Energy and Technology Committee


Bill No.:




Vote Date:


Vote Action:

Joint Favorable Substitute

PH Date:


File No.:


Energy and Technology Committee


This Bill as originally proposed by Senator Formica would provide a mechanism for zero-carbon electric generating facilities to sell power to electric utilities, specifically allowing Connecticut's nuclear facilities to participate.

The substitute language provides a mechanism for this bill combines several bills that were raised by the committee including allowing baseload energy resources to sell power to electric utilities, increase the renewable portfolio standard, require electric distribution companies to solicit long-term contracts for zero emission renewable energy credits and low-emission renewable energy credits for an additional year and allow electric distribution companies to acquire new fuel cell electricity generation.


Testimony of Chair Katie Dykes, Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

Chair Katie Dykes testified on this bill on behalf of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) and provided options.

There is no information available to confirm whether the Millstone units are currently in danger of retirement, and how much ratepayer support-if any-would be needed to retain those units or other existing nuclear. PURA encourages the committee to consider carefully on what basis PURA would be able to determine that such support is necessary, and prudent and reasonable and in the best interest of ratepayers.

The announced retirement of a nuclear generating unit is the triggering event for state action, allowing regulators access to “the books” to confirm forward operating costs, providing assurance that ratepayer support is necessary. If the committee chooses instead to authorize a competitive contracting process, will the competition be robust enough to ensure a reasonable price?

A variety of jurisdictions have considered different approaches to providing ratepayer support to existing nuclear units. These include long-term contracts at a fixed price for energy, capacity, and/or zero carbon attributes from such facilities. In one variation, called a “Contract for Differences,” the utilities sell the energy and capacity back into the wholesale market. Another variation, called “Self-supply,” has utilities keep the energy, capacity, and attributes to supply the state's ratepayers. The self-supply option would affect ratepayers' ability to choose a retail electric supplier other than the utility.

Another option is to establish a clean energy standard, similar to a renewable portfolio standard, is to provide a subsidy to existing nuclear units that are administratively capped at some amount. This may work best if other New England states opt to join in, so that CT ratepayers are not solely carrying that cost of the subsidy.

The committee may wish to authorize a variety of options, to provide flexibility as market discussions mature and litigation proceeds in other jurisdictions. In any event, PURA would welcome the opportunity to provide input to the Committee on regional market context, legal and jurisdictional issues, to ensure that under any legislative mechanism PURA would be able to carry out its responsibility to ensure the public's right to safe, adequate, and reliable utility service at reasonable rates.

Testimony of Consumer Counsel Elin Swanson Katz, Office of Consumer Counsel

Consumer Counsel Elin Swanson Katz Testified in support of the bill as originally written, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC), under further discussion of this concept to determine potential ratepayer benefits of any such mechanisms. In OCC's understanding, zero-carbon electric generating facilities would include nuclear units like those at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, as well as various types of renewable energy facilities, including solar, wind, and hydropower. The bill does not specify whether it is referring to new or existing generation facilities, and so OCC presumes the language could apply to either. Under this presumption, the bill would authorize the existence of contracts between the electric utilities, Eversource (CL&P), and the United Illuminating Company, and zero-carbon generating units that are deemed through some process to provide benefits to the State and customers and either lead to the financing of new units or supporting of existing units.

OCC further presumes that the mechanism referenced in the bill would allow long-term contracts and would permit or promote competitive processes. OCC has been pleased with the generation procurement processes that have been conducted to date by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, in consultation with OCC, the Attorney General, and the Procurement Manager of PURA.


Senator Cathy Osten, 19th District

Testified in support of the bill as originally written, by opening the electric procurement process in Connecticut, we can increase the amount of competition in the market and lower prices for electric consumers. Added competition in the electricity market will also bring much needed long-term stability and access to affordable power in our region.

Representative Melissa Ziobron, 34th District

Representative Ziobron submitted testimony in support of the bill as originally written, stating that while Dominion has done its best to trim costs the premise of Millstone closing is a real one for my family and 1200 other full time employees. Millstone should be something to be proud of, carbon free power for 50% of the production grid. While efforts are being made to help other employers around the state Millstone was hit with an energy tax the last few years. This proposed bill is not a hand out it simply allows the company to compete with other renewable power sources.

Representative Kathleen McCarty, Connecticut House of Representatives

Representative McCarty submitted testimony in support of this bill as originally written. As a resident of Waterford where the Millstone Power Plant is located. The economic well-being of this district, as well as the entire state depends, on the viability of Millstone. Connecticut cannot afford to lose our nuclear power plant for many reasons including, but not limited to, the adverse negative impact a premature closing of Millstone would have on the environment, the economy, and the cost of the electricity in the State of Connecticut.

With respect to the environment, Millstone Power Station supplies 98% of carbon dioxide-free electricity power in the state. It does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide associated with acid rain and smog.

Millstone Power Plant is a powerful economic driver in the region spending over 100,000 million dollars in annual salaries t over 1500 full-time employees, and supporting approximately 4,000 jobs in Connecticut. Millstone contributes $1.5 billion in economic impact to the State of Connecticut. It ranks as one of the 75th largest employers in the state.

This bill should mirror legislation from last session that would provide an opportunity or competitive process through state sponsored competition and oversight for nuclear power to compete with other eligible energy resources to sell power directly to Connecticut consumers. This legislation should not be a subsidy, but rather a means to allow for competition through a bidding process with state oversight.

Director of State Policy in New England Kevin Hennessy, Dominion

Testified in support of this bill as originally written on behalf of Dominion. Last year's legislation was simply enabling. It would have allowed DEEP, the Attorney General's Office, and the Office of Consumer Counsel, to solicit bids from various resources. The language was not prescriptive that they had to choose any of the resources. Moreover, it stated multiple times that a resource could not be selected unless those state officials deemed it was in the ratepayers' best interest. In other words, it was legislation that set up a competitive process to guarantee that retail electric rates would be reduced and depending on the winning resources, the state would also enjoy their environmental and/or economic attributes. Dominion fully supports this new legislation because it is a competitive process to reduce electric prices and meet the state's carbon reduction goals.

Testimony of First Selectman Mark Nickerson, Town of East Lyme, CT

First Selectman Mark Nickerson submitted testimony in support of this bill as originally written on behalf of the Town of East Lyme. In addition to generating 59% of Connecticut's electricity supply with critical round the clock base-load power, Dominion supports thousands of jobs in Connecticut and New England, with almost 4800 in CT alone. The plant also generates approximately $1.3 billion dollars in economic benefits.

Dominion is a good neighbor and community supporter. They have municipal resources to the police force, animal control, and community events in East Lyme the last few years.

Testimony of Vice President Joe Arborio, Arborio Corporation

Submitted testimony in support of this bill as originally written on behalf of the Arborio Corporation. This bill would provide a real benefit to homes and businesses by ensuring more affordable electricity. Changing the solicitation rules to include nuclear would give Connecticut's electric customers direct access, by eliminating the middleman, to a low-cost, reliable, around-the-clock source of electricity.

Additionally, Millstone could continue to operate and supply the significant amount of affordable, reliable, and emissions free electricity that Connecticut has depended on for many years.

If Millstone closes, businesses like the Arborio Corporation will be put in jeopardy, as these types of companies depend on Millstone for electricity and business.

Testimony of Senior Counsel Eric Brown, Connecticut Business and Industry Association

Testified in support of this bill as originally written on behalf of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA), with additional measures being added that would ensure the RFP, or whatever instrument through which nuclear generate electricity is procured, is carefully designed to protect economic viability of the renewable industry.

CBIA believes that this bill is more likely to lower energy costs and improve our competitiveness standing. Some of the CBIA members, however, are concerned that this will not be the case. CBIA supports having provisions added to this bill that ensure the discretionary authority it contemplates will only be exercised if it is in the best interest of Connecticut's electric ratepayers. CBIA suggest the committee adopt strategies to lower energy costs and improve energy competitiveness.

Testimony of President and CEO Dr. Stephen M. Coan, Mystic Aquarium, Secretary Kevin T, Cwikla, Norwich-New London Building Trades Council, and President Mary Jukoski, Three Rivers Community College

Dr. Stephen Coan, Kevin Cwikla, and Mary Jukoski submitted testimony in support of this bill as originally written, on behalf of Mystic Aquarium and Norwich-New London Building Trades Council This bill is a consumer friendly energy policy. Connecticut has pursued multiple competitive processes to serve retail consumers directly. However, to date, these solicitations have been limited in scope. They have only allowed natural gas, large-scale hydro and class I renewable resources the ability to compete. This does not make sense. If Connecticut wants the lowest-cost, longest-term resource that also meets their environmental and economic goals, this solicitation process must be expanded. Broadening the list to include nuclear power, among others, will encourage more competition and lower costs.

Testimony of Ken Driscoll, Solect Energy

Submitted testimony in support of the substitute language on behalf of Solect Energy, with comments. Solect Energy provides the support of the following improvements to this bill:

● A two-year extension of the ZREC program to a Year 7 (2018) and Year 8 (2019)

● Reduce the bid price cap below the current price of $261/MWh

● Mandatory semi-annual solicitations

● Restore ZREC funding in Year 7 and Year 8 to the original (Years 1-5) levels. Lawmakers last year extended the LREC program from one additional year and allowed LREC projects to split the Year 6 ZREC program funding of $8 million. The Year 6 funding for ZRECs is now $4 million, half as much ZREC funding as previous years. If this bill passes, ZREC funding for Years 7 and 8 will be the same as Year 6 (a 50% reduction). We're calling for lawmakers to raise the total funding to $12 M for Year 7 and Year 8. :RECs would receive $4 million and ZRECs receive $8 million which was the original program structure

● Direct PURA to manage a stakeholder process to create the best possible long-term successor program, including consideration of a feed-in tariff

Testimony of President and Chief Nuclear Officer Mark Mills, Zachry Nuclear Engineering, Inc.

Testified in support of this bill as originally written on behalf of Zachry Nuclear Engineering. As it stands now, the competitive process does not provide an opportunity for Millstone to submit a proposal. Zachry believes it is in the state's best interest to restructure the process through this new legislation and allow nuclear power providers to competitively bid.

Including Millstone in the solicitation process would also support the continued operation of this station-a major economic engine here in New England.

Testimony of Nuclear Matters on behalf of Connecticut residents

Nuclear Matters submitted testimony in support of this bill as originally written, citing specific Connecticut residents' support of this bill: Francis Seymour (Roxbury, CT), Joseph Fougere (North Stonington, CT), Christopher Kokis (Monroe, CT), and Paul Barron (Storrs, CT). All parties arguments included support of this bill for its continued emphasis on clean, safe, and carbon-free electricity produced by the Millstone Nuclear Plants. Constituents also support competitive and reasonable rates.

Testimony of President and CEO Tony Sheridan, Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut

Testified in support of this bill as originally written, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut. This bill is a consumer-friendly energy bill that expands solicitation and encourages competition and lower costs. Furthermore, it is important to note that this bill is not a state or ratepayer subsidy. Instead, it establishes a competitive process to derive low cost retail electricity.

Adding additional resource to compete, like nuclear power, should help reduce costs.

Liza Andrews, Director of Public Poly and Communications, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Submitted testimony in support of the bill as originally written, urging its passage as a competitive process to derive low cost retail electricity. Adding additional resources to compete such as nuclear power will help to reduce costs. If Connecticut wants the lowest cost, longest term resources that meet their environmental and economic goals, the solicitation process has to be expanded.

Preston Whiteway, Executive Director, Eugene O'Neill Memorial Theater Center Inc.

Submitted testimony in support of the bill as originally written, as a non-profit they care deeply about the cost of electricity. He feels that this legislation is consumer friendly energy policy to date Connecticut has only allowed natural gas, large scale hydro and class 1 renewables to compete. This doesn't make sense, if Connecticut wants the low-cost, longest –term resource that also meet its environmental and economic goals, the solicitation process has to be expanded to include nuclear.

Adding additional resources like nuclear will help to reduce cost through competition a benefit all non-profit/associations and consumers alike.


Testimony of Senior Attorney and CT Director William Dornbos, Acadia Center

Testified in opposition to this bill as originally written, on behalf of the Acadia Center. Making nuclear power eligible for new ratepayer subsidies could expose ratepayers to significant private sector risk, could undermine energy markets, and is unnecessary. The better approach is to use existing market-based programs, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to support our climate commitments.

This bill should be set aside while other long-term energy planning processes, such as the RGGI program review, of Connecticut's upcoming Comprehensive Energy Strategy, are given the opportunity this year to take a holistic look at market-wide issues, including the role of carbon pricing in shaping the energy mix.

Acadia Center also has important unanswered questions about any ratepayer “mechanisms” potentially on the table here. One example of such a mechanism would be to set a zero-emission credit price for power generated by an in-state nuclear facility. This raises many unprecedented issues.

Testimony of Connecticut Industrial Energy Consumers

Submitted testimony in opposition to this bill originally written. CIEC fully supports efforts to increase system reliability while reducing the State's carbon footprint. CIEC is concerned that the imposition of this bill will unintentionally contribute to an increase in energy supply costs without providing any additional benefits to electric energy consumers.

CIEC asks the committee to consider the following:

● Millstone has two federal licenses to operation, one through 2035 and the other through 2045

● Both licenses are renewable for an additional 20 years

● The $1.3 billion cost for Millstone has been fully paid. No additional infrastructure improvements are required

● The impact analysis on Connecticut and New England from the retirement of Millstone is based on the mistaken premise that it will be shutting down immediately

In its 2nd quarter (August 2016) earnings call, Vice President for Investor Relations Thomas Hamlin said Dominion had no intention of selling Millstone

Dominion has a capacity agreement for its Millstone facility with ISO New England through May 2020 contractually inhibiting the retirement of this power plant

In addition to a standard return on investment, Millstone receives guaranteed capacity payments averaging $150 million a year through 2019

Options are available through ISO-NE to seek Reliability Must Run agreements. The cost of such agreements are spread over all of New England, not just Connecticut

● The proposed legislation could add hundreds of millions of dollars annually to electric bills in this state

● Can Connecticut guarantee that other states in the Northeast would not be able to outbid that set price to obtain a sizable new GHG emissions reduction benefit that would count towards their own climate commitments-thus depriving Connecticut of the same?

● Is there any mechanism that could legally ensure that such GHG emissions credits will only be available to Connecticut?

● How would a set price for zero-emission power interact with existing wholesale energy markets and the current framework of the Federal Power Act?

● What other federal legal issues might be raised?

Testimony of Electric Power Supply Association

Submitted testimony in opposition to this bill originally written. This bill would have the State of Connecticut unnecessarily funnel consumers' money to some electric power resources in the state at the expense of the millions of consumers picking up the tab, the state's other power suppliers including their employees and communities, and the rest of the regional grid upon which the state depends for electricity.

Bills that propose to selectively grant some resources preferential treatment without regard for the impact of doing so on the rest of the power supply system risk highly adverse and likely irreversible consequences. First and foremost, consumers will pay higher prices for the same electricity under the proposed power purchase agreements (PPAs) than would otherwise be the case. More broadly, and at a minimum, investors in resources without PPAs will price more political risk into their decision making. Once investors, developers and plant operators conclude the deck is stacked against them in favor of a few others, even though all compete with each other to be dispatched on a least-cost basis, the damage will have been done. Therefore, informed and prudent policy decisions require a complete analysis of, and appreciation for, all the consequences for all resources and all consumers.

Testimony of Associate State Director for Advocacy John Erlingheuser, AARP

Testified in opposition to this bill originally written, on behalf of AARP. AARP opposition stems from its concern that as presented, this bill will increase electric rates. With among the highest electricity rates in the country, Connecticut can ill afford to adopt a special deal/subsidy which further increases those rates, especially without a full vetting of impact on ratepayers.

The current rules that Dominion and other power generators operate under in Connecticut and throughout New England, are the rules they asked for when the state deregulated electricity nearly 20 years ago. Now that the power rates might slightly improve for the ratepayers, Dominion wants to operate by the rules from the 1990s. They want ratepayers to subsidize additional profits for them without having to disclose any verification of the losses for this request to PURA.

A recent AARP survey showed that 87 percent of voters over the age of 45 feel Dominion should provide their customers and state legislators with financial reports that show a loss in profit before any special deals or subsidies are approved. Additionally, 78% feel funding for any special deal or subsidy should be spread across all of New England states Millstone serves, not just Connecticut.

Testimony of Environmental Consultant Robert Fromer

Submitted testimony in opposition to this bill originally written. It is unfortunate that the committee continues considering legislation for imagined carbon-free electric-power generation to achieve Connecticut's mandated levels for Greenhous Gas (GHG) emissions. This committee should instead focus on the Energy Return on Energy Invested for nuclear power verses the renewables.

Testimony of Executive Director Steven Guveyan, Connecticut Petroleum Council, API

Testified in opposition to this bill originally written, on behalf of the Connecticut Petroleum Council, API for the following reasons:

● Connecticut ratepayers already compensate Millstone for zero-emissions because of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative program

● Energy procurement policies should bring consumers the best prices

● Some facts before the committee are misleading

Millstone is unlikely to close soon

n Millstone is not a “distressed” generation assets and does not deserve special treatment or a government bailout

n Millstone is scheduled to soon receive hundreds of millions of dollars

Testimony of Director of External Affairs Dan Hendrick, NRG Energy, Inc.

Testified in opposition of this bill originally written, on behalf of NRG Energy. This bill would effectively re-regulate the supply of wholesale energy and take us back to the days of monopoly generators who are not subject to competitive pressures for efficiency and pricing, and who have strong incentives to maximize their investments and costs, with Connecticut ratepayers to foot the bill.

This bill is anti-competitive by re-regulating up to half of Millstone's energy output. Millstone would be allowed to bid lower than its competitors and artificially drag down revenues that could then put resources that are currently economic at risk.

Dominion is presenting the General Assembly with a false choice. They have telegraphed that Millstone is facing hard economic times and may be at risk of closure. But ISO-NE has a process to address uneconomic units, as part of the comprehensive wholesale market structure that governs economically efficient entry and exit of generating capacity in the New England region. The critical question to ask is why Dominion seeks to circumvent a proven and transparent process used by other generators, in favor of creating a one-off deal for themselves?

There is no indication that Millstone could shut down any time soon. Millstone is committed to the ISO-NE market through at least May of 2021, based on yesterday's forward capacity auction. There is no indication that Millstone made any attempt to signal its 'price to exit,' despite the dramatically lower price in this auction compared to recent years. Where is the proof that eh plant is not economically viable and in need of any kind of payout from consumers?

Testimony of Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Submitted testimony in opposition to this bill originally written. The precise measures by which this bill would address Connecticut's generation portfolio and emissions of greenhouse gas emissions are as yet unclear. NIRS encourages the committee to take a broad view of state energy planning and policy rather than adopt measure that could direct the state to put its eggs in the wrong basket. Connecticut's economic and environmental goals are far more important that the fate of any one power generator.

In addition, Connecticut is not the only state considering measures to create incentives and financial support for aging nuclear power plants.

● New York-a temporary subsidy for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant was shortened from 3.5 years to two years, in favor of a more affordable transmission system upgrades. A long-term, expensive nuclear subsidy program for Ginna and three other reactors was then adopted in August 2016, to be implemented beginning in April 2017.

● Illinois-legislation to subsidize unprofitable reactors failed through two legislative sessions, before a compromise bill was enacted late last year; the latter included a subsidy for two nuclear power plants, based on the structure of the New York program, but with greater cost controls.

● Ohio-a proposal to provide subsidized power contracts were challenged before the utility commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before being abandoned in 2016.

New York's decision to provide subsidies and incentives to delay the closure of four reactors should therefore be a cautionary tale for Connecticut. The committee should fully examine alternatives and not pre-determine that utilities should enter into long-term power purchase agreements for Millstone's power. The cost and potential of renewables and efficiency are changing too rapidly to warrant locking consumers into a long-term commitment to purchase power from Millstone. Therefore, NIRS recommends the committee consider whether a portfolio of energy efficiency and renewables would be more cost-effective at addressing the state's energy, environmental, and economic development needs, than locking in long-term, expensive subsidies or above-market power contracts with Millstone.

In conducting that assessment, the legislature should also take into account the environmental impacts of nuclear energy. Greenhouse gas emissions are only one type of environmental impact of nuclear energy and electricity generation. While nuclear power plants do not directly consume large quantities of fossil fuels in order to generate electricity, reactors nevertheless have massive environmental impacts and their operations entail extensive environmental risks.

Testimony of Executive Director Tom Swan, Connecticut Citizen Action Group

Submitted testimony in opposition to this bill originally written, on behalf of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG). This bill needs to offer real language as to what the committee is proposing for the second straight year.

Dominion is a highly profitable company to the tune of $1.9 billion in 2016. Nowhere have they claimed that Millstone is not profitable. Connecticut ratepayers should not be asked to subsidize this company, and CT should definitely not weaken its commitment to a renewable energy future by reclassifying what clean energy is. The Dominion financed study claiming economic collapse if the plant were to shut down tomorrow is not a real threat. Dominion has multi-year contracts to provide energy, which means the underlying assumptions are not real, and furthermore, they refuse to open their books to the public to prove a need.

Testimony of UIL Holdings

Testified in opposition to this bill originally written. UIL fully recognizes the value that zero-carbon electric generating facilities provide to CT and the region, but is concerned with certain aspects of the bill. It is unclear whether Millstone, or other existing facilities who are currently receiving revenues in the competitive markets, needs additional financial support. UIL remains concerned about the impact that these above-market payments will have on ratepayers and the negative effects that a long term obligation and financial liability would have on the utility. UIL believes that if a mechanism to provide additional financial support for zero-carbon generating facilities is warranted, a rate mechanism or other regulatory solution can be utilized to achieve the goals of this proposed bill through a collaborated process involving UIL and other stakeholders.

Claire Coleman, Climate and Energy Attorney, Connecticut Fund for the Environment

Submitted testimony in opposition to the bill as originally written, they oppose the attempt by Dominion to redefine nuclear power plants that produce large amounts of highly radioactive waste as renewable energy and compete against renewable technologies. They believe that renewable technologies are in a dramatic expansion phase and pitting nuclear power against them would chill their growth. Instead CT's leaders should be investing in the development of more solar, wind and advanced energy storage.

James Daly, Vice President, Energy Supply

Submitted testimony in opposition to the bill as originally written for the following reasons. First and foremost points out that Millstone has not demonstrated any financial need. New England has the highest priced electricity in the continental US. Millstone's return on investments has been calculated at 25-36%. If Millstone is making less it should open its books and demonstrate a legitimate financial need. He states that Millstone is not a renewable resource nor is it new or incremental. Millstone will not add new capacity to the resource mix necessary for Connecticut to achieve its RPS goals while preventing new resources from being constructed. He believes that there are a number of additional ways Millstone can receive additional compensation through the Forward Capacity Market. It would be incorrect to assume that allowing Millstone to participate in RFPs is the solution to this problem.

Joel Gordes, Energy Security Solutions

Submitted testimony in opposition to the bill as originally written, citing many concerns about the age of the technology that is used to produce nuclear power. In its inception nuclear was coined as to cheap to meter. How do they move from that to begging for a subsidy. He suggests carefully consider any actions that are taken to move to help nuclear ass it may leave CT stranded cost of this technology will never hold up to newer, lower cost decentralized options.

Mark Kresowski, Eastern Region Deputy Director, Sierra Club

Submitted testimony in opposition to the bill as originally written, stating that Connecticut's renewable energy requirements are effective, successful and popular. This bill would undermine many of the benefits that the clean energy can deliver to the region. They believe that the annual goals of a 1% increase in RPS is not sufficient to achieve the levels of clean energy electricity identified as necessary to keep the state on track to reach GWSA targets by

the Governor's counsel on climate change.

Paul Michaud, Executive Director, Renewable Energy and Efficiency Business Association

Provided testimony in opposition to the bill as originally written, they feel that Connecticut already has the disadvantage of having the highest electric rates, providing a mechanism for nuclear to sell power directly to the electric utilities will drive electricity prices above the average marketplace costs and place an additional $275 million annual burden on the state's economy.

Chris Phelps, State Director, Environment Connecticut

Provided testimony in opposition to the bill as originally written, as written the bill intends to establish a mechanism to provide a guaranteed above-market rate for existing generators of nuclear power in the state. Following deregulation in the 90's the ratepayers were saddled with billions in stranded costs and the nuclear industry was a beneficiary of these subsidies.

As proposed SB106 would appear to repeat the mistakes of the past and risk handing a subsidy to Millstone. Rather than doing that Connecticut should be expand the RPS to require 50 percent of the state's electric demand be met by class 1renewables by 2030.

Francis Pullaro, Executive Director, RENEW Northeast

Provided testimony in opposition to the bill as originally written, he feels that instead of providing Millstone additional opportunities the bill should be focusing on strengthening Connecticut's class 1 renewable portfolio. An update to the RPS standards by extending it to 2020 and requiring 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 will give Connecticut an opportunity to concentrate on advancing the next generation of renewables like offshore wind and solar and wind in the state.

Abramo, Frank

Auguste, Elizabeth

Bacewicz, Janice

Barbar Stevenson

Baron, Alfred

Behringer, Fred

Bennett, Kim

Benoit, Georgine

Besaw, Suzanne

Biggins, Kathleen

Binio, Xavier

Bonnett, Lynne

Brennan, Elaine

Bridge, John

Brothers, Harlan

Broughel, Barbara

Burke, Peter

Campbell, Pat

Carroll, Kathleen

Cementina, Cathy

Chudiak, Barbara

Chunis, John

Cook, James

Covill, James

Cox, Thomas

DeGregorio, Joan

Delgreco, April

Derwitsch, Richard

Dooley, Phil

Echelson, Roberta

Farber, Frederic

Feda, Joanne

Feldmann, Carol

Fichter, Edward

Fish, David

French, Christopher

Freygang, Katherine

Furnes, Ken

Gagne, Paul

Gay, Brian

Getsinger, Gretchen

Gilbert, Kimberly

Girty, Brooke

Glenn, Alan

Graves, Royal

Gray, Lewis

Greenberg, Stephen

Hagen, Sara

Hale, Kathryn

Hatch, Joanne

Hayes, Laura

Henrie, Robin

Hetzel, Fred

Heymann, Diana

Hickman, Paul

Hull, Robert

Hutchinson, Nancy

Inaba, Michael

Johns, Ted

Johnson Low, Barb

Karraker, Hugh

Kellogg, Robert

Knox, Tulsa

Kolb, Jane

Lamorte, Laura

LeClair, Irene

Levine, Nahum

Levine, Philip

Libre, Peter

Lion, Robert

Luciano, Tulay

Luzusky, Daniel

Manning, Christel

Martin, Ben

Maurice, Normand

McCall-Kelly, Heather

McCann, James

McCay, Steven

McCord, Kent

McCord, Kimberly

McGuire, Dan

McKee, Timothy

Miller, Susan

Millman, Peter

Morris, Jason

Moxley, Rich

Naden, Judith

Najm, Benedetta

Nauts, Phyllis

Nelson, Jessica

Nettleton, Eleanor

Newman, Joanne

Olden, Sheron

Osborn, Carole

Page-Fort, Ben

Peterson, Lawrence

Petranek, Donna

Pope, Henry

Pringle, Laura

Quijada, Justine

Quinn, Joseph

Ralston, William

Rasch, Patricia

Richard, Mark

Richter, Wendell

Ridge, Gale

Roast, Rosemari

Rossi, Joan

Ruggiero, Alisa

Ryer, Walter

Sachdeva, Marion

Samodai, Eszter

Sherman, Julia

Shirkani, Kim

Siskind, Jennifer

Smith, Gary

Sopchak, Michael

Sosin, Victor

Spalluto, Lawerence

Sparer, Allen

St. Amour, Matt

Stampleman, Jed

Stassola, Nicholas

Susco, Sarah

Szarwak, Wendy

Taylor, David

Tetro, Mery

Tischofer, Susan

Tulman, Maria

Van Heurck, Jan

Van Zant, Sandra

Vannini, Kathleen

Veiders, Christina

Veklund, Carol

Vener-Saavedra, Patricia

Vennell, Jeff

Ventura, Christine

Vining, Pete

Walden, Jeffrey

Wallace, Alexander

Walser, Rich

Washer, Louise

Weiner, Ethan

Whittles, Jayne

Windhom, Elizabeth

Windhorn, Edward

Wood, Susannah

Worth, Jim

Woznicki, Catherine

Zander, Rod

Zolvik, Kim

Angelus, Joshua

Submitted testimony in opposition to the bill, they believe that this bill would adopt a scheme to further increase their electric rates. This bill would allow Dominion to get significantly higher prices for the power they generate for Connecticut. It would also subsidize their profits without any financial disclosure to the rate payers or the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.

Nancy Burton, Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone

Submitted testimony in opposition to the bill, stating that the present proposed bill does not demonstrate that Connecticut is friendly to business, as some legislators have told the news media. It demonstrates that Connecticut is friendly to Dominion but unfriendly toward the health, safety and welfare of its residents and businesses devoted to safe, sustainable green energy. The bill also intends to vest in DEEP the power to award

Dominion with profitable long-term contracts for sales of its electricity.

DEEP has a conflict of interest. It is allowing Millstone to operate on a long-term basis on an illegal water discharge permit.

Reported by: Mark Severance

Date: 04/04/17