The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
DEEP’s energy strategy
Hearing to discuss CT’s energy use draws fire from some providers
TORRINGTON » A debate over the future of energy use in Connecticut came to Torrington Tuesday during a public hearing on the latest Comprehensive Energy Strategy for the state. The event was hosted by the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
Most of the speakers at Tuesday’s hearing were members of the deliverable fuel industry, including home heating oil providers, who are concerned about how the plan could impact their livelihood.
One of the goals of the latest draft plan is to “strategically sequence deployment of cleaner thermal fuel choices to transition buildings from fossil fuels,” including a shift from oil to natural gas and renewable sources.
The plan also proposes levying a tax on deliverable fuels like oil and propane. According to the DEEP, those who use electricity or gas to generate heat already contribute to the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund through a fee on their monthly bill, while oil and propane users do not.
“Once we start down the road of putting charges on home heating oil or on propane, I really feel like there’s no limit to how far it goes.”
— State Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington
Both of these measures drew push-back from members of the heating oil industry Tuesday, who said that the use of “bioheat” — a blend of diesel produced through renewable sources and low-sulfur heating oil — made it more environmentally-friendly than natural gas.
“This plan would convert people from an increasingly-green, renewable fuel — home heating oil — to a dirtier fuel with no path towards cleanliness or renewability — natural gas and electricity... (It) would decimate the energy infrastructure of the state and hand over all control to the gas and electric utilities, which are abysmally unreliable,” said Peter Aziz, one of the owners of Bantam Wesson, which has offices in Bantam, Canton, and Waterbury. “The people of Connecticut elect and employ you... to champion the environment and our energy security. The world is upside down when the heating oil guy has to tell you that this plan is bad for the environment and for Connecticut’s energy supply picture.”
Jeff Jennings, a co-owner of Danbury-based Jennings Oil, said that the shift would eliminate jobs and reduce competition while benefitting utilities.
“A government policy that specifically states its goal is to eliminate an industry that included hundreds of family-owned businesses that have been in operation for decades, and to put thousands of state residents out of work, deserves closer study and fair analysis,” said Jennings.
State Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington, also argued against the implementation of a tax on home heating oil and propane.
“Once we start down the road of putting charges on home heating oil or on propane, I really feel like there’s no limit to how far it goes,” said Markley. “However good your intentions are as a department to use this for the purposes of conservation, I think it’s a dangerous precedent.”
Funds put aside for specific purposes may be used elsewhere, especially as the state deals with financial pressure, Markley said. It could also add to the burden on low-income individuals who use heating oil to heat their homes, he said.
The Comprehensive Energy Strategy is not a new concern for the home heating oil industry.
The Connecticut Energy Marketers Association, which represents the industry, argued in a legal challenge of the 2013 plan that its recommendations, including the conversion of homes and business from oil heat to natural gas, should have been subject to environmental review. The state Supreme Court upheld a dismissal of this claim in December 2016.
The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection is tasked with preparing such a strategy for the state every three years, according to statute 16a-3d. DEEP issued a draft of the 2017 strategy in July and expects to complete it by October or November.
“This draft analyzes the state’s current energy use; it identifies challenges and examines opportunities to meet our future energy needs; and imposes a series of recommendations that give Connecticut residents and businesses the power to choose from a variety, an array, of energy options,” said Tracy Babbidge, chief of the Bureau of Energy and Technology Policy with DEEP. “(It) also guides the path on a state towards (a) cheaper, cleaner, and more reliable energy future.”
Martha Klein, chairwoman of the Connecticut Sierra Club, argued that while the draft plan does recommend some measures she supports, such as electric transportation options, the plan did not go far enough to promote the use of renewable energy, mitigate climate change, guard against fracking, and aid consumers with costs.
“We’re really disappointed, and we were looking to you to come up with something transformative that was going to prevent the worst effects of climate change,” said Klein. “We feel like this was an opportunity to do that, and we feel like it didn’t happen.”
Litchfield County residents also spoke up. Betsy Glassman, a Litchfield resident and member of Democracy Awakens, said she was considering leaving the state, her home of 30 years, due to the combined burden of taxes and electric and heating costs.
“It goes on and on, and if the state wants to keep people here, the state needs to somehow lower these costs,” said Glassman.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a subgroup of the U.S. Department of Energy, the average retail cost of electricity in Connecticut was 17.77 cents per kilowatt in 2015 — the second-highest rate in the nation, trailing only Hawaii.
Joyce Hemingson of FairWindCT, a local nonprofit, advocated for stricter standards on the amount of noise generated by wind turbines. The group formed