For those invested in FCEL largely or partly because you see it to be "green" due to its "green tech" and the importance of such technology, you might want to give this a listen:
1) There isn't one color green; 2) this is a political fact that's going to affect FCEL's business future to some degree; and, 3) what we're witnessing here in this PURA debacle in CT is probably an example of that. (Pity me. My speculation is based on that long half of my career I spent mired in this stuff.)
Briefly, there are probably different factions in every political movement, and if there's a "purist" faction in the progressive climate change movement, FCEL has a serious downside to how it is - or is likely to be - viewed and treated. SOME (rightly or wrongly, too simplistically or not), will be urging complete and near-immediate abandonment of fossil-fuel energy sources and nuclear power. Since these folks can see some parts of FCEL's tech and business strategy as enabling existing oil and gas corporations (like Exxon-Mobile, the veritable devil incarnate!) to paint themselves "green," there could be fierce resistance to incentives or other economic support benefiting FCEL.
In my speculation, here's something that could have happened in CT:
PURA announced the awards to FCEL and not to the solar companies... CT then joined that interstate group and in doing so committed to the targets and maybe certain practices or rules (which may have been strongly influenced by purists)... suddenly the contract awards to FCEL are problematic, whereas the awards to the solar companies would fit much better with those targets and practices or rules newly committed to... the Governor directs the agency to renege on the awards to FCEL and transfer them to the solar companies... and so PURA complied with the Governor's direction (no doubt despite strong objections from certain staff).
The bad news is that if this actually is along the lines of what happened, it would not be easily reversed, even with litigation. Courts tend to give a great deal of leeway to agencies in their decision-making processes, often just looking to confirm that all important factors were taken into some kind of rational consideration. Often, only if the decision is clearly shown to be illegal or (somewhat more likely) "arbitrary and capricious" can litigants prevail. In this case, while it seems to me it could be considered a veritable poster child for an arbitrary and capricious action (while also possibly illegal), you can imagine the State's argument that it is NOT, given the new membership in the interstate group, the urgency of taking action on climate change, and - perhaps - new "emergency rules" the agency may claim to be in the middle of creating.
I'll stop here, other than to provide this definition of "arbitrary and capricious":
Absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Natural Resources. v. U.S., 966 F.2d 1292, 97, (9th Cir.'92). A clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law. 5 USC. 706(2)(A) (1988).
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
