Tag: Connecticut

Connecticut Lawmakers Devise Plan To Saddle Taxpayers With Soaring Energy Prices

Connecticut Democratic lawmakers are proposing that taxpayers foot the bill for high utility costs in the state, which policy experts who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation largely attributed to state-funded renewable energy projects.

ChatGPT

From Watts Up With That?

THE DAILY CALLER

Daily Caller News Foundation

Audrey Streb
Contributor

Connecticut Democratic lawmakers are proposing that taxpayers foot the bill for high utility costs in the state, which policy experts who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation largely attributed to state-funded renewable energy projects.

Senate Bill 1560 proposes removing the public benefits charge — a required surcharge on utility customers’ bills that funds state-mandated programs, including renewable energy investment — from electricity bills. Instead, the state would borrow up to $2.4 billion by selling bonds, thus transferring the financial burden from utility customers to taxpayers.

“They’re looking at creating this Electric Rate Stabilization Fund — taking taxpayer dollars and redistributing that to people to help them pay for their exorbitant electric bills that they’ve created,” CEO and founder of American Energy Institute Jason Isaac said. “They’re trying to virtue signal and appease a leftist base of their voters.”

The bill proposes significant changes to the state’s energy rate structures and would create the Connecticut Energy Procurement Authority to oversee both the Electric Rate Stabilization Fund (ERSF) and the Green Bond Fund (GBF). While the ERSF and GBF would both be funded by up to $2.4 billion in state-issued bonds over three years, the ERSF would focus on stabilizing electricity rates for consumers, while the GBF would support green energy and infrastructure projects. The bill additionally outlines that nuclear power generators in the state should be classified as renewable energy sources. (RELATED: ‘Just Getting Started’: Energy Experts Say Trump Admin Could Fuel ‘Nuclear Renaissance’)

“It’s an ingenious way to hide the fact that renewable energy and climate related programs are nothing but an unnecessary expense that do absolutely nothing for the climate,” author and Climate Depot executive editor Marc Morano told the DCNF, calling so-called green energy policies an “unbelievable grift” pushed on taxpayers.

Connecticut has supported several expensive renewable energy projects in the past, including for solar power development, zero-emission dock equipment and electric vehicle (EV) incentives. All the while, utility costs in New England and Connecticut have risen to be among the highest in the country, which one report by a coalition of six think tanks linked to the area’s several renewable energy projects. (RELATED: Consumers Set To Get Crushed As Energy Utilities Switch To Solar, Wind)

While the state eventually backed out of its proposed offshore wind projects, Connecticut sunk $311 million into refurbishing a pier with the purpose of launching offshore wind turbines that never made it out to sea, according to the CT Mirror. The fate of the project is still being discussed, though it is over $200 million over budget, WSHU Public Radio reports.

In May 2022, Democratic Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont signed a law requiring the state’s electricity to be entirely carbon-free by 2040, officially codifying the standard he had first set by executive order in 2019. The legislation set several targets, including a reduction in emissions by 45% from 2001 levels by 2030.

Government-mandated energy projects in the state have received just over $1 billion annually from the public benefits charge, two electric distribution companies said in a testimony on April 16, according to Connecticut Inside Investigator.

Customers of Eversource, one of the energy distributors, are currently paying about $800 million annually in public benefits charges, which include $380 million for state-mandated solar energy procurement requirements, according to the testimony.

Connecticut has the third-highest electricity costs, behind Hawaii and California, according to February data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. On average, Connecticut residents’ energy bills are 30% higher than the national average, according to an analysis from Home Energy Club. Moreover, states with renewable energy requirements see a roughly 4% increase the average electric bill, while in Connecticut the added cost is just over 5%, according to a 2024 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

As American energy demand continues to climb, the odds of impending blackouts would increase if the supply fails to grow at the same rate. The push toward renewable energy sources, in addition to stringent environmental regulations approved under former President Joe Biden, may have contributed to the slower growth of energy supply currently being experienced in the U.S.

Renewables are generally less reliable than other sources of power and need to work in tandem with “base load” power sources such as coal, energy experts previously told the DCNF. As several states around the U.S. ramp up climate initiatives and the demand for electricity continues to grow, many experts have warned that the risk of grid blackouts increases, with rolling blackouts predicted to begin by 2028, according to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s 2024 report.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 8 directing his administration to examine state efforts to sue or impose large financial penalties on energy companies over climate change. The order is expected to focus on Democrat-led states such as New York and California, which have pursued legal actions seeking billions of dollars from the energy industry.

“American energy dominance is threatened when State and local governments seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities,” Trump’s order reads. “Many States have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, burdensome and ideologically motivated ‘climate change’ or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security.”

While Biden encouraged the further development of renewables through billions of tax credits and subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, Trump declared a national energy emergency immediately upon his return to the White House, stating that “the integrity and expansion of our Nation’s energy infrastructure” is “an immediate and pressing priority for the protection of the United States’ national and economic security.” (RELATED: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly: Biden’s Climate Bill Turns Two Years Old)

Connecticut’s Senate Bill 1560 progressed through the legislature’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee Wednesday on a bipartisan vote, according to the CT Mirror. Democratic Connecticut Sen. John Fonfara, the bill’s sponsor, said that dropping the public benefits charge would cut electricity bills by 20% during a press conference on April 16, according to CT Insider.

“There are certain fundamental truths that we must acknowledge and act on if we want to reverse the path we are on,” Fonfara said at the conference. “If we choose to do nothing, electricity costs will continue to increase.”

Fonfara’s office did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

“Within this legislative proposal are ideas that the governor looks forward to discussing further, such as ways to continue improving our standard service procurement process and smoothing out distribution use over the course of the day,” Rob Blanchard, the director of communications for Lamont, wrote to the DCNF. “However, there are concerns and significant questions as well.” (RELATED: Climate Activists Want To Blame Americans’ Soaring Utility Bills On Anything But Green Energy)

“Few examples exist, if at all, of states that have successfully introduced separate procurement authorities, let alone ones that operate outside of mechanisms designed to protect ratepayers and that can be done without saddling ratepayers with hundreds of millions of dollars more in expenses,” Blanchard continued. He said the governor “would prefer” the state cut “outdated or unnecessary” public charges, “rather than putting annual expenses on our ‘credit card’ or crowding out bonding for municipal parks, roads, and school construction.”

“Connecticut’s solution is to make taxpayers pay for electricity versus ratepayers and just shows the bankruptcy of the whole renewable energy movement,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and creator of JunkScience told the DCNF. “Costs are higher and they’re always going to be higher,” Milloy added regarding renewable energy projects. “It’s never going to be cheaper.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Reliable electricity is at risk in Connecticut

As a former utility regulator, I understand the desire by public officials to do everything they can to keep water, gas and electric bills as low as possible. All Americans know that the cost of living in this country is going up too fast, putting many families under severe economic strain.

Skyline of downtown Hartford, Connecticut from above Charter Oak Landing at sunset.

From CFACT

By Ron Brisé

As a former utility regulator, I understand the desire by public officials to do everything they can to keep water, gas and electric bills as low as possible. All Americans know that the cost of living in this country is going up too fast, putting many families under severe economic strain.

But Connecticut’s utilities are in the news lately. At the end of 2024, credit rating agencies downgraded several utilities that serve Connecticut. For example, S&P Global reduced Eversource’s credit rating from A- to BBB+. Four other utilities in the state, including water and natural gas companies, were also downgraded by S&P. Following suit, another credit rating agency, Moody’s, also downgrading utilities in Connecticut.

Credit downgrades are typically in response to poor performance or bad business decisions made by corporate leadership. But in this case, things are a little different. Here is a quote from an analyst at Moody’s about the downgraded utilities. “The rate outcome is evidence of a challenged regulatory environment, where the disparity between filed rate requests and ultimate rate orders has become considerable. Absent a return to more constructive political and regulatory decisions, both utilities could see further credit deterioration over the next two years.”

In other words, these credit downgrades are in response to a challenging regulatory environment with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Agency.

What do these credit downgrades mean for the average person in Connecticut who relies on water, electricity, and natural gas? Ultimately it will mean higher utility bills for customers in Connecticut. This is because the credit downgrade means the cost for the utilities to borrow money from investors will increase because these ratings agencies see more risk in Connecticut. Worse, this will hamper investment in Connecticut’s critical infrastructure and the electric grid.

All of this is deeply concerning to me, because Connecticut is not immune to severe weather like winter storms and tropical systems, and the state should be making more investments in its critical infrastructure to make communities more resilient to challenging weather. As a former Florida regulatory commissioner, I learned first-hand that investing in these critical infrastructure projects before severe weather strikes is vital to reducing the time between when the storm strikes and services being fully restored. Thanks to the investments Florida has made into our critical infrastructure, we can weather a massive storm and have power, and many essential services restored in just a few days for most customers.

Another challenge for Connecticut, is that as the state’s electric needs go up – due to data centers, Artificial Intelligence and people plugging in their electric vehicles – the state is going to need investments in grid infrastructure to connect new sources of power like wind and solar. Those enhancements cost money, and now they are going to cost more money because borrowing costs just went up for two of the largest electric utilities operating in Connecticut.

Because those borrowing costs are rising for these electric companies, the utilities must make tough decisions about which critical infrastructure improvements to make, and which to hold off on because they now cost too much. A less reliable electric grid exposes people and business in Connecticut to more and longer blackouts.

Finally, Florida’s electric grid and utilities are resilient today, because our regulators worked with the state’s utilities to carefully balance their needs while ensuring Florida’s utility customers have fair bills and resilient services. My hope is that things can improve in Connecticut for the sake of customers and the state’s economy.

Reliable Electricity Is at Risk in Connecticut

As a former utility regulator, I understand the desire by public officials to do everything they can to keep water, gas and electric bills as low as possible. All Americans know that the cost of living in this country is going up too fast, putting many families under severe economic strain.

From Watts Up With That?

By Ron Brisé

As a former utility regulator, I understand the desire by public officials to do everything they can to keep water, gas and electric bills as low as possible. All Americans know that the cost of living in this country is going up too fast, putting many families under severe economic strain.

But Connecticut’s utilities are in the news lately. At the end of 2024, credit rating agencies downgraded several utilities that serve Connecticut. For example, S&P Global reduced Eversource’s credit rating from A- to BBB+. Four other utilities in the state, including water and natural gas companies, were also downgraded by S&P. Following suit, another credit rating agency, Moody’s, also downgrading utilities in Connecticut.

Credit downgrades are typically in response to poor performance or bad business decisions made by corporate leadership. But in this case, things are a little different. Here is a quote from an analyst at Moody’s about the downgraded utilities. “The rate outcome is evidence of a challenged regulatory environment, where the disparity between filed rate requests and ultimate rate orders has become considerable. Absent a return to more constructive political and regulatory decisions, both utilities could see further credit deterioration over the next two years.”

In other words, these credit downgrades are in response to a challenging regulatory environment with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Agency. 

What do these credit downgrades mean for the average person in Connecticut who relies on water, electricity, and natural gas?  Ultimately it will mean higher utility bills for customers in Connecticut. This is because the credit downgrade means the cost for the utilities to borrow money from investors will increase because these ratings agencies see more risk in Connecticut. Worse, this will hamper investment in Connecticut’s critical infrastructure and the electric grid.

All of this is deeply concerning to me, because Connecticut is not immune to severe weather like winter storms and tropical systems, and the state should be making more investments in its critical infrastructure to make communities more resilient to challenging weather. As a former Florida regulatory commissioner, I learned first-hand that investing in these critical infrastructure projects before severe weather strikes is vital to reducing the time between when the storm strikes and services being fully restored. Thanks to the investments Florida has made into our critical infrastructure, we can weather a massive storm and have power, and many essential services restored in just a few days for most customers.

Another challenge for Connecticut, is that as the state’s electric needs go up – due to data centers, Artificial Intelligence and people plugging in their electric vehicles – the state is going to need investments in grid infrastructure to connect new sources of power like wind and solar. Those enhancements cost money, and now they are going to cost more money because borrowing costs just went up for two of the largest electric utilities operating in Connecticut.

Because those borrowing costs are rising for these electric companies, the utilities must make tough decisions about which critical infrastructure improvements to make, and which to hold off on because they now cost too much. A less reliable electric grid exposes people and business in Connecticut to more and longer blackouts.

Finally, Florida’s electric grid and utilities are resilient today, because our regulators worked with the state’s utilities to carefully balance their needs while ensuring Florida’s utility customers have fair bills and resilient services. My hope is that things can improve in Connecticut for the sake of customers and the state’s economy.

Ron Brisé is a former Chair of the Florida Public Service Commission and is an electricity regulatory expert.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Red States Ask Supreme Court To Stop Blue States From Forcing Climate Agenda On Rest Of Country

Nineteen Republican state attorneys general hit five Democrat-controlled states with a legal challenge alleging that the blue states are illegally attempting to impose aggressive climate policies on the rest of the country.

From The Daily Caller

By NICK POPE

CONTRIBUTOR

Nineteen Republican state attorneys general hit five Democrat-controlled states with a legal challenge alleging that the blue states are illegally attempting to impose aggressive climate policies on the rest of the country.

The coalition of red states filed the challenge with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, alleging that the five blue states — California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Minnesota — are trying to advance an anti-fossil fuel agenda for the entire country via tools like climate nuisance lawsuits against oil companies. The coalition of red states requested that the Supreme Court step in to determine whether these Democrat-controlled states can effectively interfere in other states’ energy policy.

“Plaintiff States and their citizens rely on traditional energy products every day,” the complaint says. “The assertion that Defendant States can regulate, tax, and enjoin the promotion, production, and use of such products beyond their borders—but outside the purview of federal law—threatens profound injury.” (RELATED: ‘Grave Threat’: Calls Mount For SCOTUS To Intervene In Key Climate Lawsuit Against Major Energy Companies)

The coalition of plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to examine the complaint in the context of the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the ability to address matters of interstate commerce that are beyond the jurisdiction of one state or another. The states that filed the complaint include Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

“In essence, Defendant States want a global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry,” the complaint states. “Citing fears of a climate catastrophe, they seek massive penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief against energy producers based on out-of-state conduct with out-of-state effects.”

The complaint references climate nuisance lawsuits that have been pursued by Minnesota and the other defendant states as evidence that the five blue states are trying to alter the national energy landscape by seeking to extract large settlements from traditional energy companies. In many instances, the third-party law firms that are helping prosecutors bring these tort cases stand to reap large paydays if the energy companies being sued decide to settle.

“Defendant States assert the power to dictate the future of the American energy industry,” states the complaint. “They hope to do so not by influencing federal legislation or by petitioning federal agencies, but by imposing ruinous liability and coercive remedies on energy companies through state tort actions governed by state law in state court.”

Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will not side against him and described the red states’ complaint as politically-motivated.

“We are proud to stand up for New Jersey residents and consumers in combating the deception the largest oil and gas companies engaged in for decades. It’s a shame that other states are trying to hamstring our efforts to protect New Jerseyans under New Jersey law,” Platkin said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. “But we are confident the Supreme Court will see this for the desperate stunt that it is, and deny their motion. In any event, our important work continues.”

Democratic Connecticut Attorney General Chris Tong issued a statement on Wednesday deriding the complaint filed against his state.

“This must be a fake lawsuit filed in the Land of Make Believe. I live and work in the real world, where I am focused on actual threats — like the climate crisis — to the health and safety of the people of Connecticut,” Tong said. “This is pure partisan political theater, and it will not distract or deter us from fighting for Connecticut consumers, families and our environment.”

The offices of Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Democratic Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha and Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Connecticut Green Amendment after Held v. Montana

The court’s decision in Held bars the state from enforcing either law at issue. The Montana Attorney General’s Office has issued a statement criticizing the decision as “a week-long taxpayer publicity stunt,” maintaining that “our state has no impact on the global climate.”

From CFACT

BY DAVID FLEMING:

A recent Montana court decision on environmental rights may soon have significant legal and economic implications on Connecticut, especially if the state adopts a “green amendment.”

On Aug. 14, Montana District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of 16 “youth plaintiffs” (between the ages of 5 and 22), who argued in Held v. Montana that the state legislature had violated their constitutional rights by passing legislation friendly to fossil fuels in recent years.

Two particular policies drew the plaintiffs’ ire. Since 2011, the Montana legislature has forbidden state agencies from considering the cost of carbon emissions for economic development under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). And this past April, the state legislature repealed the Montana Energy Plan, which had “promote[d] energy efficiency, conservation, production and consumption of a reliable and efficient mix of energy sources” since 1993.

The plaintiffs argued that these recent actions were taken without consideration for the environmental rights of residents, especially those of younger generations.

The case will likely be appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, but one thing is clear: climate decision-making through the judiciary suddenly looks more viable than just a few months ago. Since at least 2010, young persons from across the country have attempted to sue the federal and state governments over a perceived lack of action surrounding climate change. Until now, those attempts were never successful.

Even with a supermajority in the House and Senate, Connecticut legislators have been reluctant to seriously consider impeding economic development dependent on fossil fuels en masse. Therefore, finding one sympathetic judge would be a much easier lift for Connecticut’s environmental activists than convincing dozens of legislators.

The probability of beating the government through climate litigation on a state-by-state basis hinges in large part on two factors. First, the right to environmental protection as outlined in a state’s constitution. Second, having state-based environmental planning requirements that mirror the federal National Environmental Policy Act.

Connecticut is one of 20 states with such planning requirements, making it an attractive judicial target. The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) was enacted in 1972 and “requires every state agency to develop a list of agency actions that have significant impacts on the environment, and it provides a process by which those agencies review their proposed actions to determine whether to move forward with them in light of the effects on the environment.”

On the other hand, Connecticut is also one of 43 states that do not have environmental rights enshrined in the state constitution in some form. Therefore, the state is less vulnerable than Montana to judicial challenges in regards to constitutional language — at least for now.

In 1972, Montana rewrote their constitution to include some rather progressive provisions. Article IX, Section 1 of Montana’s Constitution declares, “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”

Montana’s Article IX sounds incredibly similar to the “green” amendment proposed in Connecticut’s last legislative session:

“Each person of the state of Connecticut shall have an individual right to clean and healthy air, water, soil and environment; a stable climate; and self-sustaining ecosystems; for the benefit of public health, safety and the general welfare. The state shall not infringe upon these rights. The state shall protect these rights equitably for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, tribal membership status, gender, socioeconomics or geography. The state, municipalities, and any political subdivision thereof, shall serve as trustee of the natural resources of Connecticut, among them being its waters, air, flora, fauna, soils, and climate; and shall conserve, protect, and maintain these resources for the benefit of all people, including present and future generations. The rights stated in this section are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among those rights reserved to the people, and are equivalent with all other inalienable rights.”

Legal experts ascribe much of the ruling’s success to Montana’s clear constitutional language regarding environmental rights.

If Connecticut were sued successfully in court along climate lines, many construction projects could become dependent on judicial outcomes. This could further slow an economy that just regained all the jobs it lost during Covid.

A host of difficulties immediately emerge when “positive rights” — which require sacrifices by or resources from others, rather than just a guarantee of noninterference by government — are extended to something so nebulous as “environmental rights.” This is especially true when the science and politics of climate change comes into play.

As a hypothetical but plausible scenario if the amendment is enacted, Connecticut Resident 1 might enjoy uninhibited views of landscapes and wildlife from her back porch. However, Connecticut Resident 2 could emphasize his “right to a stable climate” as a reason to import solar panels and wind turbines into that pristine landscape. At this point, it would be entirely up to the discretion (and political leanings) of the judge to rule in one resident’s favor.

As it stands now, after Montana’s ruling, Connecticut is vulnerable to climate-based litigation. Passing the green amendment would only accelerate the likelihood of climate litigation and set up a showdown between economic development and the loudest anti-development voices on the fringes of Connecticut discourse.

David Flemming joined the Yankee Institute in April 2023 after working for five years as an energy policy analyst at the Ethan Allen Institute in Vermont. 

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy