State Rep. Kara Rochelle
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 state Rep. Kara Rochelle’s responses to those questions.
Click here for a summary of all candidates’ responses.
Click here for responses from Republican nominee, Ansonia Mayor David Cassetti.
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?
Rochelle: This is a simplification… a professor could easily write a 100 page research paper on CT’s electric rates and how we got here. There are many reasons, including deregulation in the 90’s. The two main reasons that rates spiked in the immediate are usage (July saw record heat) and the energy market (wholesale energy prices are high right now). When energy was cheap our bills were lower, and this fluctuates due to many external forces.
To get into some of the complexities I am providing the following information on the rate increase:
- About 77% of that public benefits increase is the result of Public Act 17 – 3, which was a Republican-led deal that requires Eversource and UI to purchase power from the Millstone power plant. This was passed before I took office, I would have voted no on it. It was a flawed bill, and we are paying for it now.
- The legislation required the state’s electric distribution companies, Eversource and United Illuminating, to enter into power purchase agreements with the only remaining nuclear power plants in New England, Millstone and Seabrook in New Hampshire. This was flawed because Connecticut shouldered the burden on this deal, despite the fact that multiple states benefit from Millstone remaining open. Had it been properly shared, this portion would have been reduced by about 2/3.
- This year we passed a law that will require at least two other states to buy power from a nuclear facility (Millstone). When the Millstone contract ends this new rule will benefit the rate payers by sharing the costs with other states ratepayers. Republicans had an amendment to strip this savings opportunity out. We shot that down and passed the bill which requires shared costs with other states, instead of CT ratepayers shouldering it alone.
- Around 23% of the increase is due to assistance programs like the Low-Income Discount Rate that was championed and voted on almost unanimously by both Republicans and Democrats in the Take Back Our Grid Act (sec 5) and unpaid bills during the COVID moratorium for those suffering from financial hardship.
- The moratorium did not preclude people from being on a payment plan. The moratorium prevented those that did not pay from being shut off. Since the moratorium has been lifted, utilities are able to shut people off and return to some of the pre-Covid collection practices.
- Regarding the shut off moratorium, it is worth noting that in 2023 the Energy & Technology Committee and nearly all committee democrats and republicans voted for a bill to extend it. The moratorium was not debt forgiveness. If a customer did not pay their bill, they are in arrears (debt). That debt stays with them, it is not forgiven.
VIS: What actions will you, if re-elected, take to ensure stable, affordable rates for ratepayers in your district?
Rochelle: We need to seriously scrutinize the incredibly high pay CEO’s and utility execs are getting…in many cases many millions of dollars per year. Often they receive additional compensation while ratepayers see their bills go up, which is wrong. I think these private companies owe the ratepayers an explanation.
There is no doubt that next session this will continue to be a high priority issue and we will be looking at impactful policies that will aim to lower rates. I am committed to reviewing all of the programs under the public benefit charge to see if there are ways we can lower costs. The bottom line is we need long term solutions and not gimmicks, otherwise we will be back in the same place in July.
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?
Rochelle: Republicans are not being transparent with their remarks on the public benefits portion of the bill. Public benefits have always existed, they were just hidden in your bill. Now that they are in a separate category, combined with the heatwave this summer, this portion was higher than normal. Many don’t realize the public benefits portion includes items like the Millstone deal, driving the majority of the increases. I do not agree with the Republican proposal because it doesn’t go far enough, I support an “all of the above” approach to review all aspects of the bills people are receiving, and all aspects of how we can crack down on these companies.
Reiterating: Regarding the shut off moratorium, it is worth noting that in 2023 the E&T (Energy and Technology) Committee and nearly all committee Democrats and Republicans voted for a bill to extend it. The moratorium was not debt forgiveness. If a customer did not pay their bill, they are in arrears (debt). That debt stays with them, it is not forgiven.
This year we passed a law that will require at least two other states to buy power from a nuclear facility (Millstone). When the Millstone contract ends this will benefit the rate payers by sharing the costs with other states ratepayers. Republicans had an amendment to strip this savings opportunity out.
VIS: Some Republicans have called for a special session in the state legislature to reimburse ratepayers for the hike in their public benefits charges. Your opponent said on Facebook that “unfortunately, our current state representative doesn’t feel this way.” Do you think a special session in the legislature should be called? Why, or why not?
Rochelle: Their plan may get ratepayers what would amount to a $8 rebate (average) but not solve the real problem….and could make the problem worse. I want real, long-term rate relief for residential and business customers. Removing public benefits from bills is something we will look at during the legislative session…their idea of including public benefits charges in the state budget looks more like a sleight of hand than honest reforms, and would mean the taxpayers would pay in a different way (through taxes instead of their electric bill). There is a word for the Republican plan: pandering. We need to explore more creative and meaningful solutions that bring costs down, not shift them around, and that have more than an $8 impact and give real relief, which is why the Republican call for an immediate special session doesn’t seem genuine or effective.
VIS: You said on Facebook that you have “co-sponsored legislation such as the ‘Take Back Our Grid Act,’ aimed at hardening the state’s electric grid.” The CGA page for that bill does not list you as a co-sponsor, though it does show you voted for it. Were you referring to that bill in your statement? If not, what legislation were you referring to?
Rochelle: I am a proud co-sponsor of the Take Back our Grid Act. I co-sponsored the original draft of the bill. I also co-sponsored SB 7 in 2023 (PA 23 – 102) AN ACT STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONS FOR CONNECTICUT’S CONSUMERS OF ENERGY which aims to provide energy predictability, affordability, and transparency for ratepayers.
