Ansonia Mayor David Cassetti
ANSONIA/DERBY – On Sept. 17, The Valley Indy emailed the candidates in the 104th state House district race a series of questions regarding recent electric rate hikes in Connecticut. Below are Ansonia Mayor David Cassetti’s responses to those questions.
Click here for a summary of the candidates’ responses.
Click here for responses from Democratic nominee, state Rep. Kara Rochelle.
Click here for responses from Independent candidate, Tom Egan.
Note: responses from the candidates were lightly edited for style. The content of their responses was not changed.
VIS: Why did electric rates this year spike for many consumers? Have they spiked in the 104th?
Cassetti: Residents of the 104th got an unpleasant surprise when they saw a dramatic increase in their electric bills. I’ve gotten many calls from Ansonia and Derby residents who just can’t afford it, and are beside themselves as to how to budget for the increase. I’ve seen some with a $500 to $700 monthly bill! Yet here’s the really unpleasant truth: the increase is the result of the higher cost of doing business in our state, a consequence of the policies endorsed by my opponent and her colleagues in a one-party controlled State House. Connecticut has one of the highest costs of doing business in the United States – high taxes and fees. This high cost has now been passed down to ratepayers.
VIS: What actions will you, if elected, take to ensure stable, affordable rates for ratepayers in your district?
Cassetti: First, as a matter of emergency relief, surplus ARPA funds should be used to mitigate the impact of the obscene rate increase. At the very least, the State should have already taken action to protect our most vulnerable ratepayers: seniors and those with disabilities. Unfortunately, my opponent has refused to join the call for a Special Legislative Session to move on such a solution. In the long term, however, the only way to address this problem is to bring the costs of doing business in Connecticut down. My opponent does not want to go back to a special session, or to even have a conversation about what is driving up the costs. People want their legislators to act today and that is what I would do! They can’t afford to wait.
If changes are not made, we can expect more and more additional costs to flow downhill to ratepayers. In my view, that is unacceptable, and a big reason I am running for state Representative.
In addition, instead of having the ratepayers pay for the public benefit charge, we should make this subject to the scrutiny of the budget process and if the legislature thinks that these are important goals (environmental and social) then let the legislature find a way to pay for it. Connecticut also has to address long term costs such as power purchase agreements which subsidizes renewable and green energy projects. While I believe CT should have a healthy portfolio of green energy, the state should not procure, in large amounts, energy that costs significantly more than the wholesale price of energy in the market. Want clean and new energy, but it should be capped and the ratepayer should be taken into consideration first and foremost.
VIS: Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Republican, wrote in an op-ed that most of the public benefits charge should be eliminated. He wrote: “The 15 different programs (included in the charge) include subsidies for the unpaid bills of customers from the state’s four-year ‘shutoff moratorium’ to various subsidies for energy producers and several other programs.” He argued these programs should be either eliminated or “vetted.” Do you agree with Sen. Fazio’s proposal? Why or why not?
Cassetti: The State was right to protect ratepayers during the pandemic. However, the costs of the shutoff moratorium should properly have been paid with ARPA funding or state budget surpluses, not passed down the line to already struggling ratepayers. This short sightedness has compounded the pain for ratepayers grappling with an already challenging economy. The state needs to readjust its thinking: prioritize on minimizing costs to residents, instead of just spreading them around.
VIS: The Millstone energy deal began as a Republican-led initiative in 2017, which passed with narrow bipartisan support. According to Gov. Lamont, 78 percent of the public benefits charge is connected to that deal. Is he correct? Was the Millstone deal a mistake? If so, whose mistake is it?
Cassetti: Again, the problem is not with the Millstone energy deal (which saved 1,500 jobs) but with how it was paid for. The State Legislature could have explored cutting costs to offset the cost of the Millstone deal, but since January 2023 have refused to consider cutting 15 consumer fees and taxes that would have saved $280 million a year, or $210 dollars for the average family. The State Legislature also continues to decline exploring a task force to investigate the ways that the state’s large utilities purchase power from producers.
It’s almost as if the State Legislature – and my opponent – are stuck in a single gear, driving cost increases forward to CT residents. It’s time to throw things in reverse and reduce those costs.
The Millstone energy deal avoided billions of dollars in cost to potentially replace the power generated by Millstone. Imagine what the costs would be to replace Millstone with something like offshore wind which is 15 cents/kwh v. 5cents/kwh if Millstone were to shut down? Again the ratepayers would suffer.
VIS: In 2020, your opponent voted for the “Take Back Our Grid” Act, which established performance-based rate and executive pay regulations, and required credits to be given to residential consumers during power outages. Does this bill do enough to combat rate-hiking? If not, what gaps does it have?
Cassetti: Once again, my opponent is stuck in a single gear, driving price increases forward to residents. And there is a good reason the take back the initiative is being opposed by unions like the IBEW. This initiative will spike costs by destroying local jobs. ‘Take Back the Grid’ will involve losing jobs, outsourcing local work to out-of-state contractors.
When we lose jobs to out of state contractors, the ratepayers suffer once again. Also it’s great to provide payments based on performance, but ultimately utility costs are what they are regardless of whether or not there are performance based incentives. And utility costs are a direct result of state policies. That is the true reason why rate increases occur. The state dictates what the utilities will do and those costs are passed down to our ratepayers. ‘Take Back Our Grid’ has a catchy name that sounds good, but people are outraged over the public benefit costs and those are due to the state transitioning to electric charging stations and vehicles, the EB program, etc. Ultimately the legislature sets the expectations for what the true costs will be.
