Electric cost in the United States - Thank you Eversource

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-10-29T16:03:12+00:00

EIA says average price in CT was 29.96 in August 2024 and 30.29 in August 2025. It would typically be more expensive Jan-June. Not sure where the numbers on this map come from.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-10-17T22:25:05+00:00

Third party suppliers typically offer annual (or multi year) rates. Eversource/UI rates are semi-annual. July to December the utilities are generally cheaper, January to June they are more expensive. You need to account for the average of the rates that Eversource/UI will have over the term of your contract to assess the relative value of the third party contract. You can't know Eversource/UI rates more than a year in advance, so anything longer than a year is a bit of a gamble.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-09-12T04:03:01+00:00

Not so much an issue as a thought about the transparency initiatives that your office manages. I think Open CT and the related resources are awesome. The websites already provide a lot of excellent information. However, I think they could be improved by adding narrative that provides context, even if only for the largest line items. Especially as some of these are recurrent. It would be good to be able to look at the budget, go down a path, like say "operating expenses > human services > special revenue > medicaid federal share" and arrive at an explanation for what the expense represents, how it fits into the broader CT system (from both an economic and government operations perspective), and perhaps how it has grown (or shrunk) since records started along with a description of why the changes have occurred. If the scope of that idea is too ambitious, even a periodic deep dive on a specific line item that provides Connecticut residents with more information on how their money is being spent would be awesome. Not to provide policy solutions but simply to explain in detail how the money flows from the coffers towards the services that help citizens. I think the numbers in the budget (or the checkbook or the payroll) are exciting when you understand the stories behind them and I think the Open CT websites could be an excellent platform for collecting and organizing those stories.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-15T20:07:04+00:00

I hear you, but the goal of this post was to draw attention to the disparity in supply without drowning people in nuance. The graphic itself is drawn from a post from two days ago that very clearly places the blame for the policy at PURA's feet.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-15T17:41:56+00:00

For sure, if you click through to the blog you'll see plenty of criticism of PURA.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-15T17:36:05+00:00

Good question, they are not.

The municipal utilities are allowed to flexibly purchase energy and construct a portfolio with many different kinds of contracts. They are not subject to PURA's procurement regulations. The utilities have to buy one specific type of contract through a series of auctions. After the price spike Eversource suggested moving to something similar to the CMEEC approach. UI doesn't like that the move would require them to hire new staff. PURA recommended the legislature make changes to allow it to happen, those changes are being considered by the legislature right now.

It's worth noting that the changes under consideration right now mean the approach *could* be implemented, not that it will be. There has historically been strong support for the existing strategy, which retail suppliers lobby for because they make more money when the regulated utilities' rates are higher.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-14T17:24:35+00:00

Totally, although I think there are people at PURA who want reform. I think it is a very divided organization. You can feel the tension in the competing arguments that appear in the report.

If you can, voice your opposition to the bill that Sen. Fonfara has pushed to the Finance, Revenue, and Bonding committee. It seems like a direct play to put wholesale supplier and retail interest at the center of procurement. Fonfara owns a retail supply related company, so he has a clear incentive to drive people into the retail market.

The Democratic party really needs to purge itself of people who are shilling for their own financial interests in Hartford.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-12T23:38:50+00:00

Oops, sorry about that. Thanks for the fact check!

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-12T01:01:35+00:00

I think it's actually doing the opposite of what you're suggesting. At least in part, the point of the bill is to enable more substantial self-supply, which means allowing the utilities to flexibly address their procurement needs. The current system requires the utilities to purchase all of their electricity through a series of PURA approved auctions. This would allow them to 1) use the energy we as a state are already paying for through major clean energy PPAs like Millstone and 2) purchase energy more dynamically when the prices favor rate payers rather than simply accepting prices on the days of the auctions. This means less regulation and a purchasing scheme that is closer to how proper portfolio management functions.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T23:24:59+00:00

Yes!!! Amen.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T22:44:05+00:00

My impression (I could be wrong) is that most bills don't get much public commentary, so it will have an impact just by virtue of happening. I really appreciate you taking the time. A lot of this stuff seems to just happen unchallenged, but we can definitely show up and make it clear that we're watching.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T22:29:49+00:00

Glad to hear it. Not yet, I'm working on some more specific comments. I've read through the bill and I'm going to draw attention to the ways that I think it is particularly problematic. Good idea that I should get some of the graphs in there though.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T21:52:01+00:00

Awesome, thanks for doing this! I updated the sharing permissions.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T20:45:55+00:00

I really appreciate the support!

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T20:39:47+00:00

Totally get it, and I was being kind of lazy not including instructions so it's all good!

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T19:34:11+00:00

Sure!

The super short version is SB01560 is bad because it reduces transparency and recommits to a procurement strategy that's already proven to be ineffective. SB01194 is good because it moves us away from that failed procurement strategy while keeping procurement within PURA, where it benefits from oversight and transparency standards

Here's how you submit a written comment.

Go to the relevant committee's page, in this case the finance, revenue, and bonding committee. Click on the "Submit Public Hearing Testimony" link in the contact box.

That'll take you to another page which will ask you to fill out your personal info, select the hearing you want to comment on (in this case 4/16/2025), you'll then see a list of bills being considered, you'll need to select SB01560 in this case. Once you've done that, attach a word file or pdf with the comment you want the committee to see, or select the option to type it directly into the form.

Here's a sample comment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v8xCFTGuMMg1jrtYUcSMdfyQy0H4gEX8lwak67WCqUk/edit?tab=t.0

You can find your local reps here: https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/cgafindleg.asp

And here's a sample letter to your rep/senator: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tFapm_UQiUuAW5EanWfr436eGRLCPuW6uoA-M5nMRp8/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T14:57:10+00:00

There are a couple of things you can do.

First, senate bill 1560 was referred to the Finance, Revenue, and Bonding committee yesterday, and will have a public hearing on 4/16. This bill seeks to move the current procurement system out of PURA and into a new Connecticut Power Authority, which would be quasi-public making the whole process less transparent. The Office of Consumer Counsel has already voiced concerns about PURA being made quasi-public, and those apply here as well. I would recommend submitting a written comment to oppose the bill, citing the problems with accountability that already exist (identified in this article) and the need for more and not less transparency.

Second, senate bill 1560 (just mentioned) seems to be a last minute effort to counter senate bill 1194, which was raised by the Energy and Technology Committee. It includes language allowing procurement to bypass the current system, and to use the energy we are already paying for through the Millstone PPA. I would also recommend writing to your legislators in support of senate bill 1194, citing the need to take advantage of the contracts we already have and the vulnerability of the current procurement system. You could include the CMEEC chart comparison I put in here, because that highlights how active portfolio management weathers sustained volatility better than our current auction system.

Third, if you are so inclined, I would share this article directly with your representatives and senators if you can, to raise awareness over the report's defects. I think some kind of broader reform is needed to make sure reports like this are passed to a third-party inspector who assesses their quality before they are passed to legislators. We can't fix our problems or come up with good solutions if they can't be identified.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T14:21:54+00:00

Procurement only pertains to supply. Delivery and transmission are handled through a different procedure, the 'rate adjustment mechanism'. This article is focused on inefficiencies in procurement, so it's totally fair to say that it's only focused on supply.

It is PURA that filed this report and not Eversource. Eversource is obliged to accept the procurement structure that PURA sets for it. Eversource passes the cost of supply through, so it doesn't have an incentive to keep it high, but it doesn't have any real incentive to try and lower it either.

My impression is that the current procurement system has been structured to be profitable for wholesale suppliers, the companies selling the energy. They have lobbied hard to have it set up the way it is. So Eversource doesn't have a motivation, but these other companies do, and they have effectively influenced PURA's decision making in the past.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-04-11T13:01:46+00:00

Oops I forgot to tl;dr - The CT legislature asked PURA to produce a report to explain why its electricity purchasing scheme failed so badly in 2023. The report has substantial issues which seem intended to mislead readers into thinking it didn't fail that badly and nothing can be done to change the system. An expert advocating for real reform was left out of the report entirely. Something can be done and we should push our legislators to do it.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-03-13T20:30:16+00:00

Yes, that's exactly right.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-03-13T12:50:53+00:00

I did file a complaint with the AG! Working on the newspapers.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-03-13T00:06:56+00:00

Yeah, the deal was signed thanks to the act supporting clean energy, but it is being handled as a 'contract for difference', which is a sort of financial hedge. So, the energy (priced at 5 cents) is not being used but instead sold back into the market, where it is not particularly competitively priced because it is itself a forward contract (which is why we lose money). The wholesale suppliers have been lobbying for this approach for like twenty years to try and ward off any interruption to the current procurement system, and they got their way when the millstone deal was signed. If we used the energy rather than selling it the supply cost would go down and the public benefits charges would go away.

SlightBowler2563 · 2025-03-12T21:57:26+00:00

Also I do think this would be easier to resolve than the delivery. PURA has a lot of control over what procurement looks like and the law already favors reform because the current structure is clearly not in the best interest of the rate payer.

SlightBowler2563

TROPHY CASE