Connecticut bill aims to cut electric costs, but may stifle clean energy
Connecticut lawmakers are touting newly introduced legislation as a way to lower out-of-control power bills, but opponents say it could devastate the state's renewable energy progress. Provisions of the complex, 80-page bill would scale back incentives for residential solar and make nuclear power eligible to earn renewable energy credits, directing essential funds away from other types of clean energy developments.
'It's a direct attack on the growth of solar and wind in Connecticut, an attack on new resources that reduce pollution,' said Chris Phelps, state director of advocacy group Environment Connecticut.
Connecticut's high electricity rates — its residential prices were the second highest in the country in February — have been the subject of much discussion among lawmakers this session. Many of these conversations have, explicitly or implicitly, revolved around the largely unfounded notion taking root across New England that clean energy programs are driving high prices.
That belief is the basis of some provisions in SB 1560, a sprawling piece of legislation introduced earlier this month by Democratic Sen. John Fonfara, chair of the Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee. Fonfara, who announced his plan accompanied by legislators from both sides of the aisle, claims the bill would create immediate savings for Connecticut consumers. At a hearing for the bill in mid-April, dozens of people and organizations testified, some in support of the lower costs the bill promises, many opposed to the dangers they say it poses to renewable energy.
The proposed legislation includes several sections that do not explicitly address clean energy. It calls for the creation of an in-state procurement authority to watch the power markets and, ideally, buy electricity at better prices. The bill would also eliminate the sales tax on electricity purchased by commercial and industrial users, and mandate an expansion of variable time-of-use rates, which nudge households to use less energy during high-demand times by raising the price of electricity.
Renewable energy advocates, however, are focused on three elements they claim would completely undermine state support for clean energy and energy-efficiency programs without creating any overall savings for the public.
The first measure that worries advocates is a small wording change that would define existing nuclear power generation in the state — a category that includes only the Millstone Power Station — as a Class I renewable energy source. This designation would allow Millstone to sell renewable energy credits (RECs) as part of the state's renewable portfolio standard.
Under the standard, utilities must buy RECs to offset a certain percentage of the power they sell. That proportion rises over time: This year, for example, Connecticut utilities must procure enough renewable energy to meet 30% of their power sales; next year, that bar jumps to 32%. By encouraging a market for renewable energy, this requirement lowers the emissions from Connecticut's power supply. Plus, renewable energy developers can use revenue from selling RECs to finance new projects.
If Millstone were allowed to sell Class I RECs, it could do so at much lower prices than other clean energy sources because the nuclear plant is already built and running without this added financial support, said Francis Pullaro, president of renewable energy nonprofit RENEW Northeast. A flood of cheap credits from Millstone would lower the market price for RECs across the board. While utilities could pass those savings on to customers, advocates warn that REC prices would almost certainly drop so much that they no longer provide enough revenue to renewable energy developers to support new projects.
There would also be little need for solar or wind RECs in the market if Millstone were allowed to sell credits. In 2023, the plant generated 33% of the power consumed in Connecticut, while utilities only needed to meet 26% of their total energy sales with renewable energy. This dynamic could imperil existing renewable energy operations that count on REC revenue, and prevent new projects from penciling out, Pullaro said.
The effect would be to render the renewable portfolio standard essentially meaningless, he said.
'By doing this you're effectively repealing the [renewable portfolio standard] because it's no longer going to be available to incentivize new developments,' he said. '[The nuclear plant is] already built and doesn't need RPS revenue. You won't have any renewable resource able to compete with that.'
Another major issue advocates have flagged in the bill is a proposed change to how homeowners with solar panels are compensated when their systems generate extra power that flows onto the grid, a process called net metering. The legislation would allow homeowners to receive credit only for the supply of excess power they generate, and not for the costs of distribution or transmission, which are currently part of the compensation calculations. The rationale for this change stems from a concern that customers without solar will find themselves footing the bill for compensating households with solar.
The new rule would make rooftop solar 'unrealistic' for most homeowners, Phelps said, but wouldn't make much of a difference for everybody else. There is just far too little solar deployed in Connecticut to create the kind of cost shift the bill is trying to avoid, advocates said. In 2024, just over 4% of the electricity consumed in the state was solar, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.
'We in Connecticut have relatively little solar compared to other New England states,' said Bernard Pelletier, vice president of People's Action for Clean Energy, a statewide advocacy group. 'This would just make us have less.'
The third area of concern for advocates is the bill's proposal to eliminate the public benefits charge from customers' power bills. That's a fee that helps pay for energy-efficiency programs, a state clean energy fund, assistance to low-income customers, mandated nuclear power purchases, and other energy-related public policy programs. The legislation would create a Green Bond Fund that would borrow money to pay these costs, removing them from monthly bills and spreading out the financial impact over the bond repayment period.
Many advocates, however, worry that this approach would result in less certain funding for the energy-efficiency and clean energy programs currently supported by the public benefits charge. As outlined in the legislation, the bond fund would be able to spend up to $800 million annually, yet the expenses for programs included in the public benefits charge were $868 million in 2023 and $1 billion in 2024.
The bond fund 'would be unlikely to consistently cover the costs of these programs, and it is unclear how and when decisions would be made regarding funding levels for each program,' Katie Dykes, the state's commissioner of energy and environmental protection, said in testimony filed with the legislature.
The Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee voted favorably on the bill last week, and it is now expected to go to the Energy and Technology Committee for further consideration and likely amendment. When that happens, Phelps hopes legislators leave behind the portions that could undermine renewable energy progress.
'While I appreciate the rhetorical support for clean energy, the policy details of this bill would really take a huge step backwards,' he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
David Hogg won't run again after DNC votes to redo vice chair elections
David Hogg will not seek reelection to his Democratic National Committee leadership position after the party announced Wednesday that members had voted to redo the vice chair contests he and Malcolm Kenyatta won in February. 'Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters,' Hogg said in a statement. Hogg's decision not to run again ends a monthslong intraparty fight between the young gun control advocate and much of the national committee that has distracted from the party's efforts to rebuild after devastating 2024 election losses. The outgoing vice chair has accused party leaders of attempting to oust him from his position over frustration with his plan to primary 'ineffective' Democratic incumbents in safe seats through his PAC Leaders We Deserve. DNC members have argued that Hogg has mischaracterized the vote. The initial challenge to how the committee handled the February 1 vote for two vice chair positions was made in late February, months before Hogg announced his primary initiative. Still, members' feelings toward Hogg and his ongoing, public dispute with party leaders loomed large over the vote. The proposal to hold a new election passed 75% to 25% with 89% of DNC members participating. DNC chairman Ken Martin praised Hogg for his work on the committee. 'I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair,' Martin said in a statement. 'I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map.' Had Hogg run again, he would have faced Kenyatta in an election for a position which, under the DNC's gender parity rules, must go to a man. 'I'm grateful to the overwhelming support I've received in this reelection from DNC members and I look forward to getting back to work electing Democrats up and down the ballot,' Kenyatta said in a statement. 'I wish David the best.' Voting for the other vice chair seat will run from Sunday morning through Tuesday afternoon. Three female candidates who were in the running in February will be eligible: Kalyn Free, an Oklahoma Democratic activist who filed the challenge, as well as Kansas state party chair Jeanna Repass and Washington state party chair Shasti Conrad. Separately, the DNC is also weighing a new proposal put forth by Martin that would officially require elected party leaders to stay neutral in primaries. The DNC is expected to vote on that measure at an August meeting. This story has been updated with additional details. CNN's Arlette Saenz contributed to this report.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Controversial housing bill heads to governor's desk
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) —The 2025 session of Connecticut's state legislature has been over for more than a week, but a major piece of housing legislation passed by majority Democrats continues to cause controversy — and a chorus of calls for Gov. Ned Lamont to veto it. Connecticut House passes housing bill after 11-hour debate The legislation, formally known as House Bill 5002, is the latest in a series of Democratic-led efforts to implement statewide policies that spur the development of more housing. Proponents of statewide housing reform have cited research showing Connecticut's housing stock is short by as many as 100,000 units. Lawmakers clash over proposed affordable housing bill 'We know how imperative it is that we get more housing in the state,' Gov. Lamont said on Tuesday. But as the governor and others look for ways to use public policy to encourage more development, they've encountered resistance from leaders on both sides of the aisle who say provisions of H.B. 5002 encroach on the authorities of local zoning boards. Governor's Hartford residence to open for annual open house day Three provisions in particular have drawn the ire of defenders of local control of zoning. First, the bill establishes a baseline for the amount of units, including affordable units, each municipality in Connecticut must plan for. Municipalities that hit the goals outlined in the bill will be prioritized for certain state grants. Local leaders and legislators who oppose the bill have characterized that provision as a mandate. 'It absolutely is a mandate,' State Rep. Joe Zullo, a leading Republican opponent to 5002, said. 'It allocates to every town a certain amount of housing they have to build no matter what.' Supporters of 5002 push back on this characterization of the legislation. On the affordable housing metrics, they say the bill seeks to set objective standards while providing measured incentives to communities that comply. 'Gasoline on the flames:' Lamont, Tong, Bysiewicz respond to Trump administration's use of National Guard in California 'Any time you want to have a policy outcome, there needs to be an accountability measure and that's what we're talking about here,' State Rep. Jason Rojas, the Democratic house majority leader, said of the concept in an interview conducted before the final passage of the bill. 'We can call it a stick, I call it accountability. We expect every other area of government to be accountable for something. Towns should be accountable, too.' Another provision of 5002 takes aim at minimum parking requirements often imposed by municipalities on small towns. The third provision seeks to bypass planning and zoning hearings for the approval of conversions of certain commercial properties into residential units. These measures have also drawn considerable criticism. In both instances, advocates say the bill seeks to remove onerous barriers, while opponents charge that local control of development is being deeply eroded. H. B. 5002 passed through the legislature over the objections of every Republican and a relatively small but significant vocal faction of Democrats, mostly from the state's suburbs. Now the bill is passed and on the governor's desk awaiting action, Lamont is faced with the decision to either veto or sign it. He has signaled that if he signs it, he would only do so after an agreement had been made with legislative leaders to make revisions before the bill goes into effect in October. 'I think they went too far in some areas of the bill and that's what we look to change,' Lamont said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lombardo rejects street vendor bill, lacrosse as veto total reaches 65
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Nine more bills vetoed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo on Wednesday raised the total to 65, just 10 short of a record he established following the legislative session in 2023. Lombardo rejected bills related to the street vendor regulations, deletion of police recordings of traffic stops, state sanctioning of lacrosse as an interscholastic sport and changes in the state law on automatic voter registration through the DMV. A number of the bills appeared to be examples of expanded government regulation, and Lombardo has emphasized reducing state government interference. STREET VENDORS: Lombardo vetoed Senate Bill 295 (SB295), Democratic Sen. Fabian Doñate's effort to refine a street vendor law approved two years ago. The bill would have made health officials in Clark County set a standard for food carts and communicate regulations to the public via a website. Vendor restrictions that went into place in 2023 ended up severely limiting any participation by small-business entrepreneurs that the legislation tried to allow. Fewer than 10 licensed operators are on the streets in Clark County. Lombardo rejected the bill, saying it was too big of a health risk and gave street vendors advantages over other food establishments. He said the same standards should apply. 'This risk is further compounded by the bill's allowance for storing food carts in private homes,' Lombardo's veto message said. 'Unlike regulated commercial kitchens, private residences are not subject to routine sanitation or pest control measures.' HIGH SCHOOL LACROSSE: SB305 would have allowed lacrosse to become a sanctioned sport for Nevada high schools, but also would have made changes in how decisions are made about club sports at that level. A veto message was not immediately available explaining Lombardo's reasons. TRAFFIC STOP RECORDINGS: SB85 sought to prevent the deletion of recordings of police traffic stops that the state intended to use in a study. But Lombardo said the Department of Public Safety hasn't received the analysis from a third-party entity authorized to collect and review the data. 'Requiring a report that has yet to materialize undermines confidence in the effectiveness and accountability of the process,' Lombardo said in his veto message. 'Before enshrining this mandate into permanent law, we should first ensure that the system in place is actually producing its intended results. VOTER REGISTRATION: SB422 contained changes to voter registration deadlines and steps regarding ID verification. But Lombardo vetoed it, citing several concerns over election integrity and voter security. 'By permitting voters to cast provisional ballots based on a written affirmation and submit proof of residency after Election Day, the bill weakens safeguards that ensure only eligible individuals participate in elections.' In addition, he said REAL ID is not a good standard because federal law permits some non-citizens and lawful status to get one. Other bills rejected on Wednesday included: SB128, which would have barred insurance companies from using AI to automatically generate rejections to claims. Lombardo called it unnecessary micromanaging. He also attacked the bill's requirements that doctors suggest stem cell therapy. SB352, which prohibited Medicaid and private insurers from discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. Lombardo called the bill a duplication of existing federal protections. SB378, which would have required 'free-standing emergency departments' to bill services at urgent care standards. Lombardo said the bill intended to improve access and affordability, but would likely have the opposite effect, putting facilities out of business. SB414 sought to require financial disclosures surrounding the 'inaugural committee,' but Lombardo attacked the bill as politically motivated. SB447, which would have created another way to challenge the award of a government contract. Lombardo said it would create 'a routine litigation tactic' that would lead to delays, higher costs and court injunctions. Two days remain for the governor to issue additional vetoes. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.