In a move that could place an even greater burden on Connecticut taxpayers, the controversial Climate law The “Green Monster,” which failed in the last legislative session, is set to resurface in 2025. This proposal, which aims to promote green energy policies, threatens to drive up electricity bills even further – at a time when consumers are already struggling with two recent tariff increases.
In an interview with Fox61 On Tuesday (August 20), Rep. Joseph Gresko (D-Stratford), co-chair of the Environment Committee, announced his plan to reintroduce the bill early in the session. “If we do this as early as possible,” Rep. Gresko said, “we will have room to maneuver if horse-trading occurs so that the bill can pass the Senate in a timely manner.”
Last year, the “Green Monster” failed due to alleged deficiencies Timesaid some legislators.
The first drafts of the law were extremely ambitious and included a comprehensive residential electrification requirement that would have banned the use of natural gas, propane and oil in new construction and major renovations.
However, this mandate faced significant opposition, resulting in a major backlash. A revised version of the bill limited exclusive electricity use to government entities and set a target for these public entities to use only carbon-free electricity by 2030.
Another controversial proposal that sparked debate would have required the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to study how Connecticut could phase out natural gas entirely. This provision was also removed from the final draft of the bill.
Despite removing some of the more problematic provisions, the climate bill that ultimately passed the House of Representatives still contains elements that could lead to higher electricity prices as the state advances its environmental agenda.
As the 2025 session approaches, it is still uncertain which version of the bill will be proposed, and taxpayers are wondering whether the next version will revisit some of the more problematic provisions.
A central element of the climate bill is the introduction of more ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets set by the Connecticut Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). The GWSA currently mandates reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. (GHG) emissions are to be reduced by 45% below 2001 levels by 2030 and by 80% by 2050. The new law ups the ante and sets a more ambitious target: emissions are to be reduced by at least 65% below 2001 levels by 2030, including a zero percent limit on electricity supply to electricity customers by 2050.
In addition, the 2050 target has been revised to require a net zero level for the whole economy, i.e. a reduction in direct and indirect emissions by at least 80% below 2001 levels.
To support these goals, the bill authorizes the Commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to hire a consultant to prepare a report on greenhouse gas strategies at an estimated cost of $600,000. The report will evaluate the effectiveness of the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which require electric utilities to source a portion of their electricity from renewable energy, and will recommend strategies to achieve general and sector-specific emissions reduction goals.
Achieving these goals will likely require significantly greater use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, which currently tend to be more expensive than traditional fossil fuels, especially when considering the costs of infrastructure change and the integration of renewables into the electricity grid.
By aggressively pushing ahead with the energy transition towards renewable sources, the costs of this coercive measure will almost certainly be passed on to consumers.
The Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), the General Assembly’s nonpartisan fiscal research arm, has confirmed that setting additional targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will actually ‘result in costs for ratepayers’.
According to the OFA report, these costs are mainly due to the necessary expansion and modernization of the network by the electricity distribution companies in order to achieve the ambitious goals of the law.
It‘It is also worth noting that state and local governments, as taxpayers themselves, would not be immune to these increased costs — This could potentially lead to higher taxes at the state and local levels, placing an additional burden on taxpayers.
Another provision that threatens to drive up costs is the requirement for the DEEP Commissioner to develop a statewide plan for the installation of heat pumps, using existing state programs such as the Clean Energy Fund within the Connecticut Green Bank. This fund is funded in part by ratepayers to support various clean energy initiatives. It’s worth noting that the original “Green Monster” bill called for the installation of 310,000 heat pumps across the state. Although that specific mandate was eventually removed from the final bill, the revised version still leaves electric customers responsible for a plan that could significantly increase their electricity bills.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Connecticut’s electricity and gas customers have been forced to bear the cost of financing the state’s green goals.
On August 14, it was announced that Eversource and United Illuminating (UI) customers will face another rate increase on the public utility portion of their electricity bills beginning September 1 to cover the cost of improvements and reimbursements to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
In addition, taxpayers are currently subsidizing Rebates for electric vehicles through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) emissions trading program, which requires power plants to purchase permits or certificates for each ton of CO2 they emit. Proceeds from these auctions are used to finance renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
The reality is that the cost of these certificates is passed on to consumers, leading to higher electricity prices. In fact, private, commercial, And it is industrial electricity customers who bear the financial burden of these green initiatives, even though they already have some of the highest electricity prices in the country.
However, not all sections of the Green Monster Act carry the same financial risk. Provisions such as the task force to study underutilized sites for green economy entrepreneurs and the creation of a centralized data dashboard for renewable energy transparency are initiatives that could advance Connecticut’s clean energy goals without increasing the financial burden on residents.
Given the economic impact the more costly provisions could have on electricity customers, lawmakers would do well to introduce these less burdensome items separately. By isolating the initiatives that do not directly increase the electric bill, the state could still make significant progress on its environmental goals without further increasing the already astronomically high energy costs faced by Connecticut residents. This approach would allow the state to advance its clean energy program while protecting consumers from unnecessary financial hardship.
But even without the less controversial parts of the bill, the overall language of the “Green Monster” remains deeply troubling for those already struggling with the state’s exorbitant energy costs—Connecticut currently has the honor of fifth highest electricity prices in the country.
The bill’s return suggests that its supporters are unconcerned about the potential economic impact on taxpayers and are prioritizing an aggressive green agenda over the financial well-being of Connecticut residents.
With the 2025 session approaching, electric customers will be watching closely to see how lawmakers address these pressing issues. For now, the reinstatement of the Green Monster threatens to make an already dire situation even worse and add fuel to Connecticut’s ever-increasing electricity prices.
