Governor Ned Lamont’s recent State of the State address in Connecticut highlighted the delicate balance between clean energy goals and the state’s energy affordability challenges.
Lamont emphasized that both nuclear power and natural gas are essential for ensuring an adequate and affordable electricity supply. His statements raised questions about potential expansions of nuclear power, particularly through small modular reactors SMRs, and whether natural gas infrastructure could see growth.
In his speech, Lamont aimed to caution lawmakers against prematurely ruling out natural gas or other energy options while the state faces high electricity costs. He rejected the idea of limiting electricity procurement to sources tied to market prices for natural gas. This reflects his stance of “all of the above” for energy sources, with a focus on balancing cost, reliability, and environmental goals.
While some lawmakers, like Rep. Nick Gauthier, are concerned about further reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas due to climate change, others, such as Sen. Norm Needleman, emphasized the need for a three-pronged approach that also considers air quality and climate impacts. Lamont’s rejection of a specific offshore wind project due to cost concerns, as well as his support for keeping options open, positions him in a nuanced middle ground on energy policy.
The future of nuclear power in Connecticut is also under discussion, particularly in light of the state’s ongoing support for Millstone Nuclear Power Plant. Lamont’s administration has begun exploring the possibility of expanding nuclear capacity through small modular reactors (SMRs), though challenges remain, especially with the state’s deregulated energy market, which limits the financial incentives for utilities to invest in new nuclear technologies.
The conversation also extends to the potential for natural gas pipeline expansion, although Lamont’s focus remains on keeping the range of energy options broad to ensure affordability and reliability for Connecticut’s consumers.
This nuanced approach continues to create tension between clean energy advocates, who prioritize decarbonization, and those who emphasize the need to reduce costs for consumers, given the high prices of alternative energy sources.