Memo
To:   

The Next Governor of Connecticut

From:   Acadia Center
Date:   November 2018
Re:   
  
  

Strengthening Connecticut’s
economy, competitiveness, and   
overall quality of life.

Message:
The next governor can revitalize Connecticut
by modernizing transportation and energy
through five reforms that will unlock significant
new economic, consumer, and public health
benefits for our state.

TRANSPORTATION

GENERATION

BUILDINGS

GRID

CHOICE

 Building a Stronger Connecticut
Memorandum to the Next Governor - November 2018

Overview: The Next Governor Can Revitalize Connecticut By Modernizing
Transportation and Energy
The next governor of Connecticut faces an exciting opportunity: to use proven transportation and energy
reforms to revitalize and strengthen Connecticut’s economy, competitiveness, and overall quality of life.
The next governor can seize this opportunity by pursuing five reforms.

1. Modernize our transportation infrastructure to improve safety, access, and convenience;
2. Transition power generation to cheaper, cleaner, and more resilient local sources;
3. Improve energy performance in buildings to reduce costly energy use and emissions;
4. Reform energy grid rules to reduce high energy costs and speed energy innovation;
5. Give communities and consumers more control over their energy choices.
These reforms will unlock significant new economic, consumer, and public health benefits for our state. For
instance—modernizing transportation only—could produce over $6.9 billion in new economic benefits, add
14,900 new jobs, and create $3.7 billion in public health and other benefits.
Remaking the transportation and energy systems must be a core part of Connecticut’s new economic strategy.
Newly-unleashed investment and innovation will drive economic progress, improved quality of life, and more
equitable benefits for all residents and communities. More detail on the five reforms follows.

1. Modernize Connecticut’s Outdated
Transportation Infrastructure to Improve
Safety, Access, and Convenience

operating costs, congestion delays, and accidents.1 Approximately four out of every five miles of Connecticut’s major
roads are in mediocre or poor condition.2 More than 300
Connecticut bridges have been rated structurally deficient.3

The Transportation System and
Current Challenges

Improve Transportation Access and Equity: Transportation options must be expanded and improved in communities that remain underserved and overburdened by
the current system, delivering more affordable, accessible
options and reducing the disproportionate impacts of local
air pollution. Traffic congestion continues to worsen in
Connecticut’s major urban areas, costing approximately
$2.4 billion annually in lost time and wasted fuel.4 Despite
recent progress, public transportation in Connecticut
remains significantly underfunded, resulting in major
service cutbacks and inadequate statewide access.5 Public
bus transportation is either limited or non-existent in 70
Connecticut towns.6

Connecticut’s transportation system—its network of highways, trains, public transit, airports, ports, and walking
and biking corridors—is vital to the state’s economy. It
facilitates the movement of goods and connects people to
jobs, shopping, recreation, and other services. However,
the system needs critical improvements to address three
major challenges and better serve the state’s communities
and businesses.
Update Transportation Infrastructure: The state’s transportation infrastructure and transit options need substantial
investment to create a safe, modern, and resilient system.
Connecticut’s aging and deficient roads and bridges cost
drivers about $6.1 billion annually through increased vehicle

Reduce Transportation Emissions: Transportation is
the largest source of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”)
emissions, which must be reduced for the state to meet its
2

 Table 1: Investment Portfolio for Connecticut’s
Proceeds from New Emissions Policy 14

climate goals.7 Inefficient and outdated transportation infrastructure greatly contributes to public health problems,
particularly in congested, often lower-income, neighborhoods. Transportation is the primary cause of nitrogen
oxide (“NOx”) pollution in Connecticut—emitting about
67% of this local air pollutant.8 NOx leads to ground-level
ozone and smog, which can trigger asthma attacks, among
other public health harms.9

Possible
Investment
Portfolio

2019-2030
Total Revenue
(millions)

Average
Annual Revenue
(millions)

EV & Charging Infrastructure
Rebates

56%

$1,374

$114

Rapid Transit (Bus & Streetcar)

20%

$491

$41

Intercity Rail (Trains & Commuter
Rails)

10%

$245

$20

Walking & Biking Infrastructure

8%

$196

$16

Port Electrification

6%

$147

$12

Total

100%

$2453

$204

Connecticut

Major Benefits from New Policy
Approach to Transportation Emissions
A safe, modern, and clean transportation system
would offer transformative benefits to Connecticut’s
economy. By capping transportation GHG emissions
and auctioning allowances—much like Connecticut already does for GHG emissions in the electric
generation sector 10 —the state could generate
about $2.45 billion in new revenue between 20192030. That revenue could then be reinvested in the
transportation system to target certain modern
improvements, as demonstrated by the sample
portfolio shown in Table 1.

consumer options. By 2030, investment guided by this
sample portfolio could result in:
• About 460,000 electric vehicles—17% of the passenger
vehicle fleet—as well as associated charging infrastructure,
aligned with Acadia Center’s EnergyVision 2030 recommendation for reducing GHG emissions 45% by 2030.15 This
level of annual support would also align with Connecticut
meeting its commitment to electrify about 155,000 passenger
vehicles by 2025 under the Multi-State Zero-Emission
Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding;

Acadia Center has examined the benefits of transportation reforms in other states 11 in order to
estimate some of the new economic activity and
other monetary benefits that would be generated
if Connecticut invested in cost-effective transportation improvements focused on expanding
consumer access and reducing emissions. These
economy-wide benefits would include:

• Over 350 electric buses and their charging infrastructure
to expand CT DOT’s service and replace aging and polluting
diesel vehicles; 16

• Creation of about 14,900 long-term jobs (in other
words, not project-related construction jobs);

• Construction of two small streetcar systems, similar in
scale to the proposed New Haven Streetcar; 17

• Over $2 billion in new wages,12 primarily from
newly-created jobs;

• Over 700 miles of new walking and biking trails throughout the state to add new capacity and complete existing
gaps in regional trail networks;18

• $6.9 billion in new business sales, resulting from
project-related spending, spending of new wages
in the local economy, and spending of cost-savings
generated by lowered transportation expenses;

• Electrification of ports throughout the state, including
electric shore power investments and electrification of
drayage equipment;19

• Nearly $3.7 billion in other benefits, including
fewer hours spent in traffic and improved health
outcomes, as well as $86 million in savings from
avoided costs of GHG emissions.13

• Commuter rail enhancements throughout Connecticut.
Improving Connecticut’s transportation system will require
a suite of complementary policies. Valuing carbon emissions from transportation, potentially through a regional
cap-and-invest program,20 would complement other policies by generating revenue for reinvestment in significant
transportation improvements. These improvements would
allow the system to better serve the public while creating
new jobs and attracting and retaining businesses.

These benefit estimates flow from a sample portfolio of
transportation improvements that focus on clean electric
vehicles (“EV” or “EVs”), transit, and other mobility options.
This portfolio has many benefits for Connecticut. For
example, electrifying passenger vehicles, buses, and port
equipment will improve air quality and reduce operating
costs for vehicle owners and taxpayers. Expanding rail,
bus transit, and walking and biking will reduce travel in
single-occupancy vehicles, improve mobility, and expand

The next governor should act quickly to put a price on
transportation emissions to reap the many benefits and
accelerate progress to a more modern, equitable, low-carbon
transportation system.
3

 2. Transition Electric Generation to Cheaper,
Cleaner, and More Resilient Local Sources

equal to the amount of electricity consumed annually by
Connecticut—almost 29,000 gigawatt hours in 2016—
significantly more than even the generation capacity of
the state’s lone nuclear power plant.26

The Electric Generation Sector and
Current Challenges

Chart 1: Annual Offshore Wind Potential
and CT Electricity Consumption

Our modern world depends on electricity to power essential
needs—lighting, cooling and heating, motors, and electronics.
Connecticut is no different. Electric power is at the core of
its economic well-being and quality of life. Improvements
to Connecticut’s electric generation sector are necessary,
however, due to several pressing challenges.

35,000
30,000
NY area

25,000

GWh

Strengthen Energy Independence: Electric generation in
Connecticut (and the New England region) continues to rely
heavily on an imported fossil fuel, natural gas, for power
production—roughly 49% of electric generation in 2016.21
This makes Connecticut’s economy vulnerable to market
conditions largely outside of its control, such as electricity
price spikes caused by natural gas supply constraints in
the winter.22

20,000
15,000

MA.RI
area

10,000
5,000
0

Nearby Offshore
Wind Leased Areas
Generation Potential
(MA, RI & NY
combined)

Grow In-State Clean Energy Industries: Connecticut needs to protect and expand its in-state clean energy
industries to maximize long-term economic growth and
better compete with neighboring states. Offshore wind
and rooftop solar are the two most promising clean energy
resources for maximizing economic impact in Connecticut,
as discussed in more detail below.

Milstone Nuclear
Plant Generation,
2016

CT Electricity
Consumption,
2016

Source: BOEM, EIA

Major Benefits from New Policy
Approach to Wind Power

Reduce Electric Generation Emissions: The electric
generation sector remains a significant source of GHG
emissions, despite recent strong progress.23 To meet its new
clean energy and climate commitments, Connecticut will
need to deploy more renewables at a faster pace, primarily
rooftop solar and offshore wind.24

With three deep-water ports and a skilled manufacturing sector, Connecticut is well-positioned
to launch its own offshore wind industry. An
offshore wind build-out at the scale required to
meet Connecticut’s clean energy and climate goals
would provide a major boost to Connecticut’s
economy and skilled labor market. Acadia Center
has estimated that if Connecticut were to pursue a
build-out of 2,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030,
it would produce the following benefits:

Accelerate the Electric Generation Sector
Transition to Boost the Economy
With clean energy and its zero-emissions performance now
competing with fossil fuels on cost,25 the time is right for
Connecticut to move faster on local power supply options
that are cheaper, cleaner, and more resilient than imported
fossil fuels. The economic rewards would be immense. Investing in local clean power—primarily offshore wind and
rooftop solar—means prioritizing economic growth and job
creation in Connecticut.

• Over $3 billion in new economic growth for
Connecticut, primarily from construction activities
as deployment at this scale would probably take
place in phases over the relevant timeframe; 27
• At least 4,000 new jobs, primarily focused in
the skilled trades and concentrated in Connecticut’s
shoreline economy around its deepwater ports,
which means more high-paying jobs for
New London, Bridgeport, and New Haven;28

Offshore wind and rooftop solar both represent immediate
opportunities for strong and sustained positive economic
impact in Connecticut. As carbon-free power, offshore wind
has incredible potential in Connecticut and the region.
Good wind speeds, shallow water and close proximity to
population centers make it a nearly ideal grid-scale renewable resource. The federal offshore areas currently available
for leasing have an annual generation potential roughly

• Significant long-term utility bill savings for
Connecticut’s electric ratepayers, likely in the range
of several hundred million dollars based on a bill
savings analysis performed by Massachusetts for
its recent offshore wind bid selection.29

4

 Ramping up the in-state solar industry would also boost
Connecticut’s economy and job market. Distributed solar,
which includes rooftop and other small-scale solar, is a key
part of Connecticut’s important and growing clean energy
economy. The industry currently employs about 2,170
people in Connecticut—11% more than in 2015.30 Distributed solar also gives Connecticut residents and businesses
another way to control their energy use and reduce high
energy costs.

Vermont has installed four times more distributed solar per
person than Connecticut, and Massachusetts nearly two
times more per person.32 These higher deployment rates in
nearby states indicate that Connecticut’s in-state solar industry could expand, if supported by effective solar policies.
Connecticut’s current deployment rate will not be sufficient
for meeting its climate goals, as Acadia Center has modeled
through its EnergyVision 2030 project.33 Connecticut will
need to more than double its current annual rate of distributed solar installations to stay on track through 2030.

Major Benefits from New Policy
Approach to Solar Power

Chart 2: Solar Deployment Per Capita in
New England

Doubling the installation work of the existing
in-state solar industry would help Connecticut’s
economy. Acadia Center has estimated that increasing distributed solar installations to about 160 MW
annually—an achievable target based on current
installation rates in other New England states—
would result in:

Cumulative Watts (Nameplate Capacity) Per Capita

450
400
350
300
250
200

• Approximately 1,960 new jobs in Connecticut,
with that employment level sustained through
2030; 34

150
100
50
0
CT

MA
2013

ME
2014

NH
2015

RI
2016

• Increased personal income of at least $216 million, which means greater spending power and
more in-state economic activity; 35

VT
2017

Source: ISO New England DG forecast data & US Census

• About $13.6 million annually in new state tax
revenue (personal income and sales taxes) generated
by new jobs and economic activity.36

Yet Connecticut can do much more to take advantage of
distributed solar’s economic benefits. Connecticut lags
other New England states in its pace of deployment.31

To capture the full economic potential of rooftop solar and
offshore wind for Connecticut, existing policies will need to
be changed to maximize cost-effective deployment of both
resources. New solar laws put in place in 2018 will need to
be revisited. Both industries will need clear, sustained policy
support through 2030. The next governor of Connecticut
should move quickly to prioritize these two in-state clean
energy industries by giving them central roles in economic
development strategy.

Chart 3: CT Annual Distributed Solar
Installations Versus 2030 Climate Target

200

Annual Megawatts Nameplate Capacity

180
160

3. Improve Energy Performance in Buildings
to Reduce Costly Energy Use and Emissions

140
120
100
80

The Building Sector and Current Challenges

60
40

To advance Connecticut’s economic well-being and quality
of life, improving energy usage in buildings must play a key
role. The poor energy performance of the many aging buildings in Connecticut burdens household budgets, business
competitiveness, and public health. Unnecessary energy
consumption in our buildings makes our energy system

20
0

2014

2015

2016

2017

Annual needed
through 2030

Source: ISO New England and Acadia Center’s EnergyVision 2030

5

 more expensive and increases pollution emissions. Two major
challenges exist for the building sector, and solutions to each
are available that will help boost Connecticut’s economy.

(“C&LM”) programs—Connecticut now risks falling behind
nearly all other states in New England on efficiency.
Two factors have driven this concerning reality. First, most
states in the region have committed to, and implemented,
more ambitious energy savings targets than Connecticut.
Second, the two-year legislative diversion of approximately
$117 million in ratepayer funding for electric efficiency will
decrease energy savings substantially in our state.41 Chart 4
illustrates these two points.

Increase Commitment to Energy Efficiency: Connecticut
needs to give more residents and businesses access to its
award-winning, high-quality energy efficiency programs by
increasing energy efficiency savings targets to match those
in leading states, among other policy reforms. Connecticut
invests in cost-effective electric efficiency at roughly half
the levels pursued in Massachusetts and Rhode Island (see
Chart 4).37 Energy efficiency program funding must also be
fully restored and protected by undoing the ongoing legislative fund raid imposed in late 2017. The energy efficiency
industry employs more than 34,000 people,38 but those jobs
and the health of that industry overall have been imperiled
by the severe fund raid.

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont have been
obtaining significantly more electric efficiency savings than
Connecticut for several years now. Due to the current fund
raid, 2018 will see a major drop in Connecticut’s electric
efficiency performance—a drop sufficient to place our state
at, or close to, the bottom of the New England region.

Move to Clean Heating Technologies: Connecticut’s
building sector relies heavily on fossil fuels for its heating
needs—for instance, 35% of Connecticut households use
natural gas and 45% use fuel oil or propane.39 This overreliance on imported fossil fuels ends up costing Connecticut
consumers roughly $1.2 billion annually.40 Converting the
building sector to more affordable clean heating technologies is now possible with recent advances in performance
and cost reductions. Heat pumps are the most promising
of these newer technologies—offering highly efficient
performance, consumer savings, and zero on-site emissions.

This drastic loss of efficiency savings has serious repercussions
for Connecticut’s consumers, economy, and environment.
It makes power more expensive. Connecticut residents,
businesses, and municipalities will pay approximately $275
million in higher utility bills if the full two years of the fund
raid are not undone.42 The economy will also lose ground.
Because the efficiency programs produce $7 in economic
growth for every $1 they spend on cost-effective energy
efficiency, Connecticut will sacrifice an economic boost of
approximately $889 million—again, if the fund raid remains in place.43 Connecticut communities will also suffer
increased local air pollution, as an additional 1.6 million
gallons of oil will be burned annually.44

High Building Energy Performance Unlocks
Significant Benefits

The next governor of Connecticut must help restore efficiency as a core economic and energy strategy by moving
to undo the current fund raid in early 2019. Combined with
setting higher efficiency savings targets, this could unlock
immediate economic, consumer, and public health benefits
for our state. For example, Acadia Center has estimated that
just one year of full investment in electric efficiency would
give the following boost to Connecticut’s economy:

Energy efficiency is at a critical moment in Connecticut.
Despite good progress made over the last two decades
through Connecticut’s energy efficiency programs—
officially named the Conservation and Load Management

Electric Efficiency Annual Savings as Percentage of Sales

Chart 4: Electric Efficiency Savings Levels
in New England

Major Benefits from New Policy
Approach to Energy Efficiency

3.5%

• $1.8 billion in economic growth from increased
efficiency services, upgrades, renovations, or
retrofits provided to thousands of residents and
businesses;

3.0%
2.5%
2.0%

• Over $ 1.1 billion in important consumer and
energy system benefits, such as customer bill
savings, water savings, less strain on the energy
grid, and reduced pollution compliance costs;

1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
MA
2015

RI
2016

VT
2017

ME

2018 planned

CT

2019 planned

• Approximately 13,000 jobs, primarily in
Connecticut’s building performance industry,
but also jobs created by new household and
business spending.

NH
2020 planned

CT 2018 planned savings due to fund raid
Source: Acadia CLEAN Center Analysis using data from: Electric Efficiency Program Administrator
Annual Reports, Plans and State Efficiency Database. 2017 actual results and CT planned savings are
preliminary. 2017 Burlington Electric savings (~5% of VT) are planned.

6

 Other states in the region have moved to seize these valuable
benefits to improve their economies and competitiveness.
Connecticut needs to do the same.

tons of CO2 over the fifteen-year life of their heating equipment, more than half of which could have been avoided if
heat pumps were installed instead.48 In Connecticut alone,
1,343 new homes were built with natural gas heating.49
The cost to ratepayers of connecting these new homes to
gas distribution infrastructure was about $23 million.
Almost all of this new cost could have been avoided with
heat pumps.50

Clean Heating and Cooling for Buildings –
Electric Heat Pumps
Thanks to advances in technology and significant cost
reductions, electric heat pumps have become a new tool
for heating and cooling buildings more efficiently while
reducing emissions.45 Heat pumps extract heat from either
outside air or the ground and move it into a building to heat
it. An air conditioner is a type of heat pump that moves
heat from inside a building to the outside to cool it; heat
pumps simply reverse this process during the heating
season and can now efficiently function even in cold
Northeastern winters.

Speeding the switch to clean heating technologies will
require strong policy support from the next governor.
Working in combination, several reforms will help expand
the heat pump market in Connecticut: increased consumer
awareness and education, improved market and customer
strategies for manufacturers, distributors, and installers,
advancements in heat pump controls and other related
innovations, and specialized incentives and financing to increase consumer uptake. Helping residents and businesses
switch to clean heating technologies could also be a focus
of Connecticut’s energy efficiency programs, if changes are
made to the rules governing those programs.

Heat pumps are also far more efficient than traditional electric resistance heating and, with today’s electric generation
mix, provide immediate GHG emissions reductions. Currently, heat pumps reduce emissions about 70% compared
to oil heat and about 60% compared to natural gas.46

4. Reform Connecticut’s Energy Grid Rules
to Reduce High Energy Costs and Speed
Energy Innovation

Annaul GHG Emissions (Metric Tons) for Heating a Typical Home

Chart 5: Comparison of Emissions from
Heating Technologies

The Energy Grid and Current Challenges

8

The rules and regulations that drive the decision making
for Connecticut’s energy grid are out of sync with technological advances and consumer expectations for a clean,
reliable energy system. Local energy resources like energy
efficiency, rooftop solar, and energy storage are superior
tools that can solve grid problems—instead of relying only
on building expensive, traditional infrastructure projects.
Sophisticated metering technology can support innovations
in how consumers pay and are paid for electricity, rewarding
them for optimizing their energy generation and consumption. Updated rules, planning processes, and financial
incentives can enable the adoption of technologies critical to
meet 2030 and longer-term emissions reduction targets.

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Oil

Propane

Natural Gas

Current
Mix

Primary
Scenario
2030 Mix

Accelerated
Scenario
2030 Mix

Electric Heat Pumps
Source and Notes: Acadia Center

High grid costs in Connecticut also need to be addressed.
Residents, businesses, and municipalities pay not only for
the electricity they consume, but also for the energy grid
infrastructure that delivers it—basically, the poles and
wires of the electric system. For residential customers in
Connecticut, this grid cost dominates the retail price of
electricity. Half of the price of one kilowatt hour of electricity
goes to paying for the grid infrastructure that delivers that
electricity to the customer.

As generation grows cleaner, emissions from heat pumps
will continue to decline. Installing heat pumps today
creates a “renewable-ready” infrastructure that will take
advantage of a cleaner energy grid as renewables continue
to come on line at a faster rate.
An immediate opportunity for accelerating heat pump
deployment in Connecticut is in the residential new construction market. In the four more urbanized states in the
Northeast—Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and
Rhode Island—83% of residential new construction over
the last five years was heated by gas or propane.47 The
homes built in 2017 alone will emit about 2 million metric

These high grid infrastructure costs are a burden on
Connecticut’s consumers and communities. Any effort
to reduce energy costs in Connecticut must include serious
examination of all major cost components of the retail
price of electricity, not just energy supply.
7

 The next governor should pursue a package of energy grid
and utility reforms that will modernize the grid, provide better
options for consumers to control their energy costs, advance
grid and utility innovation, and significantly reduce pollution
emissions. These reforms would help bring down Connecticut’s high grid costs, alleviating a significant financial burden
on Connecticut’s residents, businesses, and communities.

Chart 6: Major Components of Retail
51
Electricity Price in CT

Eversource CT Residential Price Per Kilowatt Hour

5. Give Communities and Consumers
More Control Over Their Energy Choices
45%

50%

The Current Challenges for
Connecticut Communities
5%

Any effort to revitalize Connecticut must focus on its communities—where we live, work, and play. Energy system
reforms have an important role here too. Communities
want more control over their energy options because they
are on the front lines of creating a sustainable, low-carbon
economic future. Unfortunately, state policies and outdated
rules often prevent community action on energy. Current
barriers in Connecticut include:

Energy
Combined Public Benefits Programs
Grid Infrastructure
Source and Notes: Eversource CT Residential Rate 1. Monthly customer service charge
not included.

Reforming Grid Rules Results in Real Benefits
to Consumers

Community Energy Codes Not Allowed: A community
energy code, or stretch code, allows a community to adopt
more stringent energy conservation provisions than those
required by the base state building energy code. No stretch
code exists in Connecticut and communities are not allowed to adopt policies more stringent than the state code.53

Creating a more affordable, customer-centric electricity
grid of the future for Connecticut will require wide-ranging
reforms.52 Consumers need to be protected and given more
opportunities to participate in clean energy. Energy grid
planning and stakeholder processes need dramatic improvement. The utility business model and incentives
must change to be better aligned with policy goals. And
consumers need more granular price signals for both energy
consumption and generation.

New Construction Requirements Lacking: Connecticut
building code does not require that new homes be “EVReady” or “Solar-Ready”, meaning that they are built to
allow these technologies to be added later more easily, if
desired by future homeowners. This effectively blocks
communities from preparing their new housing stock for
the cleanest transportation and energy technologies.54

Pursuing these reforms will be worth it, however, because
they can result in real benefits on many fronts, but especially
for consumers and the broader economy. Examples from
Acadia Center’s grid reform efforts include:

Community Choice Aggregation Not Available: Community Choice Aggregation (“CCA”) allows communities to
pool residential, business, and municipal electricity load
and then purchase and/or develop clean electricity on
behalf of customers participating in the CCA program. State
law does not currently authorize CCA in Connecticut.55

Major Examples of New Policy
Approach to Grid Rules
• Decreasing high fixed monthly charges for over
1 million residential electric utility customers in
Connecticut, which will encourage efficient consumption of electricity and help alleviate energy
cost burdens for low-income customers;

Empowering Communities Will Help
Revitalize Connecticut

• Helping create a new regulatory framework
through the Rhode Island Power Sector Transformation Initiative and rate case settlement that will
lead to a more efficient grid, a cleaner and cheaper
energy system, and a utility business model that
helps advance the public interest;
• Winning the reversal of an anti-solar fee, or
demand charge, in Massachusetts that would
have unfairly penalized households that chose to
install rooftop solar.
8

The next governor needs to empower Connecticut’s communities to lead the way on energy innovation. Rooted in
their immediate surroundings and championed by respected
neighbors, local energy initiatives have great capacity to
change behavior, establish new norms, and advance local
clean energy options. The fixed scope of local projects often
translates into lower hurdles for implementation and a
more straightforward evaluation process. Community-based
action that successfully demonstrates innovations in energy
efficiency, distributed generation, and smart energy management can be scaled up to the state level and provide a crucial
backstop to federal rollbacks. Connecticut communities need
to be at the center of any state energy planning and reforms.

 Conclusion: Transportation and Energy Reforms Build a Stronger Connecticut
The five transportation and energy reforms described in this memorandum can open a new, bold future for
Connecticut—one that is prosperous and innovative, economically vibrant, and healthier for Connecticut’s
people and communities. Over and over, the facts show that the opportunity to transform Connecticut is real—
billions of dollars in economic growth and thousands of new jobs are within reach. By putting key transportation
and energy policies in place, the next governor can help our state revitalize its economy, compete for businesses
and talent, attract the next generation to its towns and cities, and attain a high quality of life for its residents.
Acadia Center is eager to begin this crucial work with the next governor.

acadiacenter.org • info@acadiacenter.org
21 Oak Street, Suite 202, Hartford, CT • 860-246-7121, ext. 204
Boston, MA 617-742-0054 • Hartford, CT 860-246-7121 • New York, NY 212-256-1535
Providence, RI 401-276-0600 • Rockport, ME 207-236-6470

References
1 See TRIP, Connecticut Transportation By The Numbers: Meeting the State’s
Need for Safe and Efficient Mobility (May 2017) (http://www.tripnet.org/
docs/CT_Transportation_by_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_May_2017.pdf),
p. 1 (summary of key transportation facts).

NH Capital Corridor Rail Expansion; the RI South County Commuter Rail
Expansion; the Cincinnati Modern Streetcar; the Downtown Los Angeles
Streetcar; Bus Rapid Transit in Madison, WI; Rural and Small Urban Transit
Systems in ND; Bus Expansion for Greenville Transit Authority in SC;
Biking and Pedestrian Trails in NC; and NREL’s National Economic Value
Assessment of Plug-In Electric Vehicles. Further detail available upon
request.

2 See id.
3 See TRIP, Preserving Connecticut’s Bridges: The Conditions and Funding
Needs of Connecticut’s Aging Bridge System (September 2018) (http://www.
tripnet.org/docs/CT_Preserving_Connecticut_Bridges_TRIP_Report_Sep
tember_2018.pdf), at p. 1 (executive summary).

12 Note that new wages are a subset of new business sales.
13 See U.S. EPA’s social cost of carbon methodology.

4 See Connecticut Transportation By The Numbers, supra, at p. 6.

14 Benefits will vary based on the final investment portfolio developed
with stakeholder input; this analysis is intended to show the scale of the
opportunity for Connecticut.

5 See Connecticut Association for Community Transportation, The Reality
of Failing to Fund Transportation (2018) (http://www.cact.info/documents/
FINAL2018TheRealityofFailingtoFundTransportation.pdf), at p. 2.

15 See http://2030.acadiacenter.org. This number of electric vehicle
rebates assumes CHEAPR program levels of $3,000 for long-range battery
EVs and $2,500 for shorter range battery electric vehicles and plug-in
hybrid EVs. It also assumes a $2,000 incentive for L2 EV chargers and
$20,000 for DC fast chargers. The National Renewable Energy Lab estimates that 338,200 workplace and public L2 and L1 chargers will be needed
per million EVs; this analysis considers 80% of these chargers will be L2.
NREL also estimates the need for 470 DCFCs per million EVs. See https://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/66980.pdf.

6 See Connecticut Association for Community Transportation,
Connecticut’s Connections: Shaping the Economy Through Transportation
(February 2016) (http://www.cact.info/documents/FINALLegislativePaper
Feb.2320162.20.16.pdf), at p. 3.
7 For GHG emissions data by sector for Connecticut, see U.S. EIA data
available online: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/.
Connecticut must reduce GHG emissions to levels set in law; targets exist
for 2020, 2030, and 2050. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-200a.

16 Assuming a cost of $750,ooo per bus, $350,000 per 6-port fast-charger, and
$250,000 per charger installation. See http://fortune.com/2017/09/19/
electric-cars-buses-proterra/ and https://cafcp.org/sites/default/files/5_CARBACT-Cost-Model-Discussions_CaFCP-Bus-Team-Meeting-Aug2016.pdf.

8 See CT Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, State of
Connecticut Mitigation Plan under Volkswagen 2.0L and 3.0L Vehicle Partial
Consent Decrees, Appendix D (April 2018) (https://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/
deep/air/mobile/vw/CT_VW_Final_Mitigation_Plan.pdf), at p. 4.

17 The proposed New Haven Streetcar is a 3.6-mile loop with an estimated cost of $30 million. See https://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_
newslog2010q1.htm#NH_20100225.

9 See id., at p. 5.
10 See Acadia Center, Outpacing the Nation: RGGI’s Environmental and
Economic Success (September 2017) (https://acadiacenter.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/09/Acadia-Center_RGGI-Report_Outpacing-the-Nation.
pdf). Since its launch in 2009, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, also
known as RGGI, has reduced electric generation emissions by 40%. During
that same timeframe, RGGI member states have experienced 4.3% more
economic growth than non-RGGI states.

18 Assuming a cost of $280,000 per mile, based on: https://www.ncdot.gov/
bikeped/walkbikenc/pictures/EconomyImpact-Analysis.pdf.
19 See http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/documents/prelimi
nary-cost-estimates-select-caap-strategies.pdf/ and http://www.dem.
ri.gov/mobile/pdf/story6.pdf for cost estimates for electric port technologies.
20 For more information on this regional collaboration, often called the
Transportation & Climate Initiative, see https://www.transportationand
climate.org/.

11 See economic analysis reports for: the New Haven Rail Line Expansion
in CT; the MA South Station High Speed Intercity Rail Expansion; the

9

 40 Acadia Center analysis of SEDS data for Connecticut for 2016.

21 See ISO-New England, 2017 Regional System Plan (November 2017)
(https://www.iso-ne.com/system-planning/system-plans-studies/rsp/), at
p. 97. Connecticut has no oil or natural gas reserves.

41 The original diversion of energy efficiency ratepayer funding was for
$127 million over two fiscal years (FY18 and FY19). The General Assembly
restored $10 million of the diverted funds through the budget passed in the
2018 legislative session. The total amount of the funding diversion for the
C&LM programs now stands at $117 million. The first payment to the State of
$63.5 million in diverted ratepayer funds has already occurred. The second
payment is due in June 2019. This discussion does not include the legislative
diversions that also exist for Connecticut’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction proceeds and for the Connecticut Green Bank. Any restoration
of energy efficiency and clean energy funding should involve those revenue
sources as well.

22 See id., at pp. 102-103.
23 See Acadia Center, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Consumption in New
England: Fact Sheet on Key Regional Statistics and Trends (May 2018) (https://
acadiacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Acadia-Center-RegionalEmissions-and-Fuel-Consumption-in-New-England-May-2018-.pdf).
24 See Acadia Center, Connecticut: Pathway to 2030 (http://2030.acadiacen
ter.org/full-reports/).

42 See Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board, 2017 Annual Legislative Report,
Executive Summary (available online: https://www.energizect.com/sites/
default/files/Final-2017-Annual-Legislative-Report-WEB-2-20-18.pdf.).
Acadia Center currently serves as the elected Chair of the Energy Efficiency
Board, a stakeholder advisory body that helps oversee Connecticut’s energy efficiency programs.

25 For example, the 800 MW offshore wind project recently selected by
Massachusetts will have a levelized price below wholesale market prices
for energy and renewable energy credits, saving Massachusetts ratepayers
approximately $1.4 billion over the twenty years of the long-term contract.
See Letter to MA Department of Public Utilities from MA Department of
Energy Resources dated August 1, 2018 (https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/
EEA/FileService/FileService.Api/file/FileRoom/9676906), at pp. 3-4.

43 See id.

26 See Acadia Center, The Offshore Wind Opportunity in Connecticut: Policy
Action Needed to Ensure In-State Jobs and Economic Growth (September 2017)
(https://acadiacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Acadia-Center_
CT-Offshore-Wind-Opportunity_9_20_2017.pdf). Offshore wind’s generation potential will only grow in the New England region; more federal
lease areas are expected to be made available for offshore wind development in coming years.

44 See id.
45 See Acadia Center, EnergyVision 2030: Buildings Companion Brief (2017),
at pp. 3-4.
46 See id.
47 Acadia Center analysis of data from NYSERDA, Residential Statewide
Baseline Study Volume 1, and Reed, Faesy, Howland, “Accelerating the Pace
to Fossil-Free Residential New Construction,” 2018 Summer Study Paper for
ACEEE.

27 Acadia Center estimate based on data in E2’s recent offshore wind report, Offshore Wind: Generating Economic Benefits on the East Coast (August
2018) (https://www.e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/E2-OCS-ReportFinal-8.30.18.pdf), combined with project pricing from the Vineyard Wind
800 MW project selected by Massachusetts, see Letter to MA Department
of Public Utilities from MA Department of Energy Resources dated August
1, 2018 (https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/FileService/FileService.
Api/file/FileRoom/9676906), at pp. 3-4.

48 See Acadia Center, EnergyVision 2030: Buildings Companion Brief;
NYSERDA, Residential Statewide Baseline Study Volume 1; and Reed, Faesy,
Howland, “Accelerating the Pace to Fossil-Free Residential New Construction,” 2018 Summer Study Paper for ACEEE.

28 Acadia Center estimate based on recent New England offshore wind
bids and report entitled, U.S. Job Creation in Offshore Wind: A Report for the
Roadmap Project for Multi-State Cooperation on Offshore Wind (October 2017)
(https://cesa.org/assets/Uploads/US-job-creation-in-offshore-wind.pdf).

49 Acadia Center analysis of data from Reed, Faesy, Howland, “Accelerating the Pace to Fossil-Free Residential New Construction,” 2018 Summer
Study Paper for ACEEE.
50 Acadia Center analysis using methodology from Incentives for Change
(2017).

29 See Letter to MA Department of Public Utilities from MA Department of
Energy Resources dated August 1, 2018 (https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/
EEA/FileService/FileService.Api/file/FileRoom/9676906), at p. 4.

51 The Energy component covers the costs of generating and supplying
electricity. The Grid Infrastructure component includes the costs of electricity delivery, mainly transmission and distribution infrastructure costs.
The Combined Public Benefits Programs component includes costs for
several public benefits programs, such as funding for the energy efficiency
programs (the Conservation and Load Management programs mentioned
earlier) and for the Connecticut Green Bank. The monthly customer service charge, also known as the residential fixed charge, was not included.
Currently, the residential fixed charge for Eversource customers is $9.21
per month and for United Illuminating customers is $10.04 per month.
The amount of the residential fixed charge should also be a consideration
when examining energy grid costs.

30 See http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/
Solar-Jobs-By-State-1.pdf.
31 See Acadia Center, Connecticut: Pathway to 2030 (http://2030.acadiacen
ter.org/full-reports/).
32 See id. Acadia Center analysis based on ISO-New England distributed
generation forecast data and U.S. Census data.
33 See id.
34 Acadia Center analysis using 2015 economic impact study by the
Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis that evaluated Connecticut’s
existing rooftop solar deployment program.

52 See Acadia Center, Grid Modernization and Utility Reform Policy Options:
A Menu for the Northeast (July 2018) (https://acadiacenter.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/07/Acadia-Center-Grid-Modernization-and-Utility-Re
form-Policy-Menu-July-2018.pdf).

35 Acadia Center analysis using same study.

53 See Acadia Center, Community EnergyVision Action Guide for Connecticut
(2017), at p. 8 (https://acadiacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Acadia-Center_Community-EnergyVision_Action-Guide_CT.pdf).

36 Same.
37 See also Acadia Center, Connecticut: Pathway to 2030 (http://2030.acadi
acenter.org/full-reports/).

54 See id.

38 See U.S. DOE, U.S. Energy and Employment Report (January 2017), CT
State Chart.

55 See id., at p. 10.

39 See U.S. EIA https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CT.
Copyright © 2018 by Acadia Center All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods,
without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

10