Tax On Power Plants Rejected

Tax On Power Plants Rejected

There are 28 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Jun 5, 2007, titled Tax On Power Plants Rejected. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

June 6, 2007 By COLIN POITRAS , Courant Staff Writer A windfall profits tax on state power plants that would have returned as much as $350 million to property owners struggling to pay their electric bills ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Suzzanne

Eddington, ME

#1 Jun 6, 2007
This is as good a time as any.The Stranded costs that consumers have been asked to pay as part of the deregulation process should be explained in better terms. Are these the failed nuclear plants that were providing electricity that was to cheap to meter?
Since we were being charged for the buildings of these failed monsters, where did the money go? why are we being forced to pay again? Maybe the Atty Gen could explain this to us
daniel

Bridgeport, CT

#2 Jun 6, 2007
Will there be TV cameras there if so count on him showing up.

“Man bites dog”

Since: Apr 07

SW

#3 Jun 6, 2007
The problem here is that the CT electricity market is 'rigged'. The so called 'market' works to keep prices high for the consumers. It is much cheaper to produce power using coal or nuclear then it is with natural gas, yet all three types of plants earn the same high rate for all the electricity they produce. If we had a regulated market the plants would only be able to charge what it cost them to produce the power plus a reasonable profit on their investments.

That is why CT consumers pay the 2nd highest rates in the nation.

Dick Blumenthal is actually right on this one.

All those commercials on the radio ("call your legislators and say NO to utility power") are just the desperate cries of these generation companies whose windfall profits might have been threatened had the legislature voted to tax them.

“Man bites dog”

Since: Apr 07

SW

#4 Jun 6, 2007
This system won't let me post Richard Blumenthal's nickname, which starts with D and ends with K. That's why the stars in my previous post.

HA!
E E Culligan

Milldale, CT

#5 Jun 6, 2007
It is unbelieveable, the Democrats couldn't pass a tax bill!
Overtaxed Mike in Winsted

Southbury, CT

#6 Jun 6, 2007
Once again our representatives fail us. It's a daily struggle to live somewhere where the state offers little with a big price tag attached. We shouldn't expect relief or quality representation with the elections being over, it's the same tired story of Connecticut. Maybe we can wait until 2018 to get the energy crisis solved, it's only been 10 years since they goofed it up to begin with.
Russ

New Gloucester, ME

#7 Jun 6, 2007
I was the Democrats that pushed for deregulation, it was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread!!!!!!!!!! as usual the only ones that got screwed is the tax payer. You only get what you vote for.
Debella Is Lobbyist

Waterbury, CT

#9 Jun 6, 2007
Dibella is lobbyist for Power Companies..He is a Democrat. That he is convicted means Nothing..Just like DeLuca.o
Assembly Mole

Wethersfield, CT

#10 Jun 6, 2007
Suzzanne wrote:
This is as good a time as any.The Stranded costs that consumers have been asked to pay as part of the deregulation process should be explained in better terms. Are these the failed nuclear plants that were providing electricity that was to cheap to meter?
Since we were being charged for the buildings of these failed monsters, where did the money go? why are we being forced to pay again? Maybe the Atty Gen could explain this to us
There were stranded costs from the nuclear costs of the nuclear plants but I suspect they were paid off when NU sold the nuclear plants. I believe the stranded costs from deregulation are the plants costs that were sited but never built.

Dan Weeks, Dominion Energy liason, testified that their nuclear Milestone plants make energy around 6-cents per kilowatt hour. They would love to sell it on the spot market that ISO awards the highest price for the cheapest generators of their power needs the next day. But Milestone cannot afford to take the risk that they will not be able to sell all their power that day. So they sell it as energy futures to someone who bids for 3+ years worth of their almost 2,000 megawatts at whatever price they can get. That’s where their excess profits come from. He would have no problem selling it to CT directly except we have laws restricting purchases for that long of a period. I believe the bill passed may lift this restriction.

They take their excess profits and fund coal burning plants they bought in Rohde Island and Wisconsin (I think) that are losing money to improve them to profitability. Rep. Nardello’s amendment was to limit their profits for the ratepayer’s in CT. It didn’t stop them from making a profit but it would have prevented them from bidding so high to buy poorly run plants. That’s how they originally bought the Milestone plants. NU was so inept at running them.
bboomerr

Corona, NY

#11 Jun 6, 2007
hold on ... before you think the power generators are out to pick the rate payors' pockets, and an extremely IMPORTANT fact that was omitted in this poorly presented article is, the cost of input fuels for generation, like natural gas, coal, residual fuel oil and crude oil have all sky rocketed since the 1998 legislation passed. the cost of power generation is NOT static as it dependent on other fuels for its production. electricity is electricty, so there is no variation on its final cost, regardless of the cost of the fuels used to generate it. this means during peak usage in summer time hot weather, the cheapest input fuel generated power will earn the higher return or profit, this system works with a very high degree of reliability. rather than gripe at NU, which is a power distribution company NOT a generator, making profits, which it is supposed to do for its shareholders, gripe at OUR representatives for not encouraging a better power grid to deliver the power to the consumers. southwest ct, spefically stamford, has seen major growth as corporations, like UBS and soon to be RBS build major office buildings, requiring much power, while the grid has not been upgraded to meet demand. similarly, think about home many new air conditioners and computers etc have been added to all of our homes in the last 9 years. demand has done nothing but go up, during the time of higher energy prices, while there have been no improvement to the system. this is the perfect storm for the rate payor.... what is more frustrating and was also left out of this article is.... we ct rate payors are charged something called a "congestion fee" by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, because the power grid is substandard... the name of this fee is surprisingly on target when considered it has been coined by the govt... this fee generates $200 MM/yr for a 4-yr period and it is distributed to the 4 or 5 power generating companies that supply electricity to our state.... for doing NOTHING!!!! surprisingly, the govt doles out this money to the power generators on the HOPES they will ultimately build generators IN OUR STATE once the 4-yr period ends... there is nothing requiring them to do this, so it could just go RIGHT IN TO THEIR POCKETS! what is so moronic is the govt is essentially asking the power companies to INCREASE supply in the state, which would ultimately drive the retail rates we pay LOWER, which would inturn drive THEIR PROFITS LOWER... so do you think these companies have an incentive to build?.....and the anwser is NO!!! so, you see, the problem DOES NOT lie with NU BUT with the knucklheads in our state and federal govt!!!!
Assembly Mole

Wethersfield, CT

#12 Jun 6, 2007
swnews wrote:
The problem here is that the CT electricity market is 'rigged'. The so called 'market' works to keep prices high for the consumers. It is much cheaper to produce power using coal or nuclear then it is with natural gas, yet all three types of plants earn the same high rate for all the electricity they produce. If we had a regulated market the plants would only be able to charge what it cost them to produce the power plus a reasonable profit on their investments.
That is why CT consumers pay the 2nd highest rates in the nation.
Dick Blumenthal is actually right on this one.
All those commercials on the radio ("call your legislators and say NO to utility power") are just the desperate cries of these generation companies whose windfall profits might have been threatened had the legislature voted to tax them.
When we had a regulated market the energy producers had no incentive to do a good job. They got paid no matter how inept they were. They got the nuclear plants shut down because of their sloppy operations. Each of the nuclear plants was built by a different bidder. The parts are so unique that the operator would be forced to buy the parts from the bidder at absorbent prices (e.g., a 47.75 hp motor). The operator didn’t care because it bought spares and wrote off the carrying costs. Along comes deregulation and they eat the carrying cost so they can’t afford to keep spares for everything. The maintenance people could not understand why they couldn’t just go down to the local wholesale motor supplier and pick one up.

You say the market is rigged. But ISO buys their next day needs from the lowest bidders to fill the need. It just so happens that not all suppliers can produce cheap electricity. Every time someone comes into the spot market with cheaper rates, the more expensive ones run the risk that their electricity is no longer needed.

If we had regulation no one would be developing the solar, fuel cell, clean coal, and small hydro generation that are going on now.

The generators testified we have high rates because the risk that the legislatures will change the rules every year is high. They build that risk into their prices, as any company that wants to survive would.

It doesn’t help that CT get fined over $400 million per year for failing to generate all the electricity that we need each year. That is why Senator Fonfara wants you to know what the real cost is during those 11 hottest summer days through time-of-use metering.
banner

Morris, CT

#13 Jun 6, 2007
Bill DiBella and the other Northeast Utilities lobbyist win again.
Assembly Mole

Wethersfield, CT

#14 Jun 6, 2007
Overtaxed Mike in Winsted wrote:
Once again our representatives fail us. It's a daily struggle to live somewhere where the state offers little with a big price tag attached. We shouldn't expect relief or quality representation with the elections being over, it's the same tired story of Connecticut. Maybe we can wait until 2018 to get the energy crisis solved, it's only been 10 years since they goofed it up to begin with.
Representative Cafero, Republican Minority Leader who represents Norwalk, spoke on the floor about lobbyists. He said he like them and thinks they serve the legislatures well because they are advocates. They educate them on what is workable or not workable and why. The legislatures try to give every person a chance to speak at hearings but many people do not show up.
Assembly Mole

Wethersfield, CT

#15 Jun 6, 2007
Debella Is Lobbyist wrote:
Dibella is lobbyist for Power Companies..He is a Democrat. That he is convicted means Nothing..Just like DeLuca.o
Representative Cafero, Republican Minority Leader who represents Norwalk, spoke on the floor about lobbyists. He said he like them and thinks they serve the legislatures well because they are advocates. They educate them on what is workable or not workable and why. The legislatures try to give every person a chance to speak at hearings but many people do not show up.
Suzzanne

Eddington, ME

#16 Jun 6, 2007
Obviously, the Utility Propaganda Machine has krept into the conversation. When Ct Utilities began to buy Hydro-Power from Canada, they insisted on paying for the purchase of Canadian power at the same price that it cost them, NEU, to produce it.In other words at a higher cost.
They did not want Cheaper Power that would make them look sick. How about the Ct Utility experts explaining how the John Dempsey Hospital is affecting taxes in Ct with their Electric bill that is never mentioned in the press or anywhere else?? Tell us the whole story, including the Pay-off that was necessary to obtain the illegal contract to supply electricity below costs..Utility experts hiding behind phony names will not impress or convince consumers. Tell us how much the Conn Utilities spent to deregulate. Tell us how much they have paid Dibella since he has become a Lobbyist for Utilities..Talk in our language, no more Utility doubletalk
Tell us the profits that were made by the Ct Utilities selling their ownership of the distribution system.
Tell us all about the Legal fees that were involved in this corrupt deal.
Tell us how much Enron spent in Ct to deregulate. Tell us again about the CRRA Electricity MDC deal, and who got how much money in these transactions. Especially, Dibella and the lawyers that were involved, as this has been kept out of the Newspapers as a convienience to the Establish Order.Tell us why the Atty Gen Blumenthal and his asst Atty Kehoe were supporting the deregulation bill..
bboomerr

Corona, NY

#17 Jun 6, 2007
Assembly Mole wrote:
<quoted text>
There were stranded costs from the nuclear costs of the nuclear plants but I suspect they were paid off when NU sold the nuclear plants. I believe the stranded costs from deregulation are the plants costs that were sited but never built.
Dan Weeks, Dominion Energy liason, testified that their nuclear Milestone plants make energy around 6-cents per kilowatt hour. They would love to sell it on the spot market that ISO awards the highest price for the cheapest generators of their power needs the next day. But Milestone cannot afford to take the risk that they will not be able to sell all their power that day. So they sell it as energy futures to someone who bids for 3+ years worth of their almost 2,000 megawatts at whatever price they can get. That’s where their excess profits come from. He would have no problem selling it to CT directly except we have laws restricting purchases for that long of a period. I believe the bill passed may lift this restriction.
They take their excess profits and fund coal burning plants they bought in Rohde Island and Wisconsin (I think) that are losing money to improve them to profitability. Rep. Nardello’s amendment was to limit their profits for the ratepayer’s in CT. It didn’t stop them from making a profit but it would have prevented them from bidding so high to buy poorly run plants. That’s how they originally bought the Milestone plants. NU was so inept at running them.
NU selling the nuke plant was not due inept operation of the unit, but out of compliance with deregulation laws requiring generation companies and distribution companies be seperate...
manny being manny

Morris, CT

#18 Jun 6, 2007
Assembly Mole wrote:
<quoted text>
Representative Cafero, Republican Minority Leader who represents Norwalk, spoke on the floor about lobbyists. He said he like them and thinks they serve the legislatures well because they are advocates. They educate them on what is workable or not workable and why. The legislatures try to give every person a chance to speak at hearings but many people do not show up.
Rep. Cafero should know all about lobbyists!

Afterall, his law firm, Brown, Rudnick, Berlack Isreals LLP, is a top 10 lobbyist firm according to the Office of State Ethics.

Cafero is a partner in the firm and gets part of the lobbying income due to his partnership. It's no small wonder that he's touting the lobbyis industry-good for his business. Might be able to get some new clients.

One other point, he votes on bills lobbied by his law firm's lobbyists.

The ways of our wonderful state government.
Tom

Portland, CT

#19 Jun 6, 2007
Assembly Mole wrote:
<quoted text>
If we had regulation no one would be developing the solar, fuel cell, clean coal, and small hydro generation that are going on now.

It doesn’t help that CT get fined over $400 million per year for failing to generate all the electricity that we need each year. That is why Senator Fonfara wants you to know what the real cost is during those 11 hottest summer days through time-of-use metering.
If companies are "developing" solar, fuel cell, clean coal, and hyrdo generation NOW, then where is the benefit to CT ratepayers?

You say CT gets fined $400 million for failing to generate enough electricity. SO WHY DIDN'T THE LEGISLATURE IMPLEMENT FIXES SO THAT THE COMPANIES GENERATE THE ELECTRICITY?

You seem to imply there would be no incentive to develop alternative fuels unless the market is deregulated. Well, it has been deregulated--and no-one has developed alternate fuels to help CT ratepayers.

Just how many BILLIONS in excess rates do CT ratepayers have to give to utility companies before the legislature listens to us and repairs the damage they have done?
Tom

Portland, CT

#20 Jun 6, 2007
Assembly Mole wrote:
<quoted text>
The parts are so unique that the operator would be forced to buy the parts from the bidder at absorbent prices (e.g., a 47.75 hp motor).
The word is exorbitant, not absorbent.
Assembly Mole

Wethersfield, CT

#21 Jun 6, 2007
bboomerr wrote:
<quoted text>
NU selling the nuke plant was not due inept operation of the unit, but out of compliance with deregulation laws requiring generation companies and distribution companies be seperate...
That’s not true. Senator Fonfara testified many times that the utility companies could build power plants any time that they wanted. They chose not to because they don’t want to assume the risk. They want the CT taxpayers to foot the bill. This is a matter of public record.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Prospect Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clearview Withdraws Application Jul 18 Lulu 1
clearview development Jul 17 Lulu 2
News Wounded Warriors Donation Jar Stolen Jul 16 Just me 2
News Misguided searches mire Smolinski case (Sep '12) Jul 3 Lets find him 12
Review: Video Temptations (Apr '14) Jun '16 PLEASURE 51
News Missing girl reportedly with Bridgeport man Jun '16 Samuels Furnace Man 11
News Trump's deportation plan could slice 2 percent ... May '16 HOLLA ISABELLA 18

Prospect Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Prospect Mortgages