Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Ratepayer Protections Lobbying Advertising topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urge ban on ratepayer funding for utility lobbying and branding; bill would restrict ads, trade association dues and executive perks
Summary
The joint committee heard support for H.3400, which would bar utilities from charging ratepayers for lobbying, institutional advertising, trade‑association lobbying and executive perks; testimony cited examples and said other states have enacted similar laws that produced immediate savings.
Consumer advocates, environmental groups and local activists asked the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight to report favorably on H.3400, legislation that would prohibit utilities from recovering labor and other costs for lobbying, institutional branding and certain executive perks from ratepayers.
"The bill provides an important tool to help alleviate the utility affordability crisis many of your constituents face," said Itay Vardy of the Energy and Policy Institute. Vardy highlighted recent laws in Connecticut, Maine, Colorado and Maryland that restrict recovery of these costs; he said Connecticut customers have been spared up to $10 million as a result of judicial and regulatory enforcement since its law passed.
Jessna Higgin of the Sierra Club said advertisements and branding that primarily promote the utility’s image should not be charged to ratepayers. She described seeing National Grid ads in public venues and traced advertising line items to recent rate cases; she testified that Eversource recovered roughly $230,000 for similar advertising in its last rate filing and that National Grid charged roughly $33,000 in branded “swag” items in a recent period.
Springfield Climate Justice Coalition testified about residents’ bills and described that delivery charges and rate designs can make a portion of a household’s charges feel unrelated to actual energy supply. Witnesses argued that corporate lobbying and image‑building should be borne by shareholders, not captive ratepayers.
Proponents asked the committee to align state law with modern utility practices — expanding definitions of lobbying to include executive‑branch and grassroots advocacy, restricting institutional advertising recovery, and barring perks and entertainment from cost recovery. The committee did not take a formal vote at the hearing.
Ending: Advocates urged a favorable report and said the bill would rein in non‑service costs charged to customers; members asked for details about implementation and interactions with the Department of Public Utilities’ historic precedent.
