Connecticut residents already face some of the highest electricity bills in the country—averaging more than $200 a month in 2024—yet nearly two dozen state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make this affordability crisis worse by driving up the price of gasoline and home heating. [some emphasis, links added]
A “New” Climate Superfund Proposal
The proposed bill, “An Act Concerning a Climate Change Superfund”, would charge American energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions over thirty years, then funnel that revenue toward initiatives such as road and bridge upgrades—cleverly rebranded as “climate infrastructure projects.”
The superfund label may sound new, but the mechanism is familiar: an energy tax that will ultimately land on the families and businesses who can least afford it.
Despite persistent “affordability” messaging to its supporters, the activist-backed bill does nothing to lower costs.
A new report from the Connecticut-based Yankee Institute spotlights this plan. Notably, one analysis found that it would add roughly 33 cents per gallon to the cost of gasoline, diesel, and heating oil.
Spending more at the pump and for home heating in one of the coldest states in the nation is hardly making life more affordable in a state where the average monthly electric bill reached $199.66 in 2024, the second highest in the nation, and $57 more than the national average.
Business Groups Warn of Higher Costs
During a marathon public testimony session last month, a wide range of business groups and industry representatives warned lawmakers that the proposal would exacerbate Connecticut’s existing cost-of-living pressures.
Bryson Hull, Deputy Northeast Director of the Consumer Energy Alliance, cautioned that the bill would effectively function as a broad energy tax on households and businesses:
“Affordability is already an issue many Connecticut families struggle with, in large part because we pay some of the highest electricity rates in the nation. This proposal is, at its core, a massive tax on the fuels that heat our homes, power our vehicles, and keep the lights on — and that tax will be passed directly to every Connecticut family, business, and farm.”
Hull also flagged that the legislation would draw the state into a costly long-term court battle, as seen with similar climate superfund laws in New York and Vermont:
“The Vermont and New York laws on which H.B. 5156 is modeled – with the help of special interest groups who sit here today in support of it and higher costs for Connecticut’s people – are already being challenged in court. This bill attempts to achieve legislatively what a privately-funded litigation campaign could not, having been thrown out of multiple courts as meritless – and exposing California’s attorney-general to a defamation lawsuit in the process.”
Concerns Extend Beyond the Energy Industry
Other organizations pointed out that higher energy costs would ripple throughout the state’s economy.
Connecticut Greenhouse Growers Association Executive Director Susan Pronovost warned that the state’s farmers would bear the brunt of higher energy costs:
“Any cost recovery demand imposed on upstream energy and refining entities will inevitably be passed down the supply chain, increasing costs for farms already under severe financial pressure. For most producers and family farms, there is no practical way to absorb or pass on these increases to our customers. The result will be reduced farm viability.”
Peter Brennan, executive director of the New England Convenience Store & Energy Marketers Association, agreed that consumers would get stuck with the bill:
“The tax that these bills seek to levy on energy producers, through a convoluted and arbitrary calculation, will ultimately be paid by every business and person that participates in the sale or use of petroleum products. These costs will inevitably be passed along to consumers in the form of higher energy prices, transportation costs, and goods inflation.”
Key lawmakers also raised doubts about the bill during the hearing. Assistant House Republican Leader Doug Dubitsky pressed supporters on whether the legislation would meaningfully reduce global emissions or if the costs associated with the bill would fall on Connecticut taxpayers:
“So this wouldn’t affect the global market, it would only affect the Connecticut market.”
Bottom Line
From farmers to convenience store owners to energy marketers, the message from Connecticut’s business community was unified: this bill will hurt the people it claims to help.
With costs already crushing households across the state, lawmakers should be looking for ways to ease the burden — not add to it.
Read more at EID Climate
