Former Rep Palm Get a New Job
At the Jan. 7 Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (CTLCV) event, former Rep. Christine Palm (D-Chester) led a breakout session titled “Media and Communications During the Legislative Session.” The 33-minute discussion, including a Q&A, touched briefly on the rise of environmental journalism and her preferred newspapers but ultimately served as a platform for Palm’s personal announcement — she has a new venture.
Palm, who reminded attendees it was her final day as a state representative, unveiled The Active Voice LLC, an organization she said is dedicated to empowering young environmentalists. Explaining her motivation, Palm criticized her former colleagues for ignoring youth voices, particularly when young people testified on legislation.
“We are screwing our young people out of their future,” she said. “I have become, in six years, livid by how little my colleagues have listened to the voices of young people when they come to testify on bills.
Palm also accused legislators of patronizing young constituents during their appearances at the Capitol while consistently voting against their interests.
Citing Generation Z’s voting patterns and passion for environmental issues, Palm argued that young people need to be encouraged, educated, and mobilized to participate in the political process. “We in government do a terrible job explaining ourselves,” she admitted, adding that The Active Voice will focus on demystifying government and bringing youth into policy discussions.
Still, she wasted no time urging attendees to “partner with us when we get off the ground.”
If Ratepayers are First, Why is Nobody Listening?
Democratic leaders gathered on Thursday (Jan. 16) to unveil their “ratepayers first energy bill,” a yet-to-be-defined piece of legislation touted by Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney (D-New Haven) as “a flagship energy bill.” Despite its promises, the bill remains in its conceptual stage, with few specifics to reassure Connecticut residents facing skyrocketing electric bills.
According to Sen. Looney, the bill aims “to address costs and enhance the reliability of Connecticut’s power grid, increase energy production, and ensure that utilities prioritize ratepayers.”
Echoing Sen. Looney, Sen. Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) highlighted strategies that put an emphasis on conservation and diversification, though his remarks might leave some ratepayers wondering how and when they will receive relief.
“We always tell consumers… the cheapest energy is the energy that we don’t use,” Sen. Duff remarked emphasizing conservation as a priority.
He added, “It’s really important that we continue to focus on conservation efforts, clean energy, and other strategies to save consumers money. We also know the importance of diversifying our energy generation, including nuclear, solar, and hydro. Connecticut doesn’t rely on just one method to generate electricity; we have multiple sources.”
Sen. Norm Needleman (D-Essex), chair of the Energy Committee, admitted details of the bill are still a work in progress. “I’m here to fight the battle for the ratepayers. That’s why this bill is being titled Ratepayers First.” Yet he acknowledged that the legislation is essentially a blank slate, adding, “We’re going to listen to all the bills that are coming in… and then decide what belongs in this bill.”
Despite the rhetoric, lawmakers appear out of touch with the frustrations of Connecticut ratepayers. Since last summer, Eversource customers have seen nearly $48 monthly increases, while United Illuminating (UI) customers saw $34 hikes. These charges prompted one Connecticut resident to launch a petition demanding the removal of the public benefits charge — a petition that has garnered nearly 70,000 signatures.
When questioned about cutting items like electric vehicle (EV) charger rebates for wealthier residents from the public benefits charge, Sen. Needleman replied, “Maybe we can move that into bonding,” adding that it’s only “a small amount of money.”
Sen. Needleman also attempted to downplay the controversy over the public benefits charge, particularly the portion that funded the COVID-19 shut-off moratorium, as a “messaging problem.” He explained, “The message came out that this is all helping people, this is social policies. There are some, but things like energy efficiency and decoupling and how we handle procurements are also in that category.”
To be fair, the biggest chunk of the public benefits charge comes from a 2017 deal the state struck to keep the Millstone nuclear power plant running. But here’s the catch: Millstone doesn’t just serve Connecticut’s Eversource and UI customers — it supplies about 15% of the power for the entire New England grid. If lawmakers do nothing, Connecticut’s Eversource and UI customers will keep footing the bill for a benefit that stretches far beyond the state’s borders.
As lawmakers are quick to champion their commitment to ratepayers, their actions speak louder than words. With electricity costs surging and no concrete plan in sight, the so-called “ratepayers first” agenda feels like little more than a political slogan. If legislators truly want to put ratepayers first, they need to start listening to them.
Big Labor Caucus Lays Out Agenda
During a Wednesday (Jan. 15) press conference, Democrats from both chambers outlined their 2025 priorities — an agenda that is essentially on the wish list of the state’s organized labor groups.
Sen. Looney kicked off the session by highlighting what he referred to as “two high-priority” concepts, which includes handing out unemployment insurance to striking workers. He expressed his hope that Connecticut will “join a couple of other progressive states that have already established the principle that when workers are out on an extended strike of more than two weeks, they will then be eligible for unemployment compensation.”
Sen. Looney framed the initiative as a matter of “labor justice” and “economic justice,” asserting that “no one goes on strike lightly.” Sen. Duff echoed these sentiments, calling the proposal “really so important for the workers across the state of Connecticut.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Julie Kushner (D-Danbury), Co-Chair of the Labor and Public Employees Committee, praised the leadership’s backing of the agenda, stating, “It’s wonderful to have the support of our leadership to really put forward the needs of working families.” She also highlighted the significance of a low-numbered bill (Senate Bill 8), saying, “It’s wonderful to be here at the beginning of session and to have a low-numbered bill. We all know what that means. It means that it’s a priority of our caucus to really support working families in Connecticut.”
However, this portion of the bill would only benefit union workers, who make up a mere 6.7% of the state’s workforce, a sharp decline from 8.3% in 2018. In other words, this isn’t about helping the average Connecticut worker; it’s about giving unions a leg up.
What this legislation really does is stick the government’s nose into private negotiations between management and labor, with the government effectively taking sides. By offering financial support to striking workers, the state would be tipping the scales in favor of unions, setting a dangerous precedent. Not only would this hurt businesses, but it also risks dealing a blow to Connecticut’s economy and driving away potential investment.
The bill also sneaks in a regulation targeting what lawmakers have decided are “unreasonable production quotas” for warehouse workers. Moreover, the proposal includes a vague provision labeled “protecting workers’ rights,” which acts as a blank check for future handouts to their friends in big labor — allowing them to tack on whatever union-friendly measures they want down the line.
What’s interesting is that they’ve bundled these concepts into a single bill — clearly a political maneuver to back lawmakers into a corner, forcing them to vote in favor of the bill because they might support parts of it, even if they strongly oppose the idea of paying workers who choose to go on strike.
Yankee Institute’s Labor Fellow, Frank Ricci, weighs in on the issue in a recent National Review op-ed. Click here to read the full article.
