Having worked my way up the natural gas utility industry with companies across the Northeast for nearly 40 years, I know something about the kind of investment it takes to run these companies well: maintaining, replacing, and upgrading their aging infrastructure; recruiting the hard-working and talented workforce on their front-lines; and keeping rates as low as possible for the customers we serve.
That’s why I’m deeply concerned about Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, or PURA, recent draft decisions in two of the natural gas utility companies serving Connecticut customers, Connecticut Natural Gas, or CNG, and Southern Connecticut Gas, or SCG, where I serve as vice president of Gas Operations and Engineering. If they’re finalized, these decisions pose a significant threat to the long-term energy security and economic stability of our state.
Anger over massive CT electric bills will drive voter choices on Election Day, GOP says
Last November, CNG and SCG filed for modest rate increases totaling around $60 million. But in an unprecedented move, PURA not only rejected an increase; they actually proposed cutting base their revenues by a combined $75 million, flying in the face of historical precedent and established rate-making norms.
CT governor opposes special session on electric rates, warns immediate relief is unlikely
At first glance, lower utility rates might appear to be a win for consumers. But in reality, these shortsighted proposals fail to consider the broader implications and the very real dangers posed to 391,000 gas customers and, indeed, all 3.6 million residents of our state.
Safe, reliable, and resilient energy infrastructure doesn’t maintain itself. It requires consistent investment and upkeep. By slashing revenues for CNG and SCG, PURA is effectively pulling the rug out from under critical infrastructure providers. This comes at a time when inflationary pressures and increased supply chain costs have already forced up costs for nearly a decade – notwithstanding PURA’s apparent fantasy world in which inflation doesn’t exist, as they cut any inflation adjustment for the companies.
Specifically, what PURA chose to cut is even more concerning, such as more than $1 million in critical cybersecurity investments that protect the state’s pipelines, storage facilities, and distribution networks. A cyberattack could devastate these systems – a possibility that’s come to fruition in the past, like in 2021 when a ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline downed the distribution system across 18 states and jurisdictions.
CT’s PURA proposes deep cuts in gas rates. Companies say they will undermine service.
The consequences of these draft decisions could be severe. Without adequate funding, CNG and SCG will struggle to access capital at affordable rates. This means that necessary investments in infrastructure upgrades, safety improvements, and the transition to more sustainable energy solutions will be deferred or abandoned altogether. The result? A less reliable, less safe, and ultimately more expensive energy system for Connecticut residents and businesses.
Moreover, PURA’s decision sends a chilling message to potential investors: Connecticut is not a safe or wise place for energy investment. Credit rating agencies are already expressing concern, calling the proposed decisions “punitive” and “worse than expected” and citing PURA’s role in the decision as they cultivate a “challenging regulatory environment.” This comes at a critical juncture when our state should be attracting capital to facilitate a sustainable future for the natural gas industry and to support our broader clean energy goals. Instead, we’re likely to see more reluctance to invest in Connecticut, further jeopardizing our energy security and economic growth.
Connecticut leaders often speak of delivering cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable energy. They also speak proudly of attracting more people to the state, especially during and immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic. But achieving these laudable goals while serving thousands of new customers who expect access to affordable natural gas will require substantial investment and a regulatory environment that encourages, rather than undermines, progress. PURA’s decision suggests a troubling disconnect between our state’s energy aspirations and the practical realities of achieving them.
As we approach the final decision in November, PURA must reconsider these proposals. The government agency charged with the highest responsibility of facilitating safe, reliable, and resilient utility service must return to the facts of the case and recognize the vital importance of enabling companies like CNG and SCG to invest in our natural gas distribution system.
The energy decisions we make today will shape Connecticut’s future for decades to come. We cannot afford to prioritize short-term political wins over long-term energy security and economic stability. It’s time for PURA to demonstrate true leadership by fostering an environment that encourages investment, supports our energy providers, and ultimately serves the best interests of all Connecticut residents and businesses.
Our energy future depends on it.
Al Langland is the vice president of Gas Operations and Engineering at Avangrid, the parent company of CNG and SCG.
