NEEDLEMAN CALLS OUT EVERSOURCE FOR ABANDONING SOLAR CONTRACTS THAT COULD SAVE RATEPAYERS $80 MILLION

Today, State Senator Norm Needleman (D-Essex), Senate Chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, issued a statement calling out Eversource following its decision to refuse to finalize several solar power purchase agreements.

The Connecticut Mirror reported Wednesday that Eversource rejected the projects despite, according to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, being part of the bid review process. DEEP stated Eversource did not raise objections until after contracts were finalized despite DEEP projections finding the new solar capacity would save Connecticut ratepayers up to $80 million in their lifetime.

“Eversource participated in the entire bid review process for these projects while the state sought to procure clean energy generation to support its power grid, only to then reject them when contracts were finalized,” Sen. Needleman said. Eversource has no objections to sign contracts for the very same projects in Massachusetts it rejects in Connecticut. That’s not a good faith action – it’s a corporation throwing its weight around to nullify state policy.”

United Illuminating agreed to support projects developed in its coverage area.

Eversource claimed the projects would cost more than $200 million in the next 20 years, but DEEP believes this is inaccurate, stating Eversource’s findings omit proceeds from energy sales and clean energy’s impact on wholesale electricity sales over the term of the contract.

“The state says these projects will save ratepayers tens of millions of dollars over the course of the contracts. Eversource says they will cost ratepayers hundreds of millions. That’s a notable discrepancy that raises alarming concerns.”

Eversource’s agreements with Massachusetts allows the company to gain a fee worth at least 2% of the value of the contract for the cost of attaining the procurements. Connecticut energy policy does not allow for any add-ons.

“Is Eversource working with Massachusetts and not Connecticut because only one state gave them additional money? It feels as though the corporation is fighting for profits more than the best interests of Connecticut ratepayers. Its recent decision raises more questions than it answers and makes its intentions unclear.”