High electricity costs are a major issue in Connecticut’s gubernatorial race, with Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont and Republican challenger Sen. Ryan Fazio both promising relief but offering sharply different ways to get there.
Fazio, a state senator from Greenwich who serves as ranking Republican on the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee, has made cutting electric bills by 20% a centerpiece of his campaign.
Lamont, seeking a third term, points instead to recent reductions in electric bills and favors a broader “all-of-the-above” strategy that combines nuclear power, renewable energy, energy efficiency and, potentially, additional natural gas capacity with tougher oversight of utilities.
Some common ground
The candidates do share some common ground. Both support nuclear power and both are open to expanding the supply of natural gas into New England. But they differ over how to pay for energy programs, how aggressively to pursue pipeline expansion and how much weight Connecticut should give to its climate goals.
Fazio’s plan calls for eliminating or phasing out most programs funded through the public benefits charge on electric bills and shifting a smaller number of programs to the state budget.
He also wants to eliminate costs associated with the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. His campaign says Connecticut could either eliminate certain programs or broaden the renewable standard to allow all nuclear and hydropower to qualify, while returning proceeds from the regional greenhouse gas program to ratepayers.
During an August interview with the Hartford Business Journal, Fazio said the charges total more than $1 billion annually and argued that many pay for subsidies unrelated to generating and delivering electricity.
“Most of them should be sunsetted or eliminated immediately,” Fazio said. “Most of them are corporate welfare.”
Lamont has pushed back on the idea that those costs can simply be eliminated without consequences.
During his HBJ interview in September, Lamont noted that some public-benefit costs pay for nuclear generation and other programs and argued eliminating a charge may simply move the expense elsewhere.
Cuts vs. regulation
That philosophical difference also surfaced when Lamont was asked whether he would eliminate Connecticut’s 6.35% sales tax on commercial electricity and natural gas.
“You’re not eliminating; you’re shifting from somewhere to the other,” Lamont said, adding that he would want proponents of eliminating the tax to identify how the lost revenue would be replaced.
Lamont’s campaign energy platform puts greater emphasis on utility regulation. It calls for making affordability a factor in determining utility profits, imposing tougher oversight and transparency requirements, and conducting cost-benefit reviews before allowing utilities to pass major infrastructure investments on to ratepayers.
He also wants to strengthen the state Office of Consumer Counsel and encourage more private investment in microgrids and other energy infrastructure.
The governor points to recent reductions in electric bills as evidence that his approach is producing results. His administration says average residential electric bills for Eversource and United Illuminating customers have declined about 18% so far this year, helped by lower supply rates, state borrowing that reduced public-benefit charges and profitable long-term contracts with the Millstone and Seabrook nuclear plants.
Those nuclear contracts illustrate another area where the two candidates overlap.
Lamont has frequently cited his administration’s support for keeping Millstone operating, arguing that nuclear power provides reliable, carbon-free generation and a hedge against volatile natural gas prices.
Natural gas
Fazio also supports nuclear power, but places greater emphasis on natural gas. His campaign calls for expanding pipeline capacity from Pennsylvania and says Connecticut should intervene in federal regulatory proceedings — or potentially sue the state of New York — if that state blocks pipeline projects.
In his HBJ interview, Fazio argued that additional natural gas would improve both affordability and reliability and reduce reliance on oil-fired plants during winter supply constraints. He said Connecticut should be a “realistic and practical” environmentalist, contending that replacing oil with natural gas can lower emissions even as the state maintains nuclear generation.
Lamont is also willing to consider additional pipeline capacity, but has taken a more cautious stance.
He said his administration has been talking with Canadian pipeline operator Enbridge about potentially increasing gas supply into New England. Lamont said he initially found the idea appealing, but became more skeptical when the company sought regional financing and a guaranteed return.
“I’ll look at anything that saves the ratepayers money, but I’m not going to make false promises,” Lamont told HBJ.
His campaign also remains committed to achieving a 100% zero-carbon electric grid by 2040 and net-zero emissions by 2050, with continued development of solar, wind, geothermal technology and energy efficiency.
Fazio’s plan would move in the opposite direction on some of those policies. In addition to changes to the renewable portfolio standard and regional greenhouse gas program, he proposes ending subsidies for electric-vehicle chargers and heat-pump installations. His campaign argues such subsidies increase electricity costs for other customers.
