I recently collaborated with the Yankee Institute to produce a policy report titled “The Green Monster: A Review of Connecticut’s Climate Protection Act of 2025.” This report examines Connecticut’s originally proposed House Bill 5004, dubbed the “Green Monster,” and its revised 2025 iteration. The report highlights significant flaws in the bill’s scientific assumptions and economic impacts. It also explains how the bill risks the state’s energy reliability.
On May 9, I joined Carol Platt Leibau on a Yankee Institute webcast to discuss the "The Green Monster" report. I point out in the report that, while the current version of the bill is slightly less aggressive than the 2024 version, it would still do significant harm with its mandates to reduce greenhouse gases and achieve “net zero” emissions for the state by 2050.
I explained how the Act’s reliance on misguided scientific assumptions, particularly the focus on CO2 as the primary driver of climate change, misses influences like solar cycles and other natural events. I also explained how Connecticut’s minimal contribution to global emissions—equivalent to 3.8 minutes of annual worldwide CO2 output— is dwarfed by China’s emissions. Carol and I discussed how Connecticut’s Governor, Ned Lamont, has publicly acknowledged that China produces more CO2 daily than New England does annually, underscoring the futility of Connecticut’s efforts in isolation.
The “Green Monster” bill also fails due to its reliance on the government picking winners and losers in energy and transportation markets. The bill promotes renewable energy, electric vehicles, and so-called energy efficiency with government subsidies and mandates. Notably, the bill also supports urban agriculture, which recent studies have found to have a significantly higher carbon footprint than traditional farming methods. So, in their rush to pass an ostensibly green bill, the authors appear not to realize that they are undercutting their efforts by promoting higher levels of GHG emissions.
Our discussion also covered the economic burdens imposed by the bill. Connecticut residents already pay the third-highest electricity rates in the U.S. I offered examples from a study I co-authored on the impacts of electrification in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, to show how electrifying homes could cost $25,000 per household, with additional annual expenses of $3,900. We also drew information from another study, prepared by the Energy Bad Boys for the Yankee Institute, which shows that meeting net-zero goals could cost Connecticut $175 billion by 2050. In every case we have found, the rising costs for electricity and lowered reliability that are imposed by decarbonization goals disproportionately affect low-income residents, who are (by definition) the least able to absorb the cost increases.
Carol and I also addressed grid reliability risks and Spain’s recent blackout, which most likely occurred due to the region’s heavy reliance on solar generation. I highlighted the value of nuclear energy and facilities like Connecticut’s Millstone Nuclear Power Station. Millstone provides 33% of the state’s electricity, with zero carbon emissions, but still faces pressure to close from misinformed green activists.
We wrapped up our interview by noting that some humility would be worthwhile when addressing the complexity of the climate and energy policy issues. I urged Connecticut’s legislators to strike a balance between environmental goals and economic realities, and to prioritize energy security. Carol and I emphasized how the Green Monster can harm vulnerable populations and pushed back against the notion that it represents a practical policy option. In reality, we noted that the bill is a futile effort that is based on unsettled science and unrealistic assumptions.
Share this post