Friends,
There’s been a lot of misinformation about HB 5340, Connecticut’s renewable energy and solar modernization bill, so let’s talk facts.
This bill did not create a brand-new solar program. It continues and reforms existing programs that were already set to expire, with added cost controls and reforms negotiated into the final bill. In fact, the final compromise included a budget target estimated to be nearly 10% lower than historic program spending levels.
Connecticut’s energy demand continues to rise. We need a balanced approach that includes baseload power like nuclear, expanded transmission, conservation, and renewable generation such as solar. Ignoring one piece of the puzzle will not solve our affordability crisis.
That doesn’t mean every provision is free or that energy policy is simple. But it does mean the purpose of the legislation is to stabilize and reduce long-term costs by increasing supply, modernizing infrastructure, and avoiding the mistake of allowing successful existing programs to abruptly expire.
I’ve consistently spoken out about high electric bills and public benefits costs. I’ve supported efforts to cap and reform public benefits charges, improve transparency, and hold utilities accountable. At the same time, I’m not going to pretend Connecticut can meet future energy demand without investing in generation and grid resilience.
Some politicians keep talking about pipelines as the answer to everything. The reality is that building major new interstate natural gas pipelines through the Northeast has faced years of legal, environmental, land-use, and multi-state regulatory hurdles. It is not a short-term solution to lowering bills next month or next year.
Meanwhile, legislation we passed last year is already helping lower rates starting May 1st by reducing certain public benefits costs and reforming how charges are applied.
We cannot complain about high electric rates while simultaneously opposing every effort to add generation capacity or modernize our energy infrastructure.
Reasonable people can disagree on policy. But residents deserve honest conversations, not scare tactics. |
|
