"REP. MEGNA: (97^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to join my colleagues in New Haven also in opposing the Bill and I totally respect the Chairman of the Insurance Committee.

I just want to point out a few things. One, that if you look at the title of the Bill, it's financial responsibility. It's something we imposed on poor people, people with no assets. We mandate that. Even though they have no assets, they have to have $ 20,000 or whatever, available in the event of some type of motor vehicle accident.

So when I'm told that we haven't raised it since 1971, let's look at assets of poor people, and children just getting their license, and I want to also remind the Chamber that a lot of these minimum policies are purchased in the suburban areas, too, by young people getting their license for the first time, and many of these policies are several thousands of dollars a year just for the minimum coverage.

Members of the industry, some of the lobbyists out there have indicated to me that there's an opportunity that those premiums could go up 38% as a result of this legislation, and quite frankly, I don't think the industry really wants this legislation, because this is premium that they don't make a lot of money on.

They prefer people protect their assets and buy uninsured motorist coverage or underinsured motorist coverage. That's the kind of premium they like to see generated. But in the best interests of my constituents, I'll be opposing the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

From the transcript of the Connecticut House of Representatives - June 1, 2007:

"REP. MEGNA: (97^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just need to clarify something and point something out for the Chambers here. Section 107 will result in an increase in profits to these organizations while consumers are using less gas and less electricity.

You're forcing consumers to pay for their savings in consumption as a result of conservation and efficiency and all that.

And that to me is fundamentally wrong and it's fundamentally wrong to increase or play with this through a paragraph in a big, thick bill we have here to increase the rate of return for these organizations, these monopolies that earn profits year after year after year and rightfully so, because they're providing a service. For customers to pay more while they conserve to me is fundamentally wrong.

This paragraph, they have a word for it. They call it decoupling. I always find it amazing up here in the Legislature that we come up with procurement fees and decoupling and all that really amounts to is increased profits in disguise.

It concerns me that this is in this Bill. I know it came up for debate several times when I was on the Energy Committee, and with all the opposition and concern about increasing rate of equity, it never made it out of Committee.

"REP. MEGNA: (97^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. First I want to, I rise in support of this amendment, Madam Speaker, and I'd first like to commend Representative Nardello, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, I know the AARP had worked on this amendment.

I'd like to thank them for clearly standing in the light of my constituents, electric customers throughout the state, in particular senior citizens who are quite frankly sucking wind to pay their electric bills in this state.

Since I've been in this General Assembly I've seen energy bill after energy bill pass by, and since deregulation those electric bills are 100% greater than they were before we deregulated the electric generation marketplace in this state.

This marketplace is unique. I hear a lot of theories around this Chamber today about investments, so on and so forth, and marketplaces, but this generation marketplace is very, very unique.

I believe the normal rules that we've been taught in business school do not really apply here. Madam Speaker, through you I'd like to ask a couple of questions to help clarify some of the statements that were made in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Ask you question, Sir, I apologize.

REP. MEGNA: (97^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Nardello, before we talked about market rules, and I think you mentioned that it was really market rules that sort of created this windfall profit that we see being earned by a couple of generators here in the state.

And I believe those market rules were established somewhere around 2003, and the deregulation took place in '98. Could you please clarify that for me and the Chamber? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Nardello.

REP. NARDELLO: (89^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, that's indeed the fact. Prior, we went to a standard market design and regional transmission organization, and when we did that in 2003 they were subject to FERC market rule number one.

So in 2003 we changed the way the bid stack worked, and that the fact that we have, that all paid as gas plants. Prior to that, it was different.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Megna.

REP. MEGNA: (97^th)

Thank you, thank you, Representative Nardello. Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of this amendment, I know too many of us it sounds like a crazy idea when we hear this windfall profits tax, but so much research has been done on this issue.

It's a safe place for us to go. I know at some points it seems like we're somewhat desperate, coming up with this type of concept, but I reiterate, what's gone down in this state since 1998, since this generation marketplace was deregulated.

Prices, even when you subtract out the cost of inflation and so on have gone up 100%. You see windfall profits being earned by generators. That was never before. And that was, let me correct, that was never intended with that legislation, that deregulation legislation.

What in theory was supposed to happen in '98 was you were going to sell off these generators and through the marketplace these generators were going to earn profits, take those profits and dump them back into additional generation, drive the price down for the consumers.

And the consumers were going to have choice, and everything was going to be hunky dory and the price of electric was going to drop. Look what's happened. We don't see really any new generation.

We see massive windfall profits being earned by some, and those profits not being reinvested into the generation marketplace, not the price of generation being driven down for the consumer for the benefit of the consumer.

Now keeping that in mind, this amendment is sort of a fix to that. It's saying let's just take a bit of this, just a little bit of this, give it back to the consumer, because God knows they need it.

I ask my colleagues in this Chamber to vote yes on this amendment, let's make a statement, and let's start on a road, a real road, to reducing electric rates for the customers and the senior citizens of this state. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the transcript of the Connecticut House of Representatives - June 5, 2007:

"REP. MEGNA: (97^th)

Mr. Speaker, in the event this Bill becomes law and I'm going to use my cable franchise territory for example, what this will do will deregulate the regulations on basic cable television rates.

So one of the curiosities that I have is I understand that in this Bill AT&T would not be required, even if they got a certificate of capability to sell video services in my Comcast franchise territory, there's no requirement in the Bill that would force them to put in the infrastructure throughout the City of New Haven too to sell this video service.

But yet at that same time this Bill will remove the regulatory process which limits the amount of profit that can be earned on a basic cable TV, the cost of it.

And I'm concerned for my seniors and many of my constituents as well as myself, because I actually pay I think $ 13 a month for this basic cable television, and I'm curious what the price would be.

And is there any fear, through you, Mr. Speaker, is there any fear that the price, once the regulations are removed, the price of this basic cable television may skyrocket or increase substantially while the consumer doesn't have access to a competitor, this video Internet television.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, could the Chairman, who I respect dearly, give me any assurances that my basic cable television rate's not going to go up to $ 40 a month, which would be I guess the cost of high-speed Internet in order to access this video television service.

So through you, Mr. Speaker, could you please, Mr. Chairman, could you please comment on that and give me some type of reassurance.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I can't tell the gentleman what exact price his cable service will be after the passage of this Bill, I can tell him that if broadband Internet is any example, the prices of broadband Internet have declined dramatically.

Particularly when other products and sources such as DSL, cable modem, satellite, and other forms of broadband have come into the market, it has brought prices down, we expect that similar competitive effort to do the same here, through you.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Megna.

REP. MEGNA: (97^th)

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take up much of the Chamber's time, but I have many concerns about this, particularly for I have one senior complex called Bella Vista has 1,500 seniors in it, and they all have basic cable television.

They don't have high-speed Internet or any of those vehicles that would give them the ability to purchase this television over the Internet, and I have real concerns about what the price of that basic cable television is going to be in the event no infrastructure is put in place.

The Bill doesn't guarantee that in my territory, and I respectfully, I'll oppose it. Also, given the testimony of the Office of Consumer Counsel, and that's my opinion of the Bill. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time, and I thank the Chairman for his answers."