Sen. Harding: “People have had enough” of high electricity bills

Anger over electric bills could drive CT voters on Election Day, GOP says

Hartford Courant front page

Frustration at Connecticut’s electricity rates spiked in July as bills increased with air conditioners running full blast on high-humidity days. But though temperatures and electric bills have fallen, anger about the increased charges has remained high.

With three weeks left before Election Day, Republicans and Democrats disagree over whether electricity rates will be a major issue in driving voters to the polls on Nov. 5. Depending on their views, voters often head to the polls on issues like inflation, the overall economy, abortion, the war in Ukraine, and the state of democracy as Vice President Kamala Harris battles in a tight race against former President Donald J. Trump.

But state Republicans say that electric costs have resonated with ratepayers as a key issue because they arrived simultaneously with the impacts of inflation on consumer prices.

“It is the biggest issue that I’ve run into when speaking to voters,” said Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield. “Every day that I door-knock, every time I go to an event, I can’t speak to three or four constituents without the electric rates being brought up. People have had enough. … Most voters want to see some effort to do something. We had an ability in a special session to stop the bleeding. On top of that, we can provide some immediate relief. At least it’s something. We should not dismiss it the way the Democrats have dismissed it.”

But Gov. Ned Lamont and the Democrats who control the legislature say the complicated electricity issue cannot be solved overnight with a simple solution.

House Speaker Matt Ritter, a Hartford Democrat, said the state has so many business and residential electric customers that it would be highly expensive even to provide a small amount of relief.

“It would take hundreds of millions of dollars to save the average person $5 on their bill, and it would appear as a credit,” Ritter told The Courant in an interview. “If you need an election issue because you’re trying to turn attention away from the national stuff, you can certainly mention this, but it would literally save people five dollars. I don’t think it’s a smart play.”

Since the reimbursement would be a credit instead of a rebate check, Ritter said, “It would be lost in the bill. People wouldn’t even notice it.”

He added, “When the facts come out, it’s not as simple as saying the Democrats are running amok, and the Democrats are to blame.”

But House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said the electric rates have become part of a broader conversation about the cumulative impacts of rising prices on consumers.

“People’s grocery bills, their car insurance, and their taxes have gone up,” Candelora said Monday. “The Democrats have never answered to it, and they’ve been running a campaign of anti-Trump and pro-abortion for the last eight years. … It’s become a very partisan issue where the general public is recognizing that Democrats don’t want to lower electric rates and Republicans do. And that’s why I think it could be a winning campaign issue for Republicans.”

Concern about the electric rates skyrocketed with the humidity in July and remained high during August. But the issue has gotten less attention as the temperatures have dropped in the fall.

Democrats openly scoffed at the size of a rally outside the state Capitol in mid-September, saying they saw plenty of Republican staffers and legislators and not too many ratepayers.

Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney of New Haven and majority leader Bob Duff of Norwalk, both Democrats in the chamber where they hold a majority of 24 to 12, pointed to the small crowd size.

“The only thing smaller than the turnout for this political stunt is the handful of dollars the Republican bailout of utility companies will save ratepayers,” the senators said in a joint statement. “Democrats will do what we always do: roll up our sleeves, govern, and work to make life better for the people we serve.”

Candelora responded, “It was sort of an amusing remark. It was a bit snarky. The issue that they don’t understand is people can’t afford to take off from work and drive to the Capitol on a work day. Politicians make themselves look tone deaf with remarks like that, and they frankly put their party in peril by ignoring the working class in Connecticut.”

Public benefits charge

A major issue that has generated complaints is the public benefits charge that is separate from the supply costs that spiked in July.
“We used more electricity in July than we ever have before in the history of July,” Lamont told reporters last month in his Capitol office.

But it’s the public benefits charge — being paid over 10 months to cover a deal with the Millstone nuclear power plant and also unpaid bills for customers who avoided shutoffs for four years due to the coronavirus pandemic — that has raised public ire.

On Facebook, a group has been formed that is called “Ban Public Benefits Charge Eversource/UI CT” that says it has 19,300 members.

“Everyone in this group that understands the importance of your vote for this election needs to reach out to your senator and state rep for your district,” one member posted. “Voice your concerns and ask them how they plan to help fix this. When you get your response, you will know who to vote for. I guarantee, no matter what party you are registered for, you will be enlightened on this issue and how it’s being handled. Then, volunteer for the campaigns for the candidates going to bat for us, that are truly fighting this for us. Put yard signs out, make calls for them, knock on doors. … This is how we can come together and fix this problem.”

Millstone represents 77% of the current public benefits charge and the other 23% pays for various bipartisan programs and recovering charges from the four-year moratorium in which the utilities were blocked from shutting off various customers that started during the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition, state utility regulators approved a plan for Eversource and United Illuminating to be repaid about $3 per month per residential customer — depending on their level of usage — in the public benefits charges for their costs in the electric vehicle charger program. That became effective on Sept. 1 and will last until April 30.

The largest portion of the fee, the Millstone costs, dates back to a deal the state cut with Millstone in 2017 to ensure that the then-ailing complex would remain open after the owners had threatened to close the station. In return, the state has kept a reliable supplier of electricity that has been crucial in a deregulated electricity system.

The Millstone costs, which started on July 1, will continue as part of a 10-month payment period that some advocates had pushed to be spread out over 22 months to avoid a rate shock. But state utility regulators rejected that idea recently in a 2-1 vote.

Republicans are calling for permanently removing the public charges from the electric bills and to instead have them paid through the $26 billion annual state budget.

Their plan also calls for using unallocated federal coronavirus money to help cover “the costs associated with electric vehicle charging programs and provide additional rate relief to ratepayers to the maximum extent possible as funds allow.”

But lawmakers have complained for six months that they have been unable to receive an accurate calculation of the amount of federal money that will be available.

“We have state employees that literally are tasked with the mission of following this money on a daily basis,” Harding said. “How we can’t generate an answer or at least an answer that’s relatively close to the penny is puzzling and frustrating and somewhat troubling to me, to say the very least.”

Harding, who voted against the Millstone deal in 2017 when he served as a member of the House, dismissed the notion that the system is so complicated that legislators can make only minor changes around the edges that would save relatively small amounts for consumers.

“You can basically trivialize the idea of providing $5 of relief or $10 of relief, but voters want to see some effort to do something,” Harding said. “In some households, when they’re balancing that budget at home and trying to pay this ridiculously expensive electric bill, sometimes that $5 or $10 can make a difference. Any amount of relief, I think the voters would appreciate.”

Anger over massive CT electric bills will drive voter choices on Election Day, GOP says