Energy and Technology Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6526
Title: AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRIC SUPPLIERS.
Vote Date: 3/11/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/4/2021
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Rep. Stephen R Meskers, 150th Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill would give the Public Utility Regulatory Authority ratemaking authority and would
offer protections to residential supplier customers, including the prohibition of cancellations or
termination fees.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Commissioner Katie Dykes of the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
supports HB 6526 because it offers protections to residential electric supplier customers,
including the prohibition of cancellation or termination fees, automatic renewals, the
assignment or transfer of customers without approval. DEEP supports providing these
additional protections to consumers in order to increase bill transparency and affordability.
Marissa P. Gillett, Chairman (PURA) supports HB 6526 because it eliminates the early
termination fee for residential customers, seeks to eliminate variable rates and automatic
renewal provisions of third-party supplier contracts. The notification provision would also
require suppliers to notify a customer any time the rate increases more than 25% of the
original or first price in a contract.
Attorney General William Tong of the State of Connecticut is in support of specific
provisions of HB 6526:
The elimination of the early termination fee of fifty dollars for residential customers
The clarification in Section 2 that any third-party who contracts with or is compensated
by a third-party marketer of an electric supplier to sell electric generation services for
the electric supplier shall be a legal agent of the electric supplier
 Section 4 which contains the important consumer protection that an electric supplier
shall not automatically renew fixed price term contracts for residential customers
We also support the amendment reflected in Section 6 which expressly permits PURA
to regulate electric supplier customer assignments and transfers.
Finally, we support the provisions in Section 7 allowing PURA to regulate electric
suppliers, so their products are not overpriced or harmful to customers
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Marilyn Diaz, member of the AARP Connecticut Executive Council supports HB 6526
because it will go a long way towards addressing many of the concerns and difficulties that
people experience with the current configuration of the third-party electric supplier market
John Erlingheuser, AARP Connecticut supports HB 6526 as written, particularly the
following two provisions:
One is the provision of this bill that would end the practice of auto renewing third party
supplier contracts, including the 25,000 legacy variable rate contracts.
This legislation would also eliminate cancellation fees for all third-party electric
contract
Richard E. Sobolewski, Acting Consumer Counsel and head of the Office of Consumer
Counsel supports HB 6526.
First, the bill would eliminate all early termination fees for those customers who elect to
end their contract with a third-party supplier prior to the actual expiration of the
contract
Second, the bill amends General Statutes 16-245o(m) to afford PURA a greater
panoply of remedies regarding hardship designated customers who wish to participate
in the deregulated market
Third, the bill eliminates auto-renewals of contracts between customers and third-party
suppliers
Fourth, the bill increases the regulatory requirements for a third-party supplier who
wishes to exit the Connecticut market and assign its customers to a different company
for the remainder of their contract terms.
Finally, the bill would provide PURA with greater discretion over the third-party supply
market, as it would allow PURA to regulate access to the market depending on the
quality and beneficence of a particular third-party suppliers product
Tom Swan-Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group supports HB 6526
because it would end the automatic auto renewals on third-party supplier contracts
Brenda Watson, Executive Director of Operation Fuel supports HB 6526 because of the
provision that requires that these contracts expire instead of automatically renewing at higher
rates (Lines 49-64) is especially important. This bill also appropriately designates authority to
PURA to implement safeguards that take stakeholder input into account, and protect
consumers from bad actors in the energy markets
The following people are in support of HB 6526:
Page 2 of 4 HB-6526
 Aly Armstrong
John Coates
Judy Colligan
Marilyn Diaz
Elizabeth Eckert
Bert Goff
Ella Johnson
Emily Johnson
Patricia Lang
Philip Levine
Gerry Mulholland
Barbara Munck
Edward Oconnor
Karen Kissling
Randy Payson
Deborah Petro
Oliver Phippen
Sonja Priest
Stephen Raczka
Mary Schenzer
Robert Schondelmeier
Lisa Shea
Elma Smith
Lloyd Stableford
Elaine Werner
Linda Wright
Hong Young
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Daniel Allegretti, consultant with Sigma Consultants on behalf of the Retail Energy
Supply Association is in opposition to HB 6526 because it represents a sweeping
abrogation of energy policy from the legislature to the Public Utility Regulatory Authority that
will grant PURA blanket ratemaking authority over competitive residential sales with no
meaningful standards, the bill will also grant PURA the ability to re-write reasonable and
lawful contract provisions that are freely entered into between businesses and consumers
without the consent of either one of them
Frank Lacey-President of Electric Advisors Consulting is in opposition to HB 6526
because we believe that the legislature is approaching these issues in a manner which may
cause more harm to customers than good. In particular, I will be focusing on the changes in
Section 7 (a):
The proposed changes to Section 7 will give the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
(PURA) unbridled flexibility in determining whether a suppliers rates are inappropriate and
condition the suppliers license on this arbitrary judgement. While NRG does not accept the
direct comparison of competitive supplier prices to utility standard offer prices for any
Page 3 of 4 HB-6526
meaningful purposes, due to the wide variance of product types1 , many others wholly
endorse that comparison as valid. As a result, we believe this language is very harmful to
customers and to the competitive energy markets in Connecticut.
VISTRA Energy Corp. opposes HB 6526 for the following reasons:
Vistra disagrees that autorenewal should no longer be an option for choice customers
Vistra also believes the existing statutory and regulatory requirements on the provision
of autorenewal services to electric consumers strikes the right balance between
customer protection, customer responsibilities and business needs. Regardless of the
reason a customer chooses to continue with a provider, Vistra believes that choice
should firmly remain in the hands of the consumer and that as long as the customer is
notified and provided with clear and transparent information on renewal / rollover
products. The provisions in Raised Bill 6526 regarding auto-renewals are unnecessary
and would lead to less than ideal customer experiences.
While the elimination of termination fees is something that seems consumer friendly it
fails to strike the proper balance between customer responsibility and customer
protections
Reported by: Jason Snukis Date: March 29, 2021
Page 4 of 4 HB-6526


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 16-245o
ET Joint Favorable Substitute: 16-245o
File No. 169: 16-245o
File No. 677: 16-245o
Public Act No. 21-117: 16-245o