e forecasts of new job growth, and in the years ahead, is expected to create thousands of new jobs throughout Massachusetts.However, even though the law seems to have many more benefits than it does negatives, it has come under recent criticism. Many opponents of the law feel it is not doing its designed purpose, and consumer backlash was so great that Issue 4 asking whether or not the law should be repealed. An organization called "The Campaign for Fair Electric Rates", backed by failed congressional candidate John O'Connor and consumer advocate Ralph Nader, led the effort to repeal the law, calling it "the biggest consumer rip-off in Massachusetts history". The big issue involved in the attempted repeal was lawmaker reneging on their promise to protect consumers by allowing utilities to recover 100% of their bad investments. Because deregulation will cause some utilities to lose money on investments in power plants or on contracts they made when they expected to keep selling power at a regulated price, the question becomes do they deserve compensation for these "stranded costs", which may approach $200 billion nationally? For instance, utilities spent more than $5 billion building the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire, which produces 1,150 megawatts. In contrast, private developers have proposed more than 50 new plants, which combined would produce 30,000 megawatts, and the cost of these projects is estimated at slightly more than $15 billion. The utilities argue that public regulators approved those expenses and that the state can not back out on them now, stating that many plants have already begun to implement the new law, including selling most of their power plants. Repealing the law now, they argue, would create utter chaos. Therefore, a provision was written into the law allowing for utilities to recover all of their stranded costs over a 10-year transition period. While proponents of the law were hoping for a 30% rate re...
