Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Evaluation Consumer Advocate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates amendment to allow consumer advocate input in site-evaluation reviews; action deferred
Summary
Committee members and the Site Evaluation Committee administrator debated an amendment that would permit the Office of the Consumer Advocate (OCA) to participate in SEC proceedings at the request of the Council for the Public. The committee deferred further action to gather more input and to refine language.
Committee members discussed an amendment (described in the hearing as a "replace all" amendment) that would allow the Office of the Consumer Advocate (OCA, also called the consumer advocate) to participate in Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) proceedings when the Council for the Public determines the consumer advocate’s expertise is relevant to ratepayer impacts.
Drew Beamer, administrator of the Site Evaluation Committee, testified he appreciates the intent but opposed expanding the SEC’s role to evaluate rates. “The SEC is a land use body, not a rate-making body,” Beamer said, arguing decisions about electricity rates are made at the regional level by ISO New England and reviewed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He said rate-setting considerations are inappropriate for the SEC and warned adding rates as a criterion could shift the committee’s focus away from siting, environmental impact, and local impacts.
Supporters, including Senator Lawrence and others, said there are circumstances where the Council for the Public might legitimately request OCA input on whether a proposed facility could affect residential utility customers. Senator Lawrence framed the amendment as narrowly enabling — not requiring — OCA participation when the Council for the Public determines it is necessary to consider rate impacts. Other members raised concerns that introducing rate considerations could slow or reshape siting decisions, and whether the public counsel should remain the entity to determine OCA involvement.
After discussion, committee members agreed not to act on the amendment that week and to continue the conversation. The chair and others asked staff and sponsors to consult stakeholders including SEC staff, the public counsel’s office, and utility representatives (for example, Eversource and ISO/FERC contacts) before the next meeting. One senator suggested reaching out to Chris Elms for further input. The committee will revisit the amendment at a subsequent session.
