🔒Bordonaro: Lamont correct to ditch EV mandate; clean energy policies need rethink

Gov. Ned Lamont made headlines last month when he declared he would not continue pursuing a policy to phase out all new sales of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035.

It was the right call. The so-called electric vehicle mandate, while well-intentioned in its purpose to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lacked practicality.

A top executive of Toyota North America, which has ramped-up production of electric and other types of fuel-efficient vehicles, agrees with that sentiment. In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Toyota Motor North America Chief Operating Officer Jack Hollis wrote that mandates and taxpayer-financed incentives used by federal and state governments to encourage Americans to buy battery-electric vehicles “aren’t working, and the sale of EVs has stalled.”

He advocated against mandates and in favor of allowing automakers to “offer a variety of zero- or low-emissions vehicle options at different price points and with different characteristics,” to ensure there are affordable options for all types of buyers.

Even if auto manufacturers produced enough electric vehicles to sate the demand that would be created by the 2035 EV mandate, it’s unclear if Connecticut would have the infrastructure in place to support the strain on the electric grid, an oftentimes overlooked issue in the general conversation.

Based on expected future demand, electric utilities are working to develop the distribution framework needed to supply nearly twice as much electricity by 2050.

The Hartford Business Journal reported last year that Eversource estimates it would need to build 14 new substations — at a cost of $100 million to $150 million each — to reliably serve the additional 4 GW of electricity needed to power EVs by 2040. Eversource also said eight existing substations need to be upgraded, at a cost of $10 million to $25 million each.

That’s an overall estimated investment of up to $2.3 billion to prepare for larger-scale EV adoption — costs likely to be borne, wholly or partially, by ratepayers.

That’s concerning for a state that already has among the highest electricity prices in the United States. We saw this past summer the detrimental impact that a spike in electricity prices has on Connecticut’s economy.

The rejection of the EV mandate ought to lead to a broader discussion about the state’s clean energy policies — and whether their cost is worth it. Lamont signed legislation in 2022 requiring Connecticut to obtain 100% of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2040. Other New England states have passed similar laws.

But can we attain that goal without significantly increasing electricity costs in Connecticut? That question hasn’t been explored thoroughly enough.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for the state to abandon green energy, which provides significant environmental and health benefits.

But the mix of energy sources the state relies on, and the timetable to reach certain clean energy goals, should still be up for debate, since the costs of those policies could have significant detrimental impacts on the economy.

A new report by a group of New England-based conservative think tanks, including the Yankee Institute in Connecticut, recently shed some light on those potential costs.

The study, which looked at energy policies in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine and Rhode Island, found that the states’ decarbonization plans would cost $815 billion through 2050.

However, with New England contributing less than 0.4% of global emissions, the states’ plans to reduce emissions may exceed the benefits, the study found.

“This raises the very real possibility that New England states are imposing net harm on their economies by imposing policies whose costs outweigh their benefits,” according to the report, which also said renewable energy from wind and solar won’t be able to meet the region’s future electricity demands.

The study also cites data from ISO-New England’s 2050 Transmission Study, which says electricity shortfalls could occur during peak periods of demand starting in 2035.

“Thus, within 11 years, ISO-NE may be unable to coordinate electricity to power the region,” raising the real possibility of rolling blackouts, the report states.

The study makes several policy recommendations, including urging states to reconsider their emission-reduction goals. It also suggests lifting state nuclear moratoriums, arguing that “building new nuclear power generators will be the most reliable and affordable way to decarbonize the New England grid.”

Connecticut, which is home to the Millstone nuclear plant, has substantial barriers to nuclear energy, it notes.

Further, the report recommends allowing nuclear energy to count as a renewable energy source, as it produces no carbon emissions, but is often not treated as a renewable energy source like wind and solar. I agree with that recommendation.

Connecticut’s heavily Democratic legislature may scoff at a report produced by a group of conservative think tanks, and therefore ignore its findings.

They do so at their own peril. This is a complex issue that requires substantive conversations from various viewpoints about both the economic and environmental impacts of clean energy policies.

Further complicating the picture is four more years of a GOP Trump administration. The president-elect has already made it clear he wants to end incentives for offshore wind energy and electric-vehicle purchases, and support natural gas expansion, an energy source Connecticut just a few years ago was bullish on as a cleaner alternative to coal or oil.

Lamont, after seeing electricity prices spike this past summer, seems to be taking the cost issue seriously.

In a recent interview with the HBJ, Lamont said he’s focused on increasing the energy supply in the state, and that he’s “deeply concerned about affordability,” adding “I have a hard time recruiting companies to the state because of the high price of electricity.”

He expressed an openness to expanding nuclear capacity, possibly through modular nukes, which are small, advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW per unit, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Lamont’s voice will be a key one in this debate. He must take a leadership role in correctly steering Connecticut not only to a cleaner energy future, but an affordable energy future.