Stakeholders split on using Millstone PPA, dynamic purchases and who bears reconciliation risk

A key flashpoint at PURA’s technical meeting was whether to use existing power purchase agreements—most notably the Millstone nuclear PPA—or to expand dynamic market purchases as the statute contemplates.

Mike Webb, an independent researcher and ratepayer presenter, argued the current six‑month full‑requirement procurement left Connecticut exposed to the 2022 price spike and presented simulations implying substantial consumer savings if the Millstone PPA were used to cover fixed tranche blocks. Webb said prior EDC estimates suggested large potential savings and urged publishing modeling code and assumptions for independent verification.

Utility representatives and retail suppliers responded with caution. Katarina Miller (UI) and Parker Littlehale (Eversource) explained PPAs are currently settled as financial contracts and are not registered as load‑following supply in ISO New England; using them for standard service would therefore be a financial allocation issue that shifts net benefits or costs between customer classes. Constellation and retail suppliers warned that requiring dynamic purchases or self‑supply could increase volatility for captive customers due to proxy‑price forecasting errors and customer migration between standard and competitive supply.

Participants discussed options to reduce distributional concerns: predesignating a small, fixed tranche for PPA coverage or self‑supply; creating a volatility mitigation fund or regulatory‑liability deferral that holds excess collections; or designing reconciliation rules that limit market distortion. No formal policy decision was made; PURA staff said the record will remain open and additional prompts or interrogatories are likely ahead of the February 2026 procurement‑plan filing.