🔒CT’s clean-energy policies must focus on affordability

Connecticut's nascent fuel-cell sector experienced a setback recently after two major state clean-energy procurements failed to select any of the industry's proposed projects.

As reported by HBJ News Editor Matt Pilon, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) last month notified winning bidders in two state-run energy programs, which are expected to lead to the purchase of nearly 800 megawatts of clean-power generation by utilities in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, helping each state reach toward their respective renewable-energy goals.

Solar developers were the main winners in the selection process, while about a dozen proposed fuel-cell projects were left on the sidelines, mainly because their bids were more expensive than others, and could have led to higher energy prices in the state.

The procurements represented a unique opportunity for Connecticut fuel-cell manufacturers to capture significant revenue from multi-megawatt plants, which would arguably have a greater economic impact in the state than some other projects.

Despite that, we agree with DEEP's decision to base its selections mainly on energy prices.

Connecticut's efforts to lower its greenhouse gas emissions, which have intensified under the Malloy administration, are important to the future of the planet, but the state's clean-energy policies must not overburden individual and business ratepayers — the end users who must ultimately bear the added costs associated with investing in alternative energy.

Our state's energy costs are already a drag on the business climate. In fact, according to a study done by financial website Wallethub earlier this year, Connecticut's energy costs are the highest in the nation, totaling more than $400 a month for the average consumer.

And energy prices continue to be a major concern, particularly for manufacturers.

For example, in a live poll conducted by the Connecticut Business and Industry Association during its annual energy conference in October, 49 percent of audience members said Connecticut's top priority for energy policy should be to lower energy bills.

We aren't blaming policymakers for the entire problem — Connecticut's lack of fossil fuels and inadequate gas supply are major drawbacks.

But at a time when Connecticut remains mired in a fiscal crisis to which there appears to be no end in sight, and with economy continuing to shed jobs, policymakers must focus on ways to improve the affordability of living and operating a business here.

It should be noted that the state has otherwise been quite friendly to its fuel-cell industry, offering favorable incentives and policies that have helped the sector grow into a notable manufacturing niche, which claimed 2015 revenues of $726 million and 3,400 direct, indirect and induced jobs.

We should continue to support fuel-cell makers by providing a highly educated workforce and stable business environment, but awarding them major projects at the expense of ratepayers isn't good policy.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy rightfully agreed with that sentiment, commenting this month, “One of the things you don't want to do is burden the people of Connecticut with higher long-term energy costs, because that's actually something we've worked very hard at combatting and made substantial progress on.”

Though fuel-cell makers struck out on their major, multi-megawatt proposals, there may be some consolation. Malloy indicated he is open to discussing policy shifts that could bolster their sales.

But the market should largely decide which technologies succeed or fail, and we hope DEEP continues to place a high value on procuring the cheapest possible clean energy.

The health of our state's business climate and economy depend on it.