Connecticut’s gubernatorial race is producing three distinct approaches to one of the state’s most expensive problems: electricity.
Gov. Ned Lamont focuses on utility accountability. Democratic challenger Josh Elliott targetsmonopoly control and promotes public-power alternatives. Republican Ryan Fazio addresses public-benefit charges, natural gas supply, renewable mandates and other government-imposed costs embedded in electric bills.
Their sharpest disagreement is over natural gas, and that disagreement matters. New England remains heavily dependent on natural gas while lacking sufficient pipeline capacity to obtain it affordably when demand peaks.
Lamont’s proposal is largely silent on whether Connecticut should expand or restrict natural gas infrastructure. Elliott calls for ending state support for natural gas expansion and adopting a binding transition plan off the fuel. Fazio takes the opposite position, calling for more pipeline capacity, additional gas-fired generation and opening the Killingly natural-gas plant.
Three Candidates, Three Approaches
Lamont points to the 2020 Take Back Our Grid Act, the Millstone nuclear contract and recent reductions in public-benefit charges as evidence of progress on electricity costs. His new proposal would require the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to weigh affordability when setting rates and utility profits, regularly review utility franchise rights, require cost-benefit analyses before major infrastructure investments are charged to ratepayers, strengthen the Office of Consumer Counsel, and limit excessive profit margins.
Those ideas have merit. Utilities should justify major spending before passing it to customers, and monopoly franchises should not be permanent regardless of performance. But Lamont’s plan concentrates on the companies delivering electricity. It says relatively little about state mandates, energy contracts, subsidies and regional supply constraints that shape the cost of power before Eversource or United Illuminating sends a bill.
Elliott goes further against the existing utility structure. He proposes amending eminent domain lawto allow municipalities or the state to acquire utility infrastructure at book value rather than market value, supports easier formation of municipal utilities and state-backed financing for towns seekingto purchase distribution infrastructure.
Those proposals raise legitimate questions about monopoly power, but public ownership does not automatically produce lower rates. A publicly owned system can still be expensive if it must buy costly power, finance politically selected programs or comply with mandates unrelated to affordability.
That problem becomes more serious when paired with Elliott’s proposal to end state support for natural gas expansion. His plan offers more solar, heat pumps, microgrids and underground lines but leaves a foundational question unanswered: What affordable and reliable resource replaces natural gas, and when will it be ready?
Fazio focuses more directly on the charges, mandates and supply policies behind the bill. He proposes eliminating the Public Benefits Charge, ending or sunsetting most of the programs it funds, moving any remaining necessary programs into the state budget, expanding natural gas pipeline capacity, opening the Killingly plant, revising or ending the Renewable Portfolio Standard and limiting above-market electricity contracts. He also proposes ending subsidies for EV chargers, heat pumpsand data centers.
Fazio’s plan also anticipates continued obstruction from New York, calling for legal action if New York blocks pipeline proposals supported by Connecticut and for working with the federal government to protect the state’s interests under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Of the three candidates, he is the only one whose plan includes an explicit legal response to New York’s pipeline restrictions. Achieving his promised 20 percent reduction would depend on the savings, timing and implementation of each proposal, but his plan addresses costs that tougher utility regulation alone cannot reach.
The Pipeline Blockade New England Still Pays For
A recent Boston Globe op-ed by Ken Girardin of the Manhattan Institute explains why natural-gascarries such weight.
New England is still paying for former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to block natural-gasinfrastructure into the region. The Constitution Pipeline, a proposed 124-mile project designed to carry gas from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region to existing pipelines serving Massachusetts and Connecticut, received federal approval but was ultimately blocked when New York denied a required water-quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
The certification process is intended to address effects on water quality, such as sediment disturbed when pipelines cross streams and wetlands. In this case, however, it functioned as a practical veto over interstate energy infrastructure.
Blocking the pipeline did not reduce New England’s dependence on natural gas. It left the region more reliant on constrained infrastructure that becomes especially costly during peak demand, andcreated environmental contradiction in the process.
When winter demand rises and pipelines cannot deliver enough gas, dual-fuel power plants switch to oil. During a prolonged cold outbreak from January 23 through February 10, oil supplied 22 percent of New England’s electricity and the region burned approximately 111 million gallons of fuel oil. A policy intended to restrict fossil-fuel infrastructure left the grid more dependent on a dirtier fuel precisely when demand was highest.
The consequences extend beyond electric bills. Limited gas transmission has led utilities in parts of Massachusetts to suspend new hookups, complicating housing construction. High energy costs threaten manufacturers competing against businesses in regions with cheaper fuel. New England has even resorted to compressing natural gas in Pennsylvania and trucking it north at a substantialpremium, not a coherent energy strategy, but an expensive workaround for infrastructure the region declined to build.
Connecticut Is Not Powerless
New England states have two possible responses. They can press Congress to prevent Clean Water Act certifications from functioning as a backdoor veto over interstate energy infrastructure. They can also challenge New York in federal court, though that would require a viable legal theory, standing and a specific permitting dispute to anchor the case.
Connecticut does not have to treat New York’s obstruction as a permanent condition. The state could work with other New England governors and attorneys general, participate in federal permitting proceedings, support projects that advance Connecticut’s interests and press Congress or federal agencies to clarify the limits of state authority over interstate infrastructure.
This is where the three plans diverge most consequentially.
Lamont’s utility reforms could improve oversight of the delivery system but leave the regional fuel bottleneck untouched. Elliott would move Connecticut further from natural gas even as New England already struggles to obtain enough of it during peak demand. Fazio calls for expanded pipeline capacity and a legal response to New York obstruction, the approach that most directly addresses the regional supply problem, though it would still require cooperation from other states, federal approvaland a workable litigation strategy.
Affordability Requires the Full Picture
Yankee Institute’s energy affordability paper argues that sound energy policy should be judged by total system cost, not by the appeal of individual technologies. The paper compares New England’s renewable-energy path with alternatives relying more heavily on nuclear power and natural gas. It argues that policymakers must evaluate generation, transmission, storage, backup power and reliability as one system.
Renewable projects are often assessed by their individual generation costs, but intermittent resources typically require additional transmission, storage and dispatchable backup. Electrification increases overall demand, while restrictions on natural gas raise fuel costs and can leave power plants more dependent on oil during peak periods. Connecticut frequently debates utility profits, renewable mandates, public-benefit programs, electrification and transmission as separate issues, but their costs converge on the same electric bill.
The same affordability standard that applies to utilities should apply to government. If utilities must prove that major grid investments are cost-effective before passing them to customers, policymakers should be required to do the same for renewable mandates, offshore wind contracts, storage requirements, EV subsidies and heat-pump programs. Connecticut should require every major mandate, procurement and subsidy to include a standardized public estimate of its effects on electric rates, peak demand, transmission needs, backup generation and reliability.
The Public Benefits Charge is the clearest example of a reform within reach. If lawmakers believe a social, environmental or energy program deserves public funding, they should place it in the state budget and defend it openly. Moving the cost would not eliminate it, but it would prevent government programs from being buried in electric rates and attributed entirely to utility behavior.
Lamont is right that utilities need stronger scrutiny. Elliott is right that monopoly power deserves examination. Fazio is right to focus on the government-imposed costs and the regional fuel shortage. But Connecticut will not solve its electricity problem by debating only who owns the wires.
The central question is which combination of energy resources can deliver reliable electricity at the lowest total cost. That standard, not political preference, should be the foundation of Connecticut’s energy policy.
