NOTICE:
It has been claimed that "These Combined Public Benefits Charges will disappear in April 2025." THIS IS NOT TRUE. THESE CHARGES WILL NOT vanish. They may be reduced, but they will only go away if we take action. In fact, these inflated rates could be used against us (THE PEOPLE) the next time politicians decide to raise them. This is why it is crucial for We The People to strive for complete elimination of these charges.
LEGAL PURSUIT & GROUNDS
The most compelling aspect of the case is a violation of First Amendment. In 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a landmark ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. This case revolved around mandatory fees, with Janus arguing that he should not be forced to pay fees to maintain his employment. The foundation of his argument was that this requirement violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The same principle applies here: We the People have the right to access electricity without being obligated to pay an unjust mandatory fee. Such fees are often discriminatory.
The second point pertains to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, specifically referencing the "takings clause." In the realm of United States constitutional law, a regulatory taking occurs when the government doesn’t physically seize private property but imposes regulations that significantly restrict the owner's ability to use,, or exclude others from the property, effectively resulting in a Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s opinion in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922) noted that, "The general rule, at least, that if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking for which compensation must be paid." Furthermore, fees are often discriminatory.
The third position involves a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically regarding the "Procedural Due Process clause." Procedural due process pertains to the steps the government must take before depriving an individual of their life, liberty, or property. The Court has established that due process necessitates, at a minimum, (1) notice; (2) the opportunity for a hearing; and (3) a tribunal.
MONEY IS PROPERTY - Legally, money is regarded as personal property. It falls under the category of tangible property, which can be physically held, transferred, and safeguarded by law, just like other types of assets.
The fourth point addresses the issue of discriminatory practices. I’ve talked to a few friends who have solar panels and encourage you to do the same. Inquire whether they contribute to the combined public benefits charge. The response is yes, but at a significantly reduced rate. This transforms the charge into a discrimination issue or a penalty for those unable to access solar energy due to factors beyond their control, such as trees, shading, geographical depressions, and solar orientation
The fifth point suggests that the rationale behind this fee exhibits characteristics of an illegal scheme.
For instance, all ratepayers have contributed to the CPB fund, only to be informed that can receive "benefits," such as energy upgrades.
Let's consider a lightbulb as an example of how this is integrated into the CPB financing program.
As a former independent energy consultant, I sold CPB energy programs from CL&P (now Eversource) to commercial clients.
To simplify, let's look at a 100-watt light bulb being replaced by a 50-watt bulb, which leads to a 50% reduction in energy consumption while providing the same amount of light. The energy savings of 50 watts is calculated by multiplying the hours the bulb is on daily, multiplied by the number of days per year, multiplied by the cost per kilowatt hours, resulting in total savings.
The utility employs the same formula to determine cumulative savings, but the energy savings program funded by ratepayers sells the bulb at a significantly marked-up price compared to most retailers.
This inflated price is then financed over term of up to three years.
Consequently, thepayer/consumer acquires a new bulb, financed by the projected savings, while their bill remains the same until the bulb's cost is offset by these hypothetical amortized savings.
The scheme resembles that of a pyramid scheme in that the consumer has already financed the bulb through the Public Benefits Charge (PBC).
The utility contractor that sells the bulb to the ratepayer, marks up the bulb and sells it on financing plan, all while the utility and The State continue to collect the PBC from all ratepayers.
This results in the accumulation of tens of millions, if not billions, of dollars generated These funds accrue interest, leading Connecticut ratepayers to effectively pay for the same thing multiple times while funding a political agenda, which raises concerns about violations of many laws, to include but not limited to the First Amendment, as we are compelled to keep contributing.