Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Video Interview: Astronaut Rick Mastracchio Reflects on his 6 Month Mission to the Space Station
May 20, 2014 10:22 am
NASA granted CTTechJunkie the opportunity for a short interview with Astronaut Rick Mastracchio, who is readjusting to...more »
ANALYSIS | Connecticut Astronaut Arrives Home on Russian Soyuz to Uncertain Political Environment
May 13, 2014 11:40 pm
Astronaut and Waterbury native Rick Mastracchio landed safely aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule at 9:58 p.m. EST Tuesday...more »

Our Partners

˜

Commerce Committee Kills Heating Oil Tax

by Christine Stuart | Mar 22, 2013 5:30am
(5) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Energy, Environment, Equality, Taxes, State Capitol

Christine Stuart photo

Oil tank

It’s rare that lawmakers pronounce legislation “dead,” but that’s just what Sen. Gary LeBeau and Rep. Chris Perone did on Thursday when they killed a proposal to tax home heating oil and propane.

An excise tax of 1.5 cents per gallon in the first year and up to 3.5 cents per gallon in the third year was going to be used to create an energy efficiency fund for homeowners who heat with oil or propane.

But the chairmen of the legislature’s Commerce Committee decided now was not the right time and declared the bill dead.

“Our job as legislators, and especially as committee chairs, is to have an open discussion with all stakeholders of an issue making their case, and then determine whether that legislation will improve our state’s economy,” Perone said. “In these tough economic times we decided that this bill would not be helpful to the citizens of our state and to the overall economy in Connecticut.”

They called the goal of creating an efficiency fund for about 650,000 consumers “laudable,” but decided it may have been more of a stick than a carrot when it comes to conservation.

“I don’t think Rep. Person or Sen. LeBeau intended to tax their constituents, but that’s what this legislation would have done,” Chris Herb, vice-president of Connecticut Energy Marketers Association, said Thursday.

LeBeau thanked the home heating oil dealers, who testified in support of energy conservation and efficiency but against the tax. LeBeau told them killing the bill will give them another chance to come to the table with solutions for creating an energy efficiency fund.

“The governor’s comprehensive energy plan had two options for supporting this much-needed fund: a state levy or a volunteer contribution from home heating oil dealers,” LeBeau said. “Now is the time for them [oil dealers] to stand up for the customers and the environment they say they care about.”

But Herb, who wasn’t quite ready to declare victory, said he thinks LeBeau may have missed the message they delivered earlier this week during a public hearing on the legislation.

“Without a government tax or program, our oil dealers have reduced consumption by 35 percent,” Herb said.

He said lawmakers need to stand up for their constituents who already contribute to these efficiency programs through their electricity bills.

The Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund is supported by all Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating customers on their electricity bills through the “Combined Public Benefits Charge” and also by Connecticut Natural Gas, Southern Connecticut Gas Company, and Yankee Gas Services Company customers through a conservation charge included in their rates.

Currently, the electric utilities can only spend up to $500,000 per year to provide energy efficiency services to help fuel oil and propane consumers.

“These customers must also contribute a higher ‘co-pay’ to take advantage of the very popular and successful Home Energy Solutions program,” a representative of Connecticut Light & Power testified.

Herb said taxing home heating oil to create an efficiency fund would be a double tax on anyone who pays an electric bill and uses oil heat. He said it would not create the equal playing field lawmakers sought.

Herb also expressed concern that lawmakers would raid the fund when faced with a budget deficit. He said it’s more likely that the fund would be used for deficit mitigation and not conservation.

But environmentalists said the fund was necessary because the one created by the state as a stopgap measure following the depletion of federal stimulus funds expires on June 30. More than a dozen environmental groups testified in favor of the bill Tuesday.

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Daniel Esty also submitted testimony to the committee. He said that while there is some “cross-subsidization of program costs by electric customers,” a voluntary assessment to raise millions of dollars would be necessary “if the goal is to provide non-regulated fuel customers with the same kind of benefits now available to natural gas and electric customers.”

Leticia Colon of Energy Efficiencies Solutions said that if no fund for oil customers is created, then her industry — which conducts the energy audits through the Home Energy Solutions Program — will have to face job cuts.

“If no mechanism to fund oil-heated homes is agreed upon, our industry faces employees layoffs as a result of a diminished opportunity and loss of revenue for HVAC contractors, insulators, and window installers,” she said.

There are about 650,000 households in the state heating with oil or propane. That amounts to nearly 50 percent of the households in the state.

Herb said he looks forward to continuing to work on the issue with lawmakers.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(5) Comments

posted by: joemanc | March 22, 2013  10:55am

I heat with oil, and 2 winters ago, I heavily insulated my home, drastically reducing my oil use. I used my own money, though I did take the Federal Tax Credit for energy saving home improvements. I believe this credit still exists, which begs the question why Malloy wants to motivate people to insulate? The incentive is already there! My thoughts - this money will eventually be used in the general fund, just like so many other taxes and fees are. Stay tuned, this bill will be brought back, either as an ammendment this year, or next year.

posted by: Noteworthy | March 22, 2013  12:58pm

I agree completely with Joemanc. The real question for me is why legislators are giving this proposal a single minute of attention. We are not taxed enough? We don’t pay enough? Are we always to be under attack from some do gooder enviro nut who wants to confiscate our money, of which there is barely enough upon which to live? Where is the shame, the common sense? Better beware of this coming back. It’s like whack a mole.

posted by: DirtyJobsGUy | March 22, 2013  1:05pm

This has nothing to do with conservation but everything to do with funding another agency that doles out money to favored contractors.  The owner of my office building got a contractor funded by CL&P to look at savings in our building.  Since I’m an engineer I said the answer would be nothing practical.  What do you know the consultant came up with the same answer (but he did say replace a few light bulbs).  Just another government racket

posted by: Salmo | March 22, 2013  6:06pm

“...... it’s more likely that the fund would be used for deficit mitigation and not conservation.” I believe that is what is being done with monies earmarked for fish & game programs and park and forest activities.

posted by: JAM | March 23, 2013  3:32pm

“Our job as legislators, and especially as committee chairs, is to have an open discussion with all stakeholders of an issue making their case….”
“Stakeholder” = someone reaching into your wallet.