Lawmakers push Lamont to fund stalled Coast Guard museum bridge project
John Penney
New London — U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., on Wednesday
said that without a new funding commitment by the state for a promised — but
seemingly stalled — pedestrian bridge project in downtown New London, the
success of the incoming National Coast Guard Museum will be in jeopardy.
“We cannot take no for an answer — everyone else has met
their obligations,” Murphy said, referring to the federal and private funding
sources that have brought the $220 million museum nearly to completion on the
city's waterfront. “We cannot open this museum without a way for people to get
there.”
Murphy’s comments came during an “urgent” virtual meeting
attended by U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., several state lawmakers,
Mayor Michael Passero and Wes Pulver, president of the National Coast Guard
Museum Association, which is overseeing both the museum and the planned
pedestrian bridge portions of the project.
The meeting largely centered around what several attendees
called the “last piece” of the overall project: an elevated span proposed to
connect the Water Street Garage to the museum with entrances and exits to the
nearby train station and ferry docks.
But a $20 million funding commitment by the state in 2014 to
build what was envisioned as a 400-foot, glass-enclosed bridge is significantly
less than what is now needed for the project.
Only one
firm, the Plainville-based Manafort Brothers Inc., in October submitted a
bid for the bridge job. Pulver at the time said the bid was at a “range above
what was planned,” due largely to escalating construction, manpower and
material costs over the last decade.
And, with the museum on track for a 2027 opening, Murphy
said time is running out to get the bridge project funded
and built.
“The most urgent item at hand is getting a safe, pedestrian
bridge that will allow hundreds of thousands of visitors to get to the museum,”
he said.
While Murphy said there is not yet a firm updated cost for
the bridge work, it’s likely between $15 million and $25 million more than
originally allotted, depending on the firm selected and how the project is
indemnified.
But convincing Gov. Ned Lamont to part with up to $25
million more in state funding has so far been a challenge.
Murphy, Blumenthal and several state legislators, including
Sen. Martha Marx, D-20th District, said they all reached out to Lamont multiple
times over the last year to try and pry open the state funding spigot, but
without success.
“No one said no to us, but I didn’t feel like it was as high
a priority as it should be,” Murphy said. “But the answer can’t be no. It
can’t.”
Lamont's office did not return a request for comment
Wednesday.
Murphy recommended forming a project “working group”
comprising state and local stakeholders — community boosters, business
representatives, municipal leaders — to “take the private conversations public”
over the next few months and persuade Lamont to fund the bridge.
"We need a commitment"
Blumenthal and Murphy noted the federal investment in the
museum project has included $120 million for constructing the
89,000-square-foot, six-story museum; $80 million for exhibit development; $6.8
million to homeport the Coast Guard’s barque Eagle at the museum site; and $20
million for renovations and parking expansions at the Water
Street Garage.
In addition, the museum association has raised $58 million
in private donations.
“And the state signed on to build the bridge,” Murphy said.
Murphy and Blumenthal also framed the bridge question as one
of inequity. They noted New London is home to one of the only train stations in
the state with only an “at-grade” crossing — or one without a bridge or tunnel —
for its passengers to safely enter and exit.
Murphy said the at-grade crossing configuration, while
barely adequate for the city’s needs right now, will be entirely unsuitable —
and dangerous — when the up to 300,000 annual visitors to the museum begin
flooding the area. He added the state recently funded $35 million worth of
train station improvements in Madison.
“We would never have planned to build this museum where it
is without a bridge being built,” Murphy said. “There are other ways to get the
cost (of the bridge down), but we need a commitment."
Bridge supporters said the bridge could be complete in early
2028 — if new funding is secured from the state soon.
Blumenthal said Lamont “well recognizes the (bridge) issue”
and is “understandably asking questions.” He urged attendees to begin gathering
information from state and Amtrak officials on possible funding solutions ahead
of pressing Lamont for action.
“The goal here is to present a consensus to (Lamont),” he
said. “We are so close now you can measure it in inches. But we need this last
piece to make it real.”
Killingly warehouse proposals roll through approval process
Alison Cross
Killingly — The developers behind a controversial
plan to construct a pair
of warehouses at 90 Putnam Pike have said they intend to resubmit their
Planning and Zoning Commission application by Monday.
The pending submission would place Killingly 1 LLC’s
proposal for 178,750-square-foot and 297,500-square-foot warehouses back on the
commission’s agenda. It would also ensure that the town receives the
application before the commission weighs residents’ requests to impose
a moratorium on large distribution centers.
The developers withdrew their original application last
month in order to avoid time limits in the application and public hearing
process that are set by state law.
On Monday, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission
voted 3-2 to approve the application, with members Chris McDonald and Corina
Torrey opposed.
The Planning and Zoning Commission needs Inland Wetlands and
Watercourses Commission approval before considering the application.
The proposed warehouses would be built on 58 acres of
undeveloped land that is zoned general commercial and is bordered by woods and
residential properties. According to town records, Killingly 1 LLC purchased
the property, which overlaps an aquifer protection area, in September for
$600,000. The developers have yet to identify what companies would operate out
of the warehouse.
Conservation Commission member Claudette Rogers said she was
concerned that the town was advancing an application for a development “that
would cause a lot of pollution.”
“I haven’t seen any concern for the aquifer that we’re going
to be feeding the storm water into,” Rogers said at the Inland Wetlands and
Watercourses Commission’s Monday meeting. “You can’t buy Mother Nature back.”
Last month, members of the Keep Killingly Rural coalition
filed an application with the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting a
moratorium on all new zoning applications for warehouses and distribution
centers that exceed 100,000 square feet in floor area. Michelle Murphy, a
former town councilor and the co-founder of the coalition, said the moratorium
would provide the commission an opportunity to review whether the town’s zoning
regulations adequately address large-scale distribution facilities.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is waiting for the town's
legal counsel report on the moratorium application on April 20. A public
hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 18. If passed, the moratorium would
apply to new warehouse applications, not existing proposals.
Opposition to ‘Project Husky’ continues
The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission also voted
Monday to continue a public hearing on Ryan Companies U.S. Inc.’s proposal to
build a 1.37 million-square-foot warehouse on undeveloped woodlands in the
town’s business park.
As the proposed development, known as “Project Husky,” sits
within the confines of the town’s business park zoning district, the proposal
only needs to pass a site plan review to move forward with the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Under state law, commissioners can only modify or deny site
plans that fail to comply with the town’s zoning regulations. If all conditions
are met, the site plan must pass.
The proposed 246-acre construction site sits within a larger
556-acre stretch of land between Interstate 395, Westcott Road and Mashentuck
Road, including the Markover Hunting Preserve. Ryan Companies said Project
Husky would preserve roughly 292 acres of open space, with 216 acres deeded to
the town for conservation and another 76 acres protected under a conservation
easement.
Approximately 22,446 square feet of wetlands would be
disturbed during construction, and 16,921 square feet of wetlands would be
restored through mitigation efforts.
On Monday, multiple residents spoke against the proposal,
including Town Council Chairman Ed Grandelski and fellow Councilor Ulla
Tiik-Barclay who said they were skeptical that permits granted by the State
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection would adequately protect the
town.
“We as a town have been getting screwed time over time,”
Grandelski said. “You outside guys come in and we don't have a chance. … It
sounds good on paper, but just give me a break. I’m frustrated.”
Many residents said the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses
Commission could not make an educated decision about the application without
knowing which company would use the distribution center and what materials
would be housed there.
“We don’t know what’s going into that building,” Charles
Ferland, a resident, said. “You may be talking about a warehouse … like Walmart
that would have tens of thousands of gallons of motor oil, antifreeze,
pesticides, rat poisoning, herbicides, and all sorts of other chemicals and
items that (are) a danger to these wetlands and watercourses.”
Tom Cody, the lawyer representing Ryan Companies, said the
eventual tenant is not pertinent to the application.
“We have explained what the use is in the application. It is
a distribution warehouse, and whether you have tenant A, company A, company B,
company C, that is not really a relevant question from a land use standpoint.
It's a distribution warehouse,” Cody said. “If we can provide the information,
we would do that out of a courtesy to you.”
The debate over Project Husky and 90 Putnam Pike development
has dominated public comment sections at Town Council, zoning, and wetlands
meetings for weeks. Last month, the Planning and Zoning Commission opted to
hire a law firm to conduct a third-party review of Project Husky and the Putnam
Pike proposals.
While a handful of residents have spoken in support of the
projects and the jobs and tax revenue they would add to the town, the vast
majority of residents have urged town officials to reject the developments.
Opponents, especially those who live near the proposed development sites, say
the warehouses would degrade the rural character of the town, increase traffic,
noise and pollution, and destroy local forests, waterways and ecosystems.
“I just have this horrifying feeling that what we're dealing
with here is just a foregone conclusion and that we're in an elaborate dance to
the eventual implementation of this plan,” Ralph Mastrangelo, a resident, said
on Monday.
Tweed New Haven Airport announces new agreement on expansion framework
Connecticut officials have reached a new framework for
moving forward on a proposed east side terminal at Tweed New Haven Airport
after years of conflict over the project, but the plan still faces major legal,
legislative, and local hurdles.
New Haven, East Haven, the airport authority, and the
airport have agreed to a memorandum of understanding that lays out a path
forward for the proposed terminal on the east side of the airport.
The agreement includes proposed state funding for both
municipalities, stronger East Haven representation on the airport board and a
higher approval threshold for major projects such as runway expansion and
campus access changes.
The proposed terminal has been at the center of a fight for
nearly six years.
The project would be built on East Haven land, and the town
has pushed back on the project for years, including through an active appeal of
the FAA’s
finding of no significant impact. As part of the agreement, East Haven now
says it will abide by what the court decides.
In an interview, New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker called the
agreement a major step: “This is a big moment.”
Elicker said he and East Haven Mayor Joseph Carfora spent
significant time working through concerns about the project.
“Mayor Carfora and I have worked really, really hard and
frankly spent a lot of time building trust and hearing each other out about our
concerns,” Elicker said.
Ed Sabatino, Assistant Director of Administration &
Management for the Town of East Haven, said in an email that Carfora was
declining an on-camera interview citing the active appeal litigation.
Sabatino pointed to the mayor’s statement in the joint
agreement press release.
“This framework reflects how the process has evolved,” the
East Haven mayor wrote. “We now have a clearer structure for how the proposed
East Terminal Project will be evaluated and what standards will apply to
mitigate impacts in East Haven.”
He also clarified that the MOU is not an approval of the
project, which is subjected to formal review by the Town’s Planning and Zoning
Commission.
“That process will be independent, evidence-based, and
carried out in accordance with all applicable legal standards. Our boards and
commissions will act strictly within their fiduciary obligations to the Town
and its residents, and will require that any project fully satisfies all
applicable standards and protections before it is permitted to proceed,” he
wrote.
According
to the federal data, Tweed saw 1.4 million passengers between arrivals and
departures last year. That’s up from 41,000 in 2021. The increase is driven by
Avelo Airlines’ use of the airport.
Traffic has been one of the biggest concerns surrounding the
airport as passenger volume has grown.
Under the proposed agreement, traffic would enter through
Proto Drive in East Haven and likely exit through New Haven at the existing
entrance at Burr St and Fort Hale Rd, Mayor Elicker said.
That proposal is subject to further review, with a secondary
option being Dodge Ave to the North, with a diversion of traffic in to one
direction.
To make the entrance and exit configuration possible, a long
driveway would need to be constructed along the airport’s campus.
Elicker said some of the traffic and access concerns are
tied to the airport’s current layout, which doesn’t have enough room for easy
pickups and drop-offs.
“A lot of the challenges associated with the airport are
because of the current airport design that will be addressed with the future
airport construction,” Elicker said.
Under the agreement, the Town of East Haven would also see
$40 million in state funding for public safety facilities, subject to
legislative approval, along with a statutorily protected annual payment in lieu
of taxes (“PILOT”) of $4.4 million to East Haven and $2.9 million to New Haven,
indexed to inflation.
The agreement also includes an approach to noise mitigation
and monitoring, among a host of other line items for infrastructure.
The agreement is also drawing political pushback.
State Rep. Joe Zullo (R-East Haven) called the announcement
of an agreement “a frustrating one.”
In an interview, he said the frustration is on behalf of
residents who don’t have an opportunity to publicly comment on the framework at
the local or state level.
“The fact of the matter is, our local town council could
very easily have put this on the agenda for a public hearing or to be voted
upon, and it’s not doing that,” Zullo said.
At the state level, because officials are looking to seek
lawmaker approval on the proposed state funding during this session, it will
likely not appear before a committee or have a public hearing.
“We’re talking about site plans and zoning plans. This is
about the structure of this deal, residents should have the opportunity to
weigh in on whether $40 million is enough, whether PILOT money is enough, as if
money could make our community whole again,” Zullo said.
“This is transformative change. This isn’t just about
dollars,” he said.
Representative Zullo underscored that he has been “aligned”
with Mayor Carfora trying to “stand up for the best interests of Tweed.”
“While he and I may have different angles today, I don’t
think that changes the fact that he and I agree that we’re both looking out for
our residents’ best interests,” he said.
Several steps remain before the terminal project could move
forward.
The federal appeals court still must rule on whether there
would be a significant impact.
The state legislature also must respond to the proposed
funding package.
If both of those go the airport’s way, the terminal proposal
would still need additional approvals, including East Haven’s Planning and
Zoning Committee.
NEW HAVEN — The deal to expand Tweed New Haven Airport
announced Wednesday — and then unanimously approved by the airport authority —
has infuriated some longtime opponents.
"This is absolutely heartbreaking and devastating
news," said Jean Edwards Chieppo, an East Haven neighbor who is
administrator of the "Stop Tweed Expansion" Facebook group.
Tweed,
New Haven, East Haven, Avports and
the state struck
a deal that would let Tweed move forward on airport expansion but
shift a proposed new exit to the New Haven side while building a new entrance
on the East Haven side, they announced Wednesday.
The "framework" memorandum of understanding, or
"MOU" — which if approved would bring millions of dollars in state
assistance — essentially would split airport traffic between East Haven, where
vehicles would enter and approach the proposed new terminal largely via state
roads, and New Haven, where they could exit largely via neighborhood streets,
as they do now.
The existing entrance and exit at Fort Hale and Burr near
the existing West Terminal would be maintained post-expansion for
450 employee and rental car parking spaces, the parties said in a news release.
"It's a big moment for the New Haven-East Haven
region," said New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker, who acknowledged that
"there's been a lot of challenges around the airport's growth" and
"a lot of conversations back and forth between (East Haven) Mayor (Joe)
Carfora, Avports, the (airport) authority and me to make sure that ... both of
our communities benefit."
The deal would reinforce that East Haven has the right to
zoning approval, the various parties said in a release.
"Our boards and commissions will act strictly within
their fiduciary obligations to the Town and its residents, and will require
that any project fully satisfies all applicable standards and protections
before it is permitted to proceed," Carfora said.
He emphasized that "the MOU is not an approval of any
project. Any proposal must be formally submitted to the Town of East Haven
Planning and Zoning Commission and will be subject to its full review, its
rules and regulations and any conditions the commission deems
appropriate," Carfora said. "That process will be independent,
evidence-based, and carried out in accordance with all applicable legal
standards."
Robert Reed, chairman of the Tweed New Haven Airport
Authority, called the MOU "another crucial milestone in our work to
modernize Tweed," and said, "I want to thank both mayors
and Avports for taking this cooperative next step together ... This is a
great step for Tweed Airport, and for Connecticut."
Meanwhile, Avports, Tweed's operator under a long-term
lease, would still pay for improvements inside the airport perimeter as part of
the expansion
project, according to details released Wednesday.
But the state would pay $40 million for a new public safety
complex in East Haven, $5 million each to East Haven and New Haven for
infrastructure and increased annual state payments-in-lieu of taxes, or PILOT,
payments to both communities of more than $5 million to East Haven and nearly
$3 million to New Haven, both rising with inflation, pending legislative
approval.
None of that pleases or satisfies many airport neighbors,
however.
Edwards Chieppo headlined a post on the agreement,
"Mayor Carfora and (East Haven Town Attorney) Mike Luzzi sell East Haven
down the river!"
East Haven resident Lorena Venegas also had issues with
the agreement.
"As a resident, homeowner and taxpayer of East Haven,
there has been a serious lack of transparency and accountability by Mayor
Carfora, state officials and Tweed Airport Authority," Venegas wrote in a
message. "There have been no public forums since the one I organized in
March 2022. Since then, the costs of the project have risen from $70 million to
more than $429 million in the latest wetlands application submitted to CT
DEEP."
East Haven "has major infrastructure flooding issues
along state roads that would move too much traffic on one lane residential
areas as interference to quality of life, with added noise and air
pollution," Venegas wrote. East Haven "should not fall victim to
PILOT formulas that cannot be guaranteed by state government."
Airport neighbor Tom Dengler, who was unloading groceries in
front of his house along the approach to Tweed on Fort Hale Road
Wednesday, was an exception.
"The traffic doesn't bother me — not at all,"
Dengler said. "As long as I can get in and out of my driveway, it's not a
problem."
A couple of blocks away on Stuyvesant Avenue, just off Burr
Street, one resident who was out washing his car doesn't think any of the
traffic should be coming through his residential neighborhood.
"They should all go in and out through East
Haven," said the man, who agreed to an interview but wouldn't give
his name. "This is a neighborhood."
Chris Cozzi, president of the New Haven Building and
Construction Trades Council, hailed the announcement and the expansion project.
“This project represents exactly the kind of investment
Connecticut needs right now," Cozzi wrote in an email. "The expansion
of Tweed New Haven Airport will create good-paying, family-sustaining union
jobs and put skilled tradespeople to work across our state," he said.
"With project labor agreements in place, this work will
be completed under high standards that ensure fair wages, safe working
conditions and opportunities for local workers to participate and succeed. For
the men and women of the building trades, this means years of high-quality
construction work and a clear pathway to train the next generation through
robust apprenticeship programs that open doors to long-term careers," he
said.
East Haven state Rep. Joseph Zullo, R-East Haven, expressed
concerns about the agreement in an open letter to Carfora.
"Today’s announcement about the proposed expansion of
Tweed Airport is a frustrating one, particularly for residents who have felt
marginalized, misled, and ignored by the airport throughout the decades-long
saga over expansion of Tweed," Zullo wrote.
"For years, proponents of Tweed airport expansion have
asked you and I to accept the expansion project as an inevitability,"
Zullo wrote. "Instead, to their chagrin and surprise, we’ve leveraged a
strong, bipartisan partnership to shine a spotlight on the inequities of the
Tweed expansion project for East Haven, including the environmental, noise, and
other burdens the project disproportionately heaps upon our community."
As a result, "expansion has stalled, forcing the
proponents of expansion to come to the table and offer potential and
substantive concessions, which are detailed throughout the memorandum of
understanding ... announced today.
Despite the agreement, he urged Carfora to work to continue
to give East Haveners a voice and opportunities to express their opinions,
saying, "The residents should be heard at this key juncture, particularly
before legislation is taken up" as a way to "ensure greater
transparency," Zullo said.
Under the agreement, no approval is guaranteed, including
the state money, according to reporting by Hearst Connecticut Media columnist
Dan Haar. The airport would have to follow each local, state and federal step
as it would without the agreement.
The Tweed expansion project, currently in the permitting
phase, includes a new, 80,000-square-foot "East Terminal" on the East
Haven side of the airport, a runway extension that would lengthen Tweed's
runway from 5,600 feet to 6,575 feet and parking for up to 4,000 vehicles, as
well as a new access road from Proto Drive in East Haven.
The East Terminal design late last year reached 70 percent
completion and Tweed has applications pending with both the state Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The project also includes restoring 28.5 acres of tidal
wetlands and creating more than three acres of new tidal salt marsh as
mitigation measures to compensate for the nine acres of wetlands that would be
affected by the project.
Eversource backs out of three solar projects: Not ‘in the customer interest’
In a blow to Connecticut’s ongoing efforts to procure new
sources of clean, carbon-free electricity, Eversource informed
state officials last month that the utility company was opting out of three
publicly-bid contracts to purchase 54 megawatts of solar power on behalf of its
customers.
Eversource Deputy General Counsel Duncan R. MacKay
sent a
letter to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and
legislative leaders on March 27, slamming the agency’s latest round of clean-energy purchases as overpriced
and likely to result in an increase of the public
benefits charge.
For those reasons — as well as what he described as the lack
of “comprehensive” energy strategy in Connecticut — MacKay said the company
would decline to enter into the contracts.
“The prospect of committing another $238 million of customer
money over the next 20 years is concerning to Eversource and is a clear
divergence from a much-needed affordability lens,” MacKay wrote. “Because the
pricing for the contracts is over-market and the contracts do not add value to
customers in terms of materially increasing available generation supply and
offering a pathway to lower generation costs, contract execution does not
appear to be in the customer interest.”
The Connecticut Mirror obtained the letter from several of
its recipients, as well as from Eversource.
In an emailed statement on Monday, DEEP spokesman Will
Healey called the company’s decision to back out of the contracts “surprising”
given the need for new power supplies to meet growing
demand on the regional electric grid.
“The solar projects selected in this procurement will
lower costs for Connecticut ratepayers and scored the highest in our
evaluation during the bid review process. Eversource was part of that bid
review process and had voiced no concerns or objections at any point of the
evaluation and selection process,” Healey said. “Additionally, Eversource has
raised no objection to signing contracts with Massachusetts for the very same
projects they claim are unaffordable or unsupportable in Connecticut.”
He added, “DEEP is in contact with Eversource to further
understand the nature of its concerns and is exploring options to ensure
these projects and other current and future procurements can continue to
deliver cost effective energy resources to Connecticut ratepayers.”
An Eversource spokesperson declined to comment further on
the letter.
The contracts, also known as power-purchase agreements, were
selected through a multistate bidding process established in 2013 to promote the development of
renewable energy projects. The latest round of winners was announced in December, following an expedited bidding
process that was designed to take advantage of solar tax credits that are being
phased out by the Trump administration.
DEEP selected bids from three projects under development:
Husky Solar in Plainfield and Viridis Solar and Fair Haven Solar, both in
Vermont.
As part of the next step in the process, DEEP directed the
the state’s two electric utilities, Eversource and United Illuminating, to
finalize power-purchase agreements with the project developers at the cost
determined through the bidding process. The utilities are not allowed to earn
any profits off of those contracts, and instead must pass along any proceeds or
losses to their customers through the public benefits charge.
Together, the three projects have a total capacity of 120
megawatts of electricity, enough to power roughly 12,000 homes. Connecticut’s
share accounted for 67 megawatts, split between the state’s two utilities.
Officials in Massachusetts and Maine agreed to purchase the remainder of those
projects’ output.
Officials said it is still unclear what impact Eversource’s
decision to forgo the contracts might have on the feasibility of the three
projects moving forward.
Verogy, the developer behind the Husky Solar project,
released a statement from Chief Executive William Herchel Tuesday saying the
company is still investigating the situation in hopes of keeping the project on
track.
“We are concerned by Eversource’s indication that it does
not intend to sign contracts under DEEP’s Expedited Zero Carbon procurement, a
process designed to deliver the clean, cost effective energy Connecticut and
New England urgently needs,” Herchel said. “We are confident that state leaders
and Eversource can find a path forward.”
Representatives of SunEast Development and Freepoint Solar,
the developers behind both Vermont projects, did not respond to requests for
comment.
UI has not announced any plans to withdraw from its share of
the contracts, which totals about 13 megawatts of electricity. In a emailed
statement Tuesday, UI spokesperson Angela Baccaro said the company supports
“constructive dialogue” regarding clean-energy procurements.
“Regional energy procurement can deliver value to
Connecticut by increasing electric supply across New England, particularly as
we face a growing need for additional resources to maintain reliability and
affordability,” Baccaro said. “For that reason, we remain engaged in ongoing
discussions with developers and other stakeholders and continue to evaluate
opportunities that include ‘all of the above’ forms of energy generation.”
While Eversource’s letter to state officials valued the
total cost of its contracts at $238 million over 20 years, it did not reveal
the per-megawatt hour price of the electricity produced by the three projects.
That price is used to determine the net-cost that ends up
getting passed on to customers through the public benefits charge. Whenever the
fixed per-megawatt hour price of those contracts is higher than the going rate
for wholesale electricity — which is usually determined by the price of natural
gas — customers pay the difference. When the contracted price is lower than the
wholesale price, customers receive a credit on their bills.
The long-term contracts also offer developers a guaranteed
source of revenue, allowing them sell their power to the electrical grid at a
negligible cost, lowering the overall price of electricity. In determining the
cost effectiveness of power-purchase agreements, DEEP has typically sought to
have any increases in the public benefits charge offset by lower supply costs.
Before they can take effect, the contracts must also be
reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.
Connecticut already has similar agreements in place to
purchase electricity from the Seabrook and Millstone nuclear power plants, as
well as the Revolution
Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island.
While the net costs of those contracts has fluctuated over
the years — the Millstone deal, in particular, was widely blamed for a sudden spike in electric bills
during the summer of 2024 — DEEP has estimated they are likely to save
customers hundreds of millions of dollars over their lifetime.
Similar savings are anticipated from the solar projects
Eversource is seeking to opt out of, Healey said.
“While Eversource has asserted the solar projects cited
in their letter will cost ratepayers hundreds of millions of
dollars, these projects are expected to provide over $80M
in lifetime net ratepayer bill savings,” Healey wrote in an email.
“The gross cost number cited by Eversource is
misleading because it does not count the benefits from energy
sales as well as the market impacts of lower energy and capacity prices.”
In addition to DEEP, Duncan’s letter was sent to leaders of
both parties within the Connecticut General Assembly. The letter also included
a lengthy critique of the state’s current energy policies.
Specifically, the letter compared Connecticut’s approach to
neighboring Massachussetts, where Duncan noted officials have enacted a
statewide Clean Energy and Climate Plan and well as a “roadmap” outlining strategies for slashing the state’s
emissions by 2050.
By contrast, Duncan said Connecticut lacks a clear strategy
for the rollout of its clean energy programs, making it harder for utility
companies to participate.
“This is not to say that Eversource does not have concerns
with the affordability of clean-energy policies in Massachusetts — and it
does,” Duncan wrote in a footnote. “It is clear that energy policy across the
region is at a crossroads where tough policy choices will have to be made in
order to stay aligned with the demands and expectations of customers to have
safe reliable and affordable energy services, while continuing on the
inevitable path of a clean energy transition.”
State Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, questioned Eversource’s
motivation for sending the letter, which he said comes after the company’s
prolonged fight against utility regulators in Connecticut that resulted in last
year’s resignation of former
PURA Chair Marissa Gillett.
“It feels very much like they’re putting their finger on the
scale of the political conversation going on right now,” said Needleman, who
serves as co-chair of the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee. “I
think it’s ill conceived, ill timed, and I’m very concerned about our long-term
partnership with Eversource as utility in the state of Connecticut.”
After this story published Wednesday, Needleman released a
statement noting that in Massachusetts, Eversource can collect a 2.25%
fee on the total value of power contracts selected by the
commonwealth. Connecticut does not allow utilities to collect such a fee.
Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R- Brookfield, said
he thinks Eversource’s decision is understandable, given widespread consumer
backlash over rising electricity prices. Republicans in the legislature have
repeatedly sought to eliminate the public benefits charge by
shifting the cost of those programs onto the state’s budget.
“They’re no angel in any of this,” Harding said of
Eversource. “But I understand their perspective, which is essentially they are
the tax collector for all of the policies coming out of Hartford, and these
[power-purchase agreements] are an example of that.”
Democrats, including Gov. Ned Lamont, have resisted calls to
have the state pay for the public benefits charge, including the cost of
power-purchase agreements, citing its estimated annual price tag of $1 billion.
Later this month, PURA is expected to finalize adjustments
to electric utility rates that could save a typical customer between $26 and $30 a month, as reported by the Hartford Courant.
Much of the expected savings are attributable to the state’s existing
power-purchase agreements, including the Millstone contract, according to the
regulator’s draft decisions.