Yankee Institute applauds recent amendments to the 2025 “Green Monster” environmental legislation. The bill, as initially proposed, had significant flaws in its scientific assumptions and posed meaningful risks to Connecticut’s energy reliability and economy.
Anticipating the original iteration of the legislation, Yankee Institute had prepared a policy report titled “The Green Monster: A Review of Connecticut’s Climate Protection Act of 2025,” authored by Jason Hayes, Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the Mackinac Center. The paper analyzes the “Green Monster,” as originally presented.
Yankee Institute is releasing the report because although the legislation has changed, the extreme environmentalist agenda has not. “Legislation can always change,” said Carol Platt Liebau, president of Yankee Institute. “The report’s analysis is highly relevant, as opportunities remain for lawmakers and environmental activists to reincorporate their radical agenda via an implementer, an amendment on the General Assembly floor, or in the budget bills. No policy proposal can be considered truly ‘dead’ until the legislature adjourns sine die.”
The original bill, officially known as the “An Act Concerning the Protection of the Environment and the Development of Renewable Energy Sources and Associated Job Sectors,” mandates aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, net-zero goals, and a transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
“The original ‘Green Monster’ bill is aptly named. It’s a hideous overreach driven by an extreme ideology rather than practicality,” Liebau added. “Environmental protection is important, but radical “green” legislation would produce nothing but soaring costs, unreliable energy, and negligible global impact. It only burdens Connecticut’s families and businesses without doing anything to protect our environment.”
Yankee Institute notes that the policies laid out in the original version of the bill are based on questionable scientific premises and would have imposed substantial economic burdens on Connecticut residents. The evidence is laid out in the policy organization’s latest report, “The Green Monster: A Review of Connecticut’s Climate Protection Act,” authored by Jason Hayes, Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the Mackinac Center.
Key Findings from the Report:
- Flawed Scientific Assumptions: The original legislation assumes that GHG reductions will significantly mitigate climate change, but historical data and expert analyses, including those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), show climate is influenced by multiple factors beyond CO2. Connecticut’s unilateral net-zero goals, such as a 65% GHG reduction by 2040, are canceled out completely by rising global emissions, particularly from nations like China.
- Economic Burdens: The original bill’s mandates, including all-electric construction and reliance on intermittent renewables, are likely to increase Connecticut’s already high electricity costs — already the third highest in the nation. A November 2024 Yankee Institute report estimates an additional $175.2 billion in costs by 2050 to meet existing net-zero mandates, with potential increases in housing costs and grid upgrade expenses. This would come as unwelcome news to those who already claim Connecticut is confronting an affordable housing crisis.
- Energy Security Risks: The shift from reliable fossil fuels and nuclear power to variable wind and solar threatens grid reliability, with ISO-New England warning of potential blackouts lasting up to 18 hours. Excluding nuclear power, such as the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, from clean energy classifications could jeopardize a full 33% of Connecticut’s electricity supply.
Yankee Institute urges lawmakers to avoid reviving the deleted portions of the original “Green Monster” bill, YI emphasizes the importance of prioritizing market-driven innovation and economic health over costly mandates in developing policies that balance environmental concerns with affordability and reliability.
