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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why not invite a politician or scientist pushing this dark green nonsense to go Carbon free – in each cell of their body.
Now, there’s a new area for them to work on….
Am I missing something? Aren’t they simply transferring the responsibility to the same people or do utility layers not pay taxes??
I think you found the real story.
How much of the budget is debt, so the payer is “nobody today”?
-or-
How much does government skim, by having government salary/benefit employees to manage the arrangement?
Its always been about control – and the money.
Well, in typical Dumbocrat fashion, they’ve discovered a way to make the worse-than-useless wind and solar even MORE expensive – by adding BOND INTEREST on top of the month-to-month costs!
This is a good thing, actually. The state of CT (like others) has mandated an ever-increasing burden of so-called “green energy” onto the backs of ratepayers. It is the state itself which should pay for them, and yes, that means higher taxes. If nothing else, perhaps that will light a fire under the taxpayers.
Unless they manage to hide the fact that the state is paying for it. Then our rates won’t seem so high and people might think “green energy ain’t so expensive”. I think it’s better to have it out in the open. More specifically, our rate bills should say what % of the cost is due to green energy vs. non green energy.
Yes, and the cost of “green” energy should include *ALL OF THE COSTS* including fossil fuel plants running inefficiently to provide frequency modulation and backup, plus all additional infrastructure costs to connect the wind and solar to the grid, plus the other increased costs, including importing power and other grid “management” costs, attributable to adding more wind and solar to the grid (INCLUDING how such costs will ESCALATE as wind and solar “penetration” increases).
What you’re more likely to get from the Eco-Nazi Democrats is propaganda like “LCOE” that conveniently LEAVES OUT MOST OF THE COSTS.
Exactly- I see it all the time and it drives me crazy.
‘This is a good thing, actually.’
Not really, most people only file tax returns once per year and by then most of the cost will have already been ‘buried’ in payroll withholding taxes. Better that the rate payers open their bills each month and see that ~1/3 wet bite being taken out of their butts for the ‘Public Benefits’ charges.
After 40 years I still remember a civics teacher who said something like “if taxpayers received a bill for their taxes at the end of every year there’d be a revolution”.
“It is the state itself which should pay for them”
Huh? Where does government get money?
“Connecticut sunk $311 million into refurbishing a pier with the purpose of launching offshore wind turbines”
For a pier? What’s it made of, gold and other rare minerals?
Parliament paid £9 million to fix a door
https://order-order.com/2025/05/01/finally-finished-house-of-lords-door-renovation-costs-taxpayer-9-million/
Somebody ought to go to prison when this sort of rip off of the public occurs. It looks like a nice door but it’s not one of those extraordinary, priceless doors built by Michelangelo- the gilded doors of the Florence Baptistery.
Did you guys over there steal some of our Democrats? Good-keep ’em.
Labour…. What is the difference?
It’s quite visible from the Gold Star Memorial bridge (I-95) in New London, CT. Stacks of turbine blades and rows of support columns all waiting to be ‘launched’, whatever that means.
Time for something like the Bah-stin tea party- toss them right into the water. 🙂
What, and create another Super Fund site we need to remediate?
Mike Dukakis, Boston Harbor.
Yeah right off Martha’s Vinyard in front of Obama’s house.
When he was a young lawyer- he worked in the ghettos- to show how progressive he was- now he needs to live with the elites on Mah-tha’s Vinyard. I always respected Jimmy Carter, if not as a president, as a person. When he left the presidency, he helped build homes and got back on the tractor at his peanut farm.
Let ’em “launch” them right back to where they wasted the resources to build them. And disconnect all the similar crap currently on the local grid.
Then they can crow about how they “cut our energy costs” (that they unnecessarily increased to begin with).
I can see it from where I’m sitting
The pier is huge. It should be repurposed as a small shipping port. I drive by it every day. So sad to see such a waste of tax payer money.
As a former resident of CT this hit home. We left for Florida in 2021 to get away from high taxes, bad weather, and also the high electric rate. Our rate here in Florida is 13cents/kwH, while in CT the net total rate is over 30cents/kwH. Further, we had constant power outages, averaging at least one per month each lasting over 2 hours and closer to 4 hours. After a storm, we could be out for multiple days. The people in CT complain, yet like many blue states they keep electing the same people to the government. I have zero sympathy for their plight.
The stupidity of voters is haunting them,
That and a complicated-to-discuss utility workforce living a 1950s paradigm.
Not in Runcorn today
And everyone else who doesn’t vote like they do…
Well have sympathy for mine – I keep voting against them, but too many idiots haven’t figured it out yet.
Story tip – good news –
Liberation Day 2.0: Trump Terminates Federal Funding for NPR and PBS – PJ Media
‘Renewables are generally less reliable than other sources of power’ When are they not?
always less reliable
Always UNRELIABLE.
It’s like this. Denmark and Sweden couldn’t get enough power together for 15 years to charge a battery RoRo ferry-
(197) ⚡️⚡️ Electric Ferry CANCELLED – bet you can’t guess why! ⚡️⚡️ | MGUY Australia – YouTube
No matter with the help of $60 million in Tasmanian Govt finance for 250 tonnes of 40 megawatts of battery ferry-
Incat launches China Zorrilla, world’s largest electric ship
both Argentina and Uruguay will be able to facilitate that on either side of the River Plate. What could possibly go wrong? Watch this space folks as I suspect only a modest deposit has been paid for said ferry to date and it’s a long way to the River Plate.
I still say, let the states pay for their mandates, then let the voters decide. Fair is fair.
This crap is what you get for making bad voting decisions that comes back to haunt you, I have no sympathy for voters who are too lazy and too ignorant to vote non patriots into power.
Trump pulled about 42% in 2024 and actually won 2 of CT’s 8 counties, so not all of them are ‘too lazy and too ignorant to vote non patriots into power’.
I suppose attempting to bury green expenditures within a debt service line item in the state budget could be viewed as clever. Connecticut bond ratings are currently in pretty good shape. However, one of the best ways to destroy a good credit rating is to issue bonds for foolish purposes. Yet another “present” for a future generation.
“Connecticut Democratic lawmakers are proposing that taxpayers foot the bill for high utility costs in the state”
Um… okay. If Connecticut voters selected representatives who picked expensive utilities what should I expect to read?
Just another “redistribution” scheme since the factions the Democrats are continually carrying the favor of will be in the lower tax brackets (who will therefore be punished less by the party of “free” stuff by dumping their electric bill increases on the tax rate “structure” aka somebody else pays, vote for us) or are the wealthy or politically connected, who are getting the “benefits” of stupid energy policies in other fashions (malinvestments, tax “credits” for non-existent “profits,” etc.).
As usual, the middle class, paraphrasing the great Jim Carrey, “bends over and TAKES IT UP THE TAILPIPE!”
“according to February data from . . .”
One needs to look at the numbers with two disclaimers;
First, the numbers are “Cents per Kilowatthour” (kWh)– but there are also “facility charges” or some such. For example: My current “Energy Delivered” cost is $0.1021/kwh [10.21¢]. There is also a monthly set fee of $26.60 called a Facility Charge. The rate is set once each year and does not vary otherwise. (central Washington Kittitas County).
Second, rates vary within the State of WA. The table gives the State average of 12.48¢ while in a county just east of me the rate is about 5¢ and over to the west (Tacoma) the rate is about 14¢.
In Douglas County WA [center of State and east of the Columbia River] the rate is 3.27¢.
Nutmeggers – read that and weep.
Yes I lived in Eastern WA once. Marveled at the low electric rates all that hydropower brought.
Still had to keep the electric baseboard heat pretty low to avoid an eye-watering electric bill in the winter though! That is NOT a good way to heat!
No.no.no.
I’m all in favor in sticking it to taxpayers. They voted in a Green New Deal. So pay for it. Financial pain is the only way to create a real revolt against Green Progressives.
I disagree, because the idiots “voting blue” as a block are largely benefitting from pawning off electric bills on the taxpayers given they tend to be the “low tax bracket sponges.” Let THEM feel the pain of their stupid voting.
“…the state’s electricity to be entirely carbon-free by 2040…”
I applaud this legislation. It’s only a matter of time for another virtue-signaling state to say, “Ok, I see your 2040 and raise it to 2035!” It won’t take long to get to zero CO2 in the past!
Why does saving everyone’s future always cost so much money?
When I go to a psychic it always costs about $20. I get a reading in about 20 minutes, I pay the $20 and I’m on my way again with valuable information that I didn’t have before. No muss no fuss, no continuing expense.
I went to a psychic the other day – you know what she told me?
“I knew you were coming.”
Until CT voters learn not to vote for people that rob them blind, in one way or another, nothing will change……..
The installed base of People Incapable of Critical Thinking, aka “Democrats” (but then I repeat myself) is too large.