logo
Connecticut bill aims to cut electric costs, but may stifle clean energy

Connecticut bill aims to cut electric costs, but may stifle clean energy

Yahoo28-04-2025

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard

Boston Globe

time9 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.

‘He knows where to find me,' Gov. Newsom responds to Trump administration arrest threat
‘He knows where to find me,' Gov. Newsom responds to Trump administration arrest threat

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘He knows where to find me,' Gov. Newsom responds to Trump administration arrest threat

California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to threats over the weekend by the Trump administration that he could be arrested if he interferes with ICE arrests of undocumented immigrants. 'He's a tough guy, why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me,' Newsom said during an interview with MSNBC News on Sunday. The governor also issued some strong statements toward the president and his administration's crackdown on immigration. 'But, you know what? Lay your hands off 4-year-old girls that are trying to get educated. Lay your hands off these poor people that are just trying to live their lives, man. Trying to live their lives, paying their taxes … been here 10 years,' Newsom said. The governor's comments come in response to threats by Trump's 'border czar,' Tom Homan, to arrest anyone who obstructs the immigration enforcement effort, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, NBC News reported. 'I'll say about anybody,' Homan told the television network. 'You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.' For her part, Bass said Homan's comments were unnecessary. 'I spoke to him last night. He understands that I am the mayor of the city; the last thing in the world I'm going to do is get into a brawl with the federal government. So that just made no sense. There was no reason for that comment,' she told NBC News. Newsom and other Democratic leaders have criticized Trump's use of the National Guard in trying to quell anti-ICE immigration protests that turned violent in Los Angeles over the weekend, saying the escalation in force will only lead to further trouble. Newsom also announced plans to sue the Trump administration over the deployment. Meanwhile, Trump has indicated he would be willing to bring in the U.S. Marines if he felt the situation called for it. Trump also backed up Homan's warning to officials, saying they will 'face judges' if they stand in the way. 'Who the hell is this guy? Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with, tough guy,' Newsom responded. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

White House budget request slashes funding for tribal colleges and universities
White House budget request slashes funding for tribal colleges and universities

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

White House budget request slashes funding for tribal colleges and universities

In President Donald Trump's budget request, he's proposing slashing funding for tribal colleges and universities, including eliminating support for the country's only federally funded college for contemporary Native American arts. If the budget is approved by Congress, beginning in October, the more than $13 million in annual appropriations for the Institute for American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, New Mexico, would be reduced to zero. It would be the first time in nearly 40 years that the congressionally chartered school would not receive federal support, said Robert Martin, the school's president. 'You can't wipe out 63 years of our history and what we've accomplished with one budget,' Martin said on Friday. 'I just can't understand or comprehend why they would do something like this.' The college, founded in 1962, has provided affordable education to thousands of Native artists and culture bearers, including U.S. poet laureate Joy Harjo, painter T.C. Cannon and bestselling novelist Tommy Orange. It's the only four-year degree fine arts institution in the world devoted to contemporary Native American and Alaskan Native arts, according to its website. Martin said he has spoken with members of Congress from both major political parties who have assured him they'll work to keep the institute's budget level for the next fiscal year, but he worries the morale of students and staff will be affected. Martin said he also spoke with staff in the office of U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Cole, a Republican and former member of IAIA's board of trustees and a longtime advocate in Congress for funding that supports tribal citizens, was unavailable for comment. Breana Brave Heart, a junior studying arts and business, said the proposal shocked her and made her wonder: 'Will I be able to continue my education at IAIA with these budget cuts?' Brave Heart said she started organizing with other students to contact members of Congress. 'IAIA is under attack," she said, "and I need other students to know this.' Martin said that amid the Republican Trump administration's crackdown on federal policies and funding that support diversity, equity and inclusion, trust responsibilities and treaty rights owed to tribal nations have also come under attack. 'It's a problem for us and many other organizations when you've got that DEI initiative which really is not applicable to us, because we're not a racial category, we're a political status as a result of the treaties," he said. 'We're easily identified as what this administration might refer to as a 'woke'.' Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico said the cuts are another example of the Trump administration 'turning its back on Native communities and breaking our trust responsibilities.' "As a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I remain committed to keeping IAIA fully funded and will continue working with appropriators and the New Mexico Congressional Delegation to ensure its future,' Luján said in a statement to The Associated Press. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The congressional budget bill includes roughly $3.75 trillion in tax cuts, extending the expiring 2017 individual income tax breaks and temporarily adding new ones that Trump campaigned on. The revenue loss would be partially offset by nearly $1.3 trillion in reduced federal spending elsewhere, namely through Medicaid and food assistance. A Jan. 30 order from the Interior Department titled 'Ending DEI Programs and Gender Ideology Extremism' stated that any efforts to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion in the department's policy should exclude trust obligations to tribal nations. However, earlier this year, several staff members at the other two congressionally chartered schools in the country — the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas — were laid off as part of Trump's push to downsize the federal workforce. In a lawsuit filed in March, both institutions reported that some staff and faculty were rehired, but the Bureau of Indian Education notified those people that might be temporary and they may be laid off again. 'It shows what a president's values and priorities are, and that's been hard,' said Ahniwake Rose, president of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, an organization that represents more than 30 Tribal Colleges and Universities. "That's been hard for our staff, our students, our faculty to see that the priority of the administration through the Department of Interior might not be on tribal colleges." In its budget request this year, the Interior Department is proposing reducing funding to the BIE's post secondary programs by more than 80%, and that would have a devastating affect on tribal colleges and universities, or TCUs, which rely on the federal government for most of their funding, said Rose. Most TCUs offer tribal citizens a tuition-free higher education, she said, and funding them is a moral and fiduciary responsibility the federal government owes tribal nations. In the many treaties the U.S. signed with tribal nations, it outlined several rights owed to them — like land rights, health care and education through departments established later, like the BIE. Trust responsibilities are the legal and moral obligations the U.S. has to protect and uphold those rights. The Interior Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store