Energy and Technology Committee votes to refer bill expanding Office of Consumer Counsel role in siting council proceedings

The Energy and Technology Committee voted to refer House Bill 7206 (file copy 687) — a measure that would increase the Office of Consumer Counsel’s participation in siting council proceedings and tighten reporting on certain utility expenditures — to JF to the floor.

The bill, described at the hearing as aiming to “strengthen the hand” of the siting council and to give the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) a larger role in analysis and deliberations, drew debate over its fiscal note and the short-term cost to ratepayers. Committee leaders said the changes are intended to help the siting council make more informed decisions and to limit the types of costs utilities may seek to recover before the council.

Representative Jonathan Steinberg, cochair of the Energy and Technology Committee, said the measure would “give [OCC] not only a seat at the table, but a greater ability to aid in the analysis and deliberations of the siting council leading to good outcomes.” He described the changes as “incremental improvements” intended to benefit ratepayers by improving the council’s decision-making.

Representative Mara raised concerns about the fiscal note and the bill’s potential to increase charges to ratepayers, saying she would vote no. “I just would like to see that the public benefits portion of our bill go down instead of up,” Mara said.

Representative Foster defended the proposal by describing OCC’s record of saving ratepayers money when engaging in regulatory proceedings. He told the committee the OCC’s interventions have produced a large return on investment, citing OCC budget and savings figures, and said the office provides an essential counterbalance to utility testimony. “The Office of the Consumer Council is really the primary alternative to the testimony that’s brought forward before PURA proceedings to the utility perspective,” Foster said.

After discussion, the committee held a roll-call vote on the motion to refer HB 7206 (file 687) “to JF to the floor.” The roll call recorded the following yea and nay votes (as announced on the record):

Yes: Senator Needleman; Representative Jonathan Steinberg; Representative D’Amico; Senator Marr; Representative Mushinsky; Representative Constantine; Representative Foster; Representative Winter; Representative Gauthier; Representative Hughes; Representative Gresco; Senator Maroney.

No: Senator Fazio; Representative Mara; Representative Piscopo; Representative Bucksbaum; Representative Bucksby; Representative Jensen; Representative Canino.

The clerk announced that votes would remain open until 3:30 p.m. The committee recessed after the vote. House Bill 7243 was held and not acted on at this meeting.

Discussion vs. decision: committee members debated whether increasing OCC resources — which the fiscal note showed would raise costs charged to ratepayers in the short term — would produce net savings over time. Supporters argued OCC’s interventions produce savings that exceed their budget; opponents said the public-benefit charge should be reduced rather than increased. The formal decision recorded at the meeting was to refer HB 7206 to JF to the floor; no amendments or other formal changes were adopted at the hearing.

The committee did not set further implementation dates during the meeting; votes were left open for members who were participating remotely.