More
consumers switching to alternate electric suppliers
DAY
By Patricia Daddona
Published on 6/19/2009
Choosing an alternative electric supplier for one's home is more
popular than it used to be - and gaining ground.
Out of more than 1.7 million residential electric consumers with
Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating, 123,527 have
opted to pay one of half a dozen alternate suppliers for electricity,
compared to 83,758 last year.
That's an increase of 47 percent over the past year, said Donald W.
Downes, chairman of the state's Department of Public Utility Control,
who provided the figures.
”The consumer can opt for stability (by staying with the major
utilities), or they can be a little bit braver and go into the market
and, in return for ... a short-term contract, enjoy the advantage of a
much lower current price,” he said.
Based on information on the DPUC's Web site, www.ctenergyinfo.com,
residential customers who use an average of 700 kilowatt hours per
month can save as much as $7 a month to $15 a month on their electric
bills. Rates, actual usage and contract lengths and terms vary.
The supplier provides the generated electricity but the utilities,
either CL&P or UI, still distribute and bill for it.
”We think the market's matured,” said Dan Donovan, a spokesman for
Dominion Retail, a supplier whose aggregator is Levco. “More people are
doing it. They're talking to their neighbors and find out their
neighbors buy elsewhere.”
Dominion Retail, which at approximately 66,800 customers has the
largest number of users, charges 2 cents less than CL&P per
kilowatt hour. CL&P is charging about 12 cents a kilowatt hour,
according to the Web site. Other suppliers offer similar savings rates.
”I'm not suggesting anybody is going to change their lifestyle over
this,” said Downes, “but if it's $15 a month, you're still looking at
$180 a year in savings.”
While 2 cents may not seem like a lot, the cumulative effect has the
potential to yield significant savings statewide, Downes said.
Connecticut residential customers use about 12 billion kilowatt hours
annually, he said. If every one of those customers' electric rates went
down two cents per kilowatt hour, that's a reduction of $240 million,
he said.
In 2000, lawmakers restructured Connecticut's electric market,
requiring CL&P and UI to sell their electric generating stations
and buy power elsewhere for delivery to the customer.
Theoretically, since then, residential customers have had the
opportunity search for their own suppliers, Downes said. But at the
time, Dominion Retail was one of the few alternative suppliers
available and few customers switched. Customers had to do all the
research themselves and CL&P's and UI's rates had remained
artificially low, so it didn't pay to switch, he said.
Since the end of 2007, however, when CL&P and UI began laddering
their power contracts, more alternative suppliers entered the market,
and competition brought with it more potential savings, Downes said.
Laddered contracts are staggered periodically so that contracts bought
at different rates overlap. The lower rates tend to offset the higher
rates, keeping them from rising or falling much in either direction.
Meanwhile, Downes said, the price of wholesale electricity dropped in
the national marketplace.
”Both natural gas and electricity are at the lowest they've been in
about five years,” said Yvette Hamilton, a spokeswoman for Direct
Energy, an alternate supplier with about 26,667 customers in
Connecticut. “It's definitely a good time to lock in prices.”
Direct Energy's market has grown readily to its current size over the
past two years, Hamilton said, and the company thinks there's more
growth to come.
Another supplier, Public Power & Utility Inc., has acquired all of
its 19,264 customers in the past year and a half, said Tom Mason, a
company energy consultant.
On the DPUC Web site, consumers can compare potential savings and find
contact numbers for suppliers.
Independent suppliers typically expect consumers to sign a contract of
six months to 18 months in length, and some of those contracts have
penalty provisions built in, Downes said, so it's important to read
terms carefully.
While the vast majority of CL&P's and UI's customers have not
switched, the disadvantage of uncertainty is beginning to be offset by
the ability to lock in savings, Downes said.
”What's moving this market right now is the fact that the independent
suppliers are more nimble, they can buy contracts right away and resell
the power instantly and they're not asking you to stay with them
forever,” he said.
For more information , call the statewide hotline, 1-877-WISE USE
(947-3873). Cable
Industry Sues Over AT&T's TV-Internet Plans
DAY
By Patricia Daddona
Published on 7/20/2006
The New England Cable and Telecommunications Association sued AT&T
in federal and state courts on Wednesday, saying the state of
Connecticut's approval of AT&T's delivery of television services
over the Internet jeopardizes consumer privacy. AT&T,
however, said that its installation of a new, $336 million network in
the state has already begun and will not be disrupted by the challenge.
The new “cutting-edge” technology dubbed “U-Verse,” already introduced
in Texas and planned in Indiana and Kansas, would enable a person's
television to communicate and function with any other Internet-driven
device, such as setting a digital video recorder with a cell phone. A
subscriber could display ball-game statistics without waiting for the
program producer to do it or change the camera view on a quarterback
sneak, AT&T has said.
In June, the state Department of Public Utility Control voted 3-2 that
AT&T's proposal constituted new technology and as such could not be
regulated in the same manner as cable television franchises.
Saying the state's decision is inconsistent with the Federal
Communications Act, the trade association and Connecticut's Office of
Consumer Council, as well as a handful of individual cable companies,
filed lawsuits against the telecommunications giant in the U.S.
District Court in New Haven, said Paul Cianelli, president of the trade
group.
They also preserved their rights to sue at the state level, he said.
Cianelli contends that the consumer is protected by federal and state
regulations that thoroughly govern the cable industry, but AT&T's
customers will not be afforded those same safeguards.
For instance, cable franchises cannot collect, use or sell private
information about consumers, but there is nothing to stop AT&T from
doing so, he said.
“If allowed to stand, the (state regulator's) decision will allow
AT&T to become a telecomm freeloader, serving only the wealthy
while avoiding taxes, privacy protections and rules protecting
children,” said Cianelli. “The (state agency) allows AT&T to be a
cable operator without any of the obligations, responsibility or
accountability required of other cable providers.”
Also on Wednesday, that same state agency denied the trade group's
request for a postponement of its decision until adjustments to federal
law can be made to account for the changes in technology. The state
utility regulator upheld its ruling and unanimously denied the stay.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who fears the new service would
benefit wealthier customers at the expense of the less affluent, said
Wednesday he intends to challenge the AT&T proposal as well, but
has not yet decided what type of legal challenge to wage.
AT&T's Ramona Carlow, vice president of regulatory and external
affairs, vowed Wednesday to persist in building a new private Internet
and fiber-optic network in Connecticut that will allow the company to
provide video services to consumers throughout the state. The company
had suggested earlier that if the cable industry mounted a legal
challenge, it might pull out of Connecticut.
“Since the (state) decision was clear, we are allowed to offer this
service, and that is exactly what Connecticut consumers wanted and what
we're starting to provide,” said AT&T spokesman Seth Bloom.
The company has already started investing $336 million in this state
over the next three years to build a single video office for the entire
state and install fiber-optic cable needed to start delivering services
to state customers by the end of the year.
Asked what the company would do if, in court and on appeal, the state
regulator's approval of the AT&T plan was overturned, Bloom said,
“I wouldn't even want to speculate.” The company is confident, he
added, that the state made its decision legally and in a genuine effort
to open up the delivery of television and video products to more
competition.
