The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters held its annual environmental summit last week with hundreds tuning into discussions on the Transportation and Climate Initiative and the controversial plan to build a natural gas power plant in southeastern Connecticut.

Here is some of what we heard from elected officials, state regulators and environmental activists.

Lamont, Dykes Target Planned Power Plant

Gov. Ned Lamont (D) did not pull his punches in expressing his opposition to NTE Energy’s proposed 650-MW gas-fired Killingly Energy Center.

“I don’t want to build Killingly; I’m not interested in building Killingly, and I’m not sure the market will say that we need Killingly,” Lamont said. “The question is, what can I do about this?”

The plant received siting approval and is going through the permitting process. The project is “a lot of the way down the road” according to Lamont. He said playing “some games” with permits could slow things down, but the market itself could dictate the plant’s future.

“Look, electric usage is flat to down. … I’m not quite sure where the market is going to come out on this,” he said.

Lamont did concede that there is a “slight benefit” that Killingly could provide “relatively cleaner” energy as opposed to a coal-fired power plant, but “I’m not positive you’re going to see Killingly built at all.”

When asked if the lawmakers can do anything to stop the Killingly, House Speaker Matthew Ritter (D) said, “probably not.”

“The reason I say that is because I haven’t even been approached about that yet, which leads me to believe that there are people who would be concerned about the legality of [legislation],” Ritter said. “People can certainly research it, but my instinct is that this one is now at the administrative level. We need to make sure we’re very clear about what we’re committed to doing, how we’re going to meet our [clean energy and decarbonization] goals.”

Katie Dykes, commissioner for state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said she hears from people “every day about their concerns about this gas plant.” Dykes added that outside of the established permitting process, “we have to change the system … if we want to achieve our broader transformation and decarbonization goals, and we’re doing that by working” to change ISO-NE.

Dykes referenced Lamont and the four other New England governors, who released a joint statement in October calling for reforms to the RTO, saying it is frustrating their efforts to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions. A subsequent vision statement  listed changes the states seek to ISO-NE market designs, transmission planning process and governance. (See States Demand ‘Central Role’ in ISO-NE Market Design.)

Online public technical forums are underway in all three areas. (See ISO-NE, NEPOOL to Kick off State Technical Forums.)

“It’s really important. This is a generational opportunity,” Dykes said. “We have to transform our grid and make sure that we can get the clean energy resources that we need to achieve our goals.”

Dykes added, “with every concern that I’ve heard from folks about this power plant, it’s redoubling our efforts to make this system-wide change if we want to prevent future projects like this from coming forward or much older, much dirtier plants from operating longer than is necessary.”

Focus on TCI-P

Charles Rothenberger, climate and energy attorney for Save the Sound, sought to counter misinformation he said is being spread about the memorandum of understanding  Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and D.C. signed in December to launch the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P), which aims to cut GHG emissions from vehicles by 26% from 2022 to 2032. (See NE States, DC Sign MOU to Cut Transportation Pollution.)

From top left: Katie Dykes, Connecticut DEEP; Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont; and Lori Brown, Connecticut League of Conservation Voters | Connecticut League of Conservation Voters

TCI-P is a cap-and-invest program that will require large gasoline and diesel fuel suppliers to purchase allowances for the pollution and later to auction them, which officials said will generate $300 million for yearly investments in less polluting transportation. Each year, the total number of emission allowances would decline.

Rothenberger said the challenge of needing to rapidly decrease emissions “at a much quicker and steeper pace to meet medium- and long-term mitigation targets” will not be successful without a focus on transportation.

In Connecticut and throughout the region, transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately 38% of the total.

Rothenberger said there is “a lot of work to be done” to develop the rules that will govern the regulatory structure.

He said the hope is that Connecticut lawmakers will pass legislation this year and that the regulatory rulemaking and early reporting period can both be in place by January 2022 as a trial run for the tracking and accounting of emissions from the regulated fuel sources. The first formal compliance period begins in January 2023.

Rothenberger added that there is already “inaccurate and false information” about TCI-P making the rounds.

“It’s important that legislators know the actual facts and have the relevant information about how the program works, and its benefits,” he said.

One of the “absolutely not true” elements circulating is that TCI-P a Trojan horse for raising the gas tax.

“There is no tax, gas or otherwise, in sight,” Rothenberger said. “It’s a cap on emissions, and individuals, wholesalers, primary fuel suppliers that are bringing fuel into the state and participating jurisdictions will need to purchase auctioned emissions allowances. It’s shifting the cost of pollution on to the suppliers of the pollution producing fuels.”

Rothenberger said it is possible that fuel suppliers “may pass some portion of those costs on to consumers, which is “clearly their decision.”

“But there’s no state tax component to this whatsoever, and the program has modeled the most conservative scenario in which 100% of the compliance costs would be passed on to consumers by the fuel suppliers that indicates there may be at most a 5-cent increase in gas prices at the pump,” Rothenberger said.

Ritter said that although he has discussed TCI-P with Gov. Lamont, “rank-and-file legislators” might only have “an inkling” about the program. “So, there’s a real education gap, including for me,” he said. He added that lawmakers need to understand better “what Connecticut’s commitments are” and not construe it as a gas tax.

“It’s a silly notion, but you have to explain this to people and get the education out because I don’t think the average legislator is familiar,” Ritter said. “The good news is … we have a lot of time to get there and explain it, and I’m confident that when we explain what it does, how we’re working with our neighboring states … we will be able to make a compelling case.”

Ritter Speaks

Ritter, a six-term legislator serving his first term as speaker, said that although the COVID-19 pandemic will prevent a regular legislative session in 2021, advocates need to continue to reach out to legislators to signal their support or opposition to potential bills. He said virtual lawmaking is a slower process, and as committees prioritize bills, some items could be pushed off to the 2022 session.

“Every week since January we’ve had a member in our caucus positive with COVID,” Ritter said. “If we are in session and somebody tests positive, or staff tests positive, at any given time, we could be on a 14-day hiatus from the state capitol building. So, keep that in mind, no voting at all. If that happens in late April or early May, it takes up a lot of session days. You’ve got to think about the worst-case scenarios.”