Let’s replace, not subsidize, the Millstone Power Station

Connecticut’s future is in clean, renewable energy. Building a lower-cost, consumerfriendly energy system to confront climate change will require replacing coal, oil and natural gas with clean energy.

Existing nuclear plants like Millstone Power Station may play a role in that transition, but Connecticut needs a realistic, long-term plan to replace the plant — which will retire eventually — with clean energy. We also need real clarity on the full cost of any special deal, which would not be Millstone’s first.

Over the past two decades, Connecticut consumers have provided hundreds of millions of dollars to keep Millstone running.

Joining nuclear plant owners in other states, Millstone’s owners now seek more support from Connecticut ratepayers as wholesale energy prices have fallen, putting pressure on nuclear’s competitiveness.

The debate around Millstone’s alleged financial difficulties — notably unproven at this time — has obscured the real question that the General Assembly should be addressing: how should Connecticut best prepare for the plant’s replacement?

In this context, it is important to recognize that wind, solar, and other clean energy resources are increasingly competitive.

Costs for solar have dropped by over 60 percent in the last seven years alone, and solar now supports more jobs than coal, oil and natural gas combined.

Solar is competitive locally, evidenced by the results of a recent clean energy procurement, where for the first time solar edged out other resources to win two-thirds of contracts awarded by Connecticut, providing capacity equivalent to a medium-sized power plant.

Offshore wind also holds great promise for Connecticut. Designated federal lease areas off New England and New York’s coasts provide steady winds, shallow water, and proximity to major demand centers.

Rhode Island just built the nation’s first offshore wind farm, and Massachusetts and New York are racing to compete for a share of the tens of thousands of jobs and billions of investment dollars that the offshore wind industry promises.

Major players are responding to these signals.

This summer, Eversource, one of the region’s largest utilities, will partner with a major Danish company to bid for contracts to develop areas off Massachusetts’ south coast.

And the developer of Rhode Island’s project, Deepwater Wind, just won a head-to-head bidding process with natural gas to meet energy needs on Long Island with offshore wind and energy storage.

With the right plan, Connecticut can secure its portion of offshore wind’s future, breathing new economic life into struggling shoreline communities and giving local manufacturers a shot at producing the diverse components of massive new offshore wind turbines.

The Millstone replacement plan should center on increasing the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require 50 percent electricity supply from clean sources by 2030. Under current law, the RPS plateaus at 20 percent in 2020, and an increase to 50 percent makes progress toward replacing the electricity supply Millstone currently provides, with five years to spare before the plant’s first operating license expires in 2035.

Legislation should also enable construction over several years of at least 2,000 megawatts of offshore wind (similar to the amount that Massachusetts committed to in legislation last year) and set targets for enabling energy storage, which can help balance intermittent renewables to provide around-the-clock “baseload” capacity.

The bill released recently, Senate Bill 106, tries for a transition, but it does not offer sufficient competition for Millstone’s special bid (the region’s other nuclear power plant, Seabrook Station, is written out of eligibility, for instance), includes renewable energy targets that are too low, does not support offshore wind, and would not take full advantage of energy storage technologies.

Energy efficiency has also been left out.

Every other state confronting the viability of nuclear plants has developed long-term clean energy replacement plans that rely on diverse, modern resources.

California will replace the state’s last nuclear reactors with energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.

In Illinois, nuclear support mechanisms are paired with significant commitments to energy efficiency, wind and solar.

Closer to home, New York agreed to support upstate nuclear power plants, but only as part of a broader plan to source 50 percent of electricity supply from renewables by 2030.

Planning for Connecticut’s energy future makes sense, but favoring one uncompetitive technology at the expense of clean energy does not.

A clean energy replacement strategy for Millstone Power Station is the best way forward for Connecticut’s consumers and environment.

Bill Dornbos is the Connecticut director and senior attorney of the Acadia Center.