House
Republican Press Release
February
28, 2007
Press
Office: 860-240-8700
Paying
our electricity bills and filling our cars’ gas tanks has made it difficult for
all of us to manage our household expenses.
One
of the culprits is the Connecticut General Assembly, which for almost a year
has failed to act on proposals that could bring both short and long-term relief
to Connecticut consumers and the business community.
It
is not because state legislators are at a complete loss about how to address
the problem. Several bills were proposed last year and again this year.
Last
year, I introduced legislation that would have reduced the state’s gasoline tax
by five cents a gallon, which would have provided immediate relief at the pump.
Representative Kevin Witkos, R-Canton, proposed suspending Connecticut’s
gasoline tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day – when most people go on vacation
and gasoline prices shoot up.
Unfortunately,
the majority party in the General Assembly opposed both Representative Witkos’
proposal and my own since they involved cutting the gas tax (I was told that my
bill had no chance whatsoever because it would have deprived the state of $65
million per year in taxpayer dollars).
Proposals
to cut taxes on electricity and natural gas met the same fate.
The
majority party’s “solution” has been to lump energy conservation proposals that
have widespread bipartisan support with measures that are less popular in one
omnibus bill.
The
result: comprehensive energy conservation legislation has languished when
progress could have been made if proposals that enjoy broad support had been
brought to the floor of the state House of Representatives and the state Senate
as separate bills. Those bills would have passed easily.
When
gasoline prices skyrocketed to more than $3 a gallon last summer and when
United Illuminating and CL&P announced their intention to seek significant
rate hikes, legislators were holding news conference after news conference to
announce their latest scheme to reduce energy costs.
CL&P’s
rate hikes were announced December 8, 2006. The overall increase to CL&P’s
standard service customers was about 7.7 percent while rate hikes for
residential non-heating customers amounted to about 6.9 percent.
The
company I work for paid about 40 percent more for electricity in 2006 than it
did in 2005. I’m certain other companies had similar experiences.
We
are now two months into the 2007 legislative session and nothing has been done
to provide meaningful relief for Connecticut motorists and ratepayers.
Since
gasoline prices dropped below $3 a gallon, consumer anger at prices at the pump
has diminished and there is no longer a sense of urgency at the State Capitol
about passing legislation to lower the cost of gasoline.
However,
gasoline prices are almost certain to jump again after Memorial Day. For that
reason, I will continue to pursue legislation to cut the gas tax as the
quickest and most effective way of lowering prices at the pump. I also believe
we should seriously consider Representative Witkos’ proposal to suspend the tax
if prices go over three dollars a gallon again this summer
Connecticut
needs both short- and long-term solutions to reduce energy costs. Several
measures I support are designed to achieve those goals. They would:
- Exempt
commercial heating oil blends containing not less than 15 per cent
alternative fuels from the sales tax. The proposal would enable consumers
to purchase heating oil containing a higher percentage of alternative
fuels at a lower cost while reducing our dependence on imported foreign
oil.
- Reduce
the gross earnings tax on electric distribution companies from 6.8 percent
to 3.4 percent for residential customers and from 8.5 percent to 4.25
percent for commercial and industrial customers. The proposal would save
homeowners close to $100 a year, and give businesses tax relief that can
be passed on to consumers.
- Increase current state
incentive awards to encourage Connecticut companies and other large energy
users to install alternative power generation systems (distributed
generation) on their properties. Wider
use of distributed generation systems would provide reliable power
supplies to heavy energy users and significantly reduce overall power
demands in Connecticut. When the demand for electricity generated by our state’s centralized power
plants decreases, it will help
hold down energy costs for all ratepayers.
- Apply ‘green building’ standards (which reduce
energy use) to new state facility construction projects that cost
$1,000,000 or more; remove the current exemption from green standards for
new school construction projects and increase the reimbursement rate to
municipalities for school construction projects by five percentage points
while retaining the current reimbursement cap of 85 percent; and extend
green building standards to renovation projects for state facilities. For
every dollar in up front costs for green buildings, there is a long-term
saving of $4. Green building standards reduce energy use in state
facilities and save taxpayer dollars.
These proposals are a commonsense response to higher energy costs
that will provide both short- and long-term relief to Connecticut ratepayers
and taxpayers. Combined with proposals to lower the state’s gasoline tax, they
could save the people of Connecticut millions every year.
For
more than a year now, Connecticut residents have endured commercial after
commercial urging them to conserve energy.
How
many light switches can we turn off? How many light bulbs can we change? How
much more would consumers have saved if bold initiatives like the ones
Representative Witkos and I offered last year had passed?
All that stands between real relief from excessive energy costs
for the people of Connecticut is the apparent reluctance of the majority party
in the state legislature to provide it.
