Energy legislation has some potential

As proposed, the bill would require a review of the region’s energy markets to determine whether contracts for zero-carbon electricity generation, such as Millstone, are warranted, and if so, direct Connecticut’s utilities to agree to purchase additional power from Millstone.

Over the past decade, New England states have confronted two issues that negatively impact energy consumers — some of the highest electricity rates in the country (which keep getting higher), and the precipitously decreasing reliability of the power grid that is increasing the likelihood of periodic power outages.

Connecticut’s families and businesses are well aware of the high costs of electricity in Connecticut and wonder how state officials are going to solve these problems.

Well, one attempt to help is part of pending legislation in Hartford.

SB 385 is being considered by the General Assembly in an attempt to ensure that one of the last two remaining regional nuclear facilities remain operational — Connecticut’s Millstone. As proposed, the bill would require a review of the region’s energy markets to determine whether contracts for zero-carbon electricity generation, such as Millstone, are warranted, and if so, direct Connecticut’s utilities to agree to purchase additional power from Millstone.

A complicating issue is that, while the rest of New England utilizes Millstone and benefits from its affordable, reliable and emissions-free power, it is Connecticut’s families and businesses who pay the bulk of the costs associated with Millstone — something that needs further consideration and a more equitable approach.

Part of Nutmeggers’ above-market power costs associated with Millstone are legislative and regulatory add-ons that add about 15% to the overall cost of our electricity bills (you see these in the “public benefits” line of your bill).

Combined, these issues mean Connecticut consumers pay some of the highest electricity rates in New England; a region that pays some of the highest rates in the nation. So, lucky us, we are paying the most for power in one of the most expensive power sections of the United States.

SB 385 attempts to correct some of the problems and should be seriously considered by the legislature.

But like most initial versions of proposed bills, there are some aspects that can, and should, be improved.

First, take the time to get it right. The current nuclear contracts for Millstone don’t expire until 2029. To fully review all the complicated issues involved, perhaps the legislature should consider undertaking an unbiased comprehensive study to ensure all of us are getting the best deal and that Connecticut mirrors nuclear policies in other states. After all, rushing to enact energy policy legislation in New York and elsewhere created more problems than they solved.

Second, ensure that SB 385 or similar legislation require fully transparent guidelines for what we are paying for in our utility bills (just what is the 15% “public benefits” fee paying for, exactly?).

Third, while SB 385 proposes to require participation and coordination from at least two other New England states before triggering Connecticut’s

involvement, there are other issues unaddressed in SB 385 which could leave Connecticut’s families paying more than our fair share for the power generated by Millstone. With growing reliability concerns from overly-restrictive energy policies throughout New England, it is increasingly important that Millstone — the largest permanently-on, emissions-free power facility in the region remain a viable and essential part of our energy future. It is therefore important that the Public Utility Regulatory Authority investigate mechanisms to better share the costs among all New England states — relieving some of the excessive burden on Connecticut’s consumers. This would be similar to some other regional power agreements that are currently operating under New England’s grid operator.

Fourth, any legislative fix should ensure that Millstone and Connecticut’s consuming public are fully taking advantage of all federal nuclear power tax incentives recently created under the federal Inflation Reduction Act, Inflation Investment and Jobs Act or any other available program. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, for instance, just announced that the IRA provisions are expected to save New Yorkers “hundreds of millions of dollars” by 2025. Connecticut should pursue similar incentives, since they are available.

Everyone wants affordable, reliable and environmentally responsible energy. And, balancing all three goals should not be insurmountable. State-sponsored contracts for electricity are going to accelerate as electricity demand increases — especially if states continue aggressive (and misguided) mandates on things such as heat pumps and electric vehicles; and, simultaneously (and misguidedly) restrict the addition of permanent power options like natural gas as part of a diversified electricity portfolio that includes wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and natural gas.

Connecticut’s elected officials and regulators should do everything in their power to protect our families and businesses from unfair, unaffordable and unreliable electricity. We need sensible energy policy; and SB 385 has some ideas that are worth further discussion.