulating these types of

lamps.

We would be pleased to work with the sponsors and

Committee to modify this bill. Again, thank you for

the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing;

we look forward to working with you to develop

solutions that will allow the market to phase out

these products in a common sense manner and meet the

energy efficiency goals that we all seek to achieve.

Thank you.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Thank you, Anthony. Thanks

for sticking around for your testimony. Any

questions. Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I’m

looking at general service lamps, right? Standard

incandescent lightbulb in may cases.

ANTHONY SERES: In many cases, yes.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): So, we have drastically

incentivized in Connecticut, LED replacements to the

point at which it’s cheaper than incandescent lamps

in Connecticut. Now you’re with Phillips you said

is that right?

284 MARCH 5, 2019



ANTHONY SERES: Yes, Signify yes.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): So now you barely can go to a

store, a location and buy a T12 lamp. What is the

market share in Connecticut for, how many bulbs are

you selling in Connecticut?

ANTHONY SERES: I don’t have that information, I

apologize.

REP. ACKERT (8TH): We’ve gone to T8 a long time ago

and I really, we were at a facility and I looked up

and they had T12 lamps so I look and see a T12 lamp

and a fixture now a days, I’m amazed that they still

exist for people who have not. We have incentivized

it to death to convert. Now we’re converting, we’re

at the point where we’re converting T8s to LED non

ballast. You know, so it amazes me that we’re in

that market still and that when I ran it to it, look

it must be a special T12 lamp that I’m not aware of

so but interesting dialogue. Thank you for being

here. I would be interested to see what the sales

for T12 lamps would be in and say, listen there’s

still a market for these things. So, right again

thank you for being here. Thank you for your

testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Thank you, Representative. .

Any other questions? Representative Winkler.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Yes, your testimony seemed to

indicate that T8 fixture, I’m sorry a T8 bulb

wouldn’t work in a T12 fixture and vice versa.

ANTHONY SERES: On a T8 lamp would very unlikely

work on a T12 ballast. The lamps themselves have

different electrical characteristics.

285 MARCH 5, 2019



REP. WINKLER (56TH): Yes, my personal experience is

they burn out faster, but they will go on.

ANTHONOY SERES: That can happen or they may not

start at all.

REP. WINKLER (56TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. ARCONTI (109TH): Okay thank you. Any other

questions? All right, thank you. Any other members

of the public, no. All right, so that concludes our

Public Hearing.

1 sp energy and technology 10:00 a.m. committee … · 2 march 5, 2019 sp energy and technology...

Documents