Happy Monday! We have 75,918 signatures. Thanks to all that signed. This will be quick with a request to write your Legislator or Lamont!!! Just click on your town. Here is the scoop.

HB 5340 - AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION was raised by the Energy and Technology co-chairs Norm Needleman and John Stienberg. What does it mean for us?

Senator Ryan Fazio is against the bill and explains why in a FB video here.

How is it bad? Although renewable energy is good, how is this going to be funded?

Meghan Portfolio from the Yankee Institute explains this in her March 20th article here with a conversation with one of our petition signers, Rob Keen, a retired Energy Engineer. 

I get it. Its complicated. Its involved. Its discriminatory against the low or fixed income ratepayers. 

How to understand this? Ask a non affiliated AI - CHAT GPT (LOL). Here is my response:

MY QUESTION:

"How would HB5340 bill in Connecticut end up with ratepayers getting an additional 11 billion added to the public benefits over ten years?"

CHAT GPT ANSWER:

Short answer: the “$11 billion over 10 years” number comes from financing costs + shifting existing obligations + adding new recoverable costs into the public benefits charge (PBC). It’s not just “new spending”—it’s largely how the bill restructures and amortizes costs through ratepayer-backed debt.

Here’s the mechanics broken down clearly.

 
1) What the public benefits charge already is
The PBC is not a small add-on—it’s already a major cost bucket (~20% of bills) and includes:

Low-income assistance programs
Unpaid utility bills (socialized losses)
Energy efficiency & electrification programs
Contracts like the Millstone nuclear deal
Various state-mandated energy policies
Utilities pay these upfront and pass them through to customers.

 
2) What HB5340-type proposals are doing structurally
Bills like HB5340 generally follow this model:

A. Convert current costs into long-term debt
Instead of charging you immediately, the state:

Bonds (borrows) billions to cover:

Uncollectible bills
Energy programs
Policy mandates
Then:

Ratepayers repay that debt over time through the PBC
👉 This is the key: you’re replacing current charges with financed charges

 
B. Add financing costs (this is where the number explodes)
If you borrow, say, $6–8 billion:

Interest over 10–20 years can easily add $3–5+ billion
That total repayment becomes $10–11+ billion
That’s how you get numbers like “$11 billion over 10 years”

It’s the same math as a mortgage:

Principal + interest = much larger total cost
 
C. Lock the charge into law
These structures typically:

Guarantee repayment to bondholders
Make the charge non-bypassable on electric bills
Remove flexibility to reduce it later
So instead of variable annual costs, you get a fixed long-term obligation

 
D. Potentially expand what qualifies
Depending on the bill language, more items can be included in PBC recovery:

Climate programs
Grid upgrades
Additional subsidies
That increases the base being financed.

 
3) Why critics say “$11 billion added”
Critics are combining:

Existing and projected program costs
Debt issued to cover them
Interest on that debt
Any expansion of eligible costs
So:

It’s not $11B of new programs—it’s $11B of total repayment obligation placed on ratepayers
 
4) The tradeoff (this is the real policy debate)

What supporters argue:
Lowers bills in the short term
Smooths spikes (like recent PBC surges)
Avoids immediate rate shock

What critics argue:
You’re kicking the can down the road
Total cost becomes much higher due to interest
Locks ratepayers into long-term payments
 
5) The core reality (no politics, just structure)
If HB5340 follows typical securitization/financing models:

Short-term bills ↓
Long-term total cost ↑
Risk shifts from utilities/state → ratepayers
That’s exactly how you end up with a headline like:

“$11 billion over 10 years”

***end of CHAT GPT***

Bottom line take-a-way: Reduce the rates during an election year and then have us ratepayers pay back this bond through the public benefits charge... And remember.... not all CT pays for this.

If you are not part of UI or Eversource (like Wallingford Electric) you don't pay any public benefit charges. 

Insanity never stops here in Connecticut. 

~scott~