蜜聊直播

A terrible It could provide a gusher of fees to a few legislators who are lawyers and add more turmoil to the state’s chaotic energy policies.

Connecticut has a decades-long prohibition on legislators representing paying clients before 11 key state agencies and boards. The purpose is to keep legislators from using their political power to influence decisions those agencies routinely make.

The in the legislature in its final days would eliminate that prohibition on representing clients before the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority or the Connecticut There is no good reason to lift that prohibition and plenty to keep it in force.

PURA and the Siting Council are two vital agencies in determining the state’s future because they deal with energy. PURA acts on the complex business of setting rates that utilities can charge their customers. You will receive a reminder of that power this summer when your electricity bill increases for 10 months to pay for costs imposed on utility companies by state lawmakers. Look at your utility bill and you will see how much state government determines your monthly charges.

On Thursday, Eversource President Joseph Nolan disclosed the utility behemoth will cut spending on its capital projects in Connecticut by $500 million in the next five years. Eversource and state utility regulators are engaged in ferocious combat as we continue to electrify our daily lives, moving away from carbon-based power.

Also on Thursday, Gov. Ned Lamont nominated PURA chair Marissa Gillett for another four-year term. Lamont’s decision to stick by Gillett signaled he will not be cowed by Eversource.

In February, Eversource announced it is considering selling its Connecticut water company, Aquarion, because it is unhappy with the company’s treatment by PURA. Financial legend Warren Buffet has soured on utilities as a reliable source of excellent returns on investments. Buffet, like millions of others, likes a business with guaranteed profits. This is changing.

The Siting Council is also deeply enmeshed in energy policy. It approves or rejects proposed sites for power generating facilities, transmission lines, cell towers and solar and wind generation. The governor appoints a majority of the members. Other state officials, including the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate, appoint the other four.

The Siting Council balances supply, cost and the environment in making its decisions. The expansion of wind and solar will keep the council busy. So will something else — the potentially calamitous proposal to put an electricity devouring data center on the site of the Millstone nuclear power generator in Waterford.

We have done as much as we can to make these agencies both independent and accountable. The ban on legislators appearing before them for clients is a critical element of maintaining that balance. Public confidence in the integrity of government is under constant assault. The proposal to allow developers and public utilities to spread around millions of dollars hiring powerful legislators to appear before PURA and the sitting council on their behalf is a prelude to catastrophe.

The only reason a developer or utility would hire a lawyer who is a legislator to appear before those two agencies is to put their political thumb on the scale for them. This is dangerous. Both entities make decisions that more and more have a profound impact on the quality of life in Connecticut. Injecting the influence of lawyers in public office may change those decisions and will cast a shadow over their legitimacy.

The lethal nine-word change in the state’s ethics law is buried in a 62-page bill pending before the Senate. The legislature must adjourn by midnight on Wednesday. The pace of activity quickens in the final few days and the last hours can be especially perilous to the public interest as legislators make incautious deals to get their own languishing proposals passed.

Bills freighted with many sections and changes in the law become the last flight out for the year. Vows of silence are exchanged as a lengthy bill becomes the means of satisfying narrow interests and terrible ideas.

A dramatic loosening of the state’s ethics code ought to be exposed to the disinfectant of daylight. It should not be concealed in a piece of legislation with 37 mostly technical sections, only one of which loosens the ethics laws that apply to state legislators and aims a dagger at the integrity of government.

Kevin Rennie can be reached at kfrennie@yahoo.com.