Seduction: “to lead astray.” There is a move afoot to seduce Connecticut energy rate payers. An energy strategy that includes “all of the above” initially sounds like common sense. “More natural gas means lower prices” at first glance appears to make sense. And “we need more gas g eneration” continues the myth that Connecticut doesn’t have enough power. Let’s kick the tires on these seductive arguments. Seductive falsehood 1 – “All of the above” is the answer to lower energy costs. “All of the above” is really a move by the non-renewable energy industry and its supporters to add more nuclear and natural gas to our generation mix. Love it or hate it, the Millstone nuclear reactors provide a significant chunk of Connecticut’s electricity. Some have gushed over the possibility of adding small nuclear reactors (SMRs). However, no legislator as of this writing has proposed siting such a reactor in their district. At the current time there are no SMRs in the U.S. China, Russia, and India have a total of three of these.  So we can give a tepid “maybe” to the potential to SMRs in our state. But even if we started today, we are talking a decade or more to bring this technology online. Natural gas (mostly methane) is already 55% of New England’s generation mix.  The war in Ukraine showed us how volatile the pricing can be for this internationally traded commodity. The chart below from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows just how volatile a “natural” gas future might be and, maybe more importantly, that regardless of fluctuations, the price has been steadily rising despite increased production by the US. The increase of exported gas to global markets through pipeline expansion has driven prices steadily higher. Natural gas itself is a volatile commodity. Gas expansion brings another factor into the discussion – namely capital costs.  At $10 million or more a mile, proposed expansion will run into the billions of dollars. The recently completed Mountain Valley Pipeline in West Virginia cost nearly $20 million per mile. On top of pipeline cost there are compressor stations, maintenance, replacement of old pipes, and repairs after accidents. Gas infrastructure lasts for decades and so do the costs. We need to think carefully about any expansion. New England states have ambitious goals to reduce gas consumption and so expansion of the natural gas infrastructure will leave us with “stranded costs” (more colloquially called “holding the bag”) and a much less resilient planet. It is instructive to look at Texas. Texas is seeing large electric load growth (much larger than Connecticut) and has generous incentives to build natural gas generation.  But even in Texas, natural gas plant proposals are beginning to drop out of the queue for economic reasons. Doug Lewin, who writes the Texas Energy and Power Newsletter is quoted saying “The reality of the situation is that it takes a long time to build gas,” …“And the costs are spiraling upwards…not just like in line with even high inflation.” Seductive falsehood 2: We need more electricity generation in CT No, we don’t. In 2023 Connecticut generated 47.3% more power than it consumed. Demand for electricity will go up, but we have time to accommodate the increase. Furthermore, we have tools to lower demand (conservation, demand response, and local renewable generation) while at the same time bringing more utility scale renewables onto the grid and electricity from other states. Additionally, battery storage installations are allowing utilities to support renewable growth and improve grid resiliency. The only reason we would need more electricity in the short term is to entice big data centers to come to CT. But unless they are bringing their own paid-for power source with them, why would we want that? Data centers consume massive amounts of energy while only providing a relatively small number of long-term jobs. We’ve kicked the tires on these seductive arguments. They don’t hold up.  Fortunately, there is a better way. A better way forward First, in the short term (next five years) Connecticut rates would improve as load growth increases. Additional load (EVs, heat pumps, manufacturing, population growth) means more sales from which to recover fixed costs and necessary infrastructure upgrades. Properly managed load growth is a good thing. Second, Connecticut’s current energy problem is not an aggregate issue – it is a temporary peak issue. Winter peak will be an issue. Summer peak has always been an issue. The solution isn’t to build a system that remains unused for most of the year.  The solution is to cost-effectively meet those peaks. Battery storage, demand response, and maybe even fossil fuel stockpiles – are more cost-effective ways to meet a peak. Third, Connecticut has enormous potential to be more efficient. Our old building stock can be improved and lower demand forever. To generate more power to meet an inefficient load is like running more water because our bucket has holes in it. How about we just patch the holes in our energy bucket? Connecticut ratepayers don’t need to be seduced. We need to think about today and tomorrow and make sustainable energy choices that will secure our economic and environmental future. Bernard Pelletier is Vice President of People’s Action for Clean Energy. ...read more read less