with the schematic in Fig. ), two left CT states (LCT1 and LCT2), and two right CT states (RCT1 and RCT2). These calculations use the 6-31G* basis set and RIMP2-VDZ auxiliary basis set. Selected results are shown in Table , focusing on the LCT1 state but also including LE2 for comparison. We observe that stabilization of the ground state increases with solvent polarity, and at the level of the zeroth-order eigenvalues E (0) k , which are computed in the reaction field of the ground state, approximately the same stabilization is obtained for the LCT1 state as for the ground state itself, to within a few milli-Hartree or < 0.03 eV. The first-order corrected excitation energies show a different trend, however. Here, both the static and optical dielectric constants are in play, and the value of the first-order correction G ptSS(1) k is smaller in water than it is in nonpolar solvents. As explained in Section III C 1, this behavior results from the fact that water has a much larger fraction of its total polarization response frozen upon vertical excitation, since ε 0 ε ∞ for water, which is a feature of the Marcus partition of the polarization into fast and slow components. In nonpolar or weakly-polar solvents, where ε 0 is much closer to ε ∞ , the nonequilibrium correction amounts to a greater fraction of the total solvation energy of the excited state, and the trend in first-order corrections G ptSS(1) k is governed primarily by the value of ε ∞ . As noted elsewhere, the partition between inertial and noninertial solvent response need not be done in this way, and the total solvation correction is essentially the same in Pekar's alternative partition scheme, but is apportioned differently into zeroth-order and cor-rective terms. For the LE2 state, we also observe a reduction in the excitation energy as solvent polarity increases, but the effect is smaller as compared to the LCT1 state because LE2 does not involve significant charge separation.