Connect with us

Connecticut

Opinion: With just days left, we need action on offshore wind

Published

on

Opinion: With just days left, we need action on offshore wind


Over a year ago, Connecticut announced its signing of a first-of-its-kind agreement with Rhode Island and Massachusetts that would allow the three states to work together to bring new offshore wind projects to our region. But when Massachusetts and Rhode Island released their offshore wind selections in September, Connecticut was conspicuously absent. Unlike its neighbors, Connecticut has not yet joined in the multi-state offshore wind proposals, and soon it may be too late.

At first glance, this hesitation may seem understandable, even safe. After all, Connecticut customers are feeling the stress of rising energy expenses. But a closer look reveals that failing to move forward on offshore wind today would likely prolong the pain of high energy prices and could reduce

With just days left before the November 8 deadline to join this procurement, Connecticut policy leaders of all parties have expressed concern about energy costs, which have occurred for a number of reasons. This year we experienced one of the hottest summers on record, causing residents to crank up air conditioners and electric bills to increase. Eversource electric customers are also currently on the hook to collectively pay back $800 million from skipped collections during the COVID-pandemic via higher rates over a 10-month period. This fall, Yankee Gas is proposing a rate hike, as is the electric utility United Illuminating (UI). And an increasing reliance on imported natural gas puts customers in a precarious position as the gas supply

While there is no quick fix or single solution that can remedy the energy cost crunch, a “business-as-usual” approach is not going to bring long-term relief to ratepayers. If Connecticut continues down the current path, its growing overreliance on imported natural gas to supply both heating and electricity will further strain energy infrastructure and expose communities to major price spikes. Instead, we should be employing a diversity of resources. Offshore wind is one key way to take back control of our energy supply and maintain system reliability.

Advertisement

Offshore wind represents a significant reservoir of untapped potential for clean power right here along the East Coast. Offshore wind farms are incredibility efficient and effective at producing electricity due to their high energy capacity.  The projects proposed in the recent three-state process will offer a nearby dependable power source that will keep money in the local economy, meaning hundreds of good jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars would be invested in Connecticut.

To be clear, building offshore wind does require significant upfront capital, but that’s true for any large-scale energy infrastructure. And costs won’t flow to ratepayers until the projects are completed and electricity is generated – several years in the future. Moreover, once constructed, offshore projects have the advantage of utilizing an inexhaustible supply of wind to generate power. Not needing to pay for fuel translates to long-term cost savings and predictability for emission-free power. That’s a win for consumers. Offshore wind is a sensible investment towards energy independence, electric grid resilience, and decarbonization.

The multi-state procurement was initiated to help the three states solicit major project bids that were more favorable than if each state pursued offshore wind individually. Instead of competing, the southern New England states launched a cooperative collaborative approach that had wind developers compete to serve the region’s collective interest. By collaborating and sharing resources, the states could access more cost-savings and leverage efficiencies of the regional grid.

The good news is that there is still time —just barely— for Connecticut to seize this opportunity by making a critical investment in Connecticut’s future; Gov. Ned Lamont can still opt into the regional bids, joining our New England partners before the next steps of the process in early November.  But the clock is ticking, and now is the moment for Connecticut to make a wise investment in its energy future.

Kat Burnham is the Connecticut state-lead at the national business association Advanced Energy United.

Advertisement

 

 

 



Source link

Advertisement

Connecticut

Opinion: This Earth Day make polluters pay

Published

on

Opinion: This Earth Day make polluters pay


The costs of climate change are being borne by those who did the least to cause it. This Earth Day, we should expect more than symbolic gestures. We need our elected officials to stand up to harmful industry influence and deliver policies that hold major polluters accountable.

The effects of climate change have been inescapable across the world, especially in Connecticut. Just last month in March there was persistent unseasonable heat that was so intense that the continental United States registered its most abnormally hot month in 132 years of records, according to federal weather data. And the next year looks to turn the dial up on global warmth even more.

Connecticut residents are now more than ever facing the harmful and costly effects of climate change disasters. These costly disasters and effects have no limits on who is impacted.

A newly published DEEP report showed that climate change had already adversely affected Connecticut residents, businesses, and infrastructure over decades. Extreme weather has cost the state and private sector billions of dollars since 2010. This will continue, according to recent data on climate change.

Advertisement

Between 1880 and 2020, Connecticut experienced climate change impacts, including eight to nine inches of sea level rise; increased coastal erosion, warming of Long Island Sound; warmer hottest and coldest days of the year; increasing annual rainfall; decreasing annual snowfall; and increased rainstorms and flash flooding. In just 2023 and 2024 Connecticut faced multiple extreme weather events from deadly flooding in Southbury, deadly brush fires in Berlin, and millions of dollars of damage to farms from drought.

Let’s be clear, Connecticut taxpayers and residents are paying for 100% of these climate costs, costs that are falling on those least responsible.

Since the 2016 Paris Agreement, just 57 companies are directly linked to 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Carbon Majors Database. These companies include fossil fuel giants like Chevron, Shell, and BP, who raked in record profits in the last quarter of 2023.

Why shouldn’t those most responsible pay their fair share?

Fossil fuel companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to influence lawmakers and block climate action, because they know real accountability would cost them far more. Instead of paying for the damage their pollution has caused, they’re investing heavily in lobbying and political influence to avoid “polluter pays” policies and shift those costs onto taxpayers.

Advertisement

In light of Climate Superfund laws being introduced in over a dozen states including here in Connecticut, fossil fuel companies are actively shaping climate legislation to shield themselves from accountability. With more than 30 lawsuits filed by states and cities across the U.S., the industry is pushing for legal immunity to avoid paying for climate-related damages. These efforts are aimed at blocking “polluter pays” policies, like climate superfund laws, that would require them to cover the billions of dollars in costs tied to environmental harm, infrastructure impacts, and years of misleading the public.

This Earth Day, we need to flip the script. For too long, fossil fuel companies have pushed the idea that climate change is the result of individual choices, telling us to turn off the lights, take shorter showers, and shrink our personal footprint. Those actions matter, but they’re not the whole story.

The truth is, a small number of corporations are responsible for a massive share of global emissions. While they promote small lifestyle changes, they continue expanding fossil fuel production and investing millions to block meaningful climate policy.

We won’t see real progress until we name what’s actually happening. Accountability must be at the core of climate action, shifting the burden off everyday people and onto the biggest polluters. That means strong policies, real enforcement, and a firm commitment to a “polluter pays” approach. The Connecticut Legislature must act and pass a Climate Superfund bill to move costs off taxpayers and require fossil fuel companies to finally pay their fair share.

Julianna LaRue is an organizer for the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Advertisement

 



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

Amtrak won’t close shoreline rail bridges during World Cup, reversing earlier proposal

Published

on

Amtrak won’t close shoreline rail bridges during World Cup, reversing earlier proposal


Amtrak says it will not close any railroad bridges along Connecticut’s shoreline during the 2026 World Cup, backing away from a potential proposal that had sparked concerns from boaters, harbor officials, and marine businesses.

In an email Tuesday to NBC Connecticut, Amtrak spokesperson Jason Abrams said: “At this time, in coordination with the Coast Guard, we will not be closing any bridges on the Connecticut Coast Line during the tournament.”

The statement is a shift from a plan previously circulating among members of the boating community. That proposal outlined possible hourslong closures of several movable railroad bridges on the Connecticut shoreline on dates tied to World Cup matches in Foxborough, Massachusetts.

The affected bridges would have included the spans over the Connecticut River, Niantic River, Shaw’s Cove, Thames River and Mystic River.

Advertisement

The proposal had raised alarms among charter boat operators, harbor masters and marine industry leaders, who warned the closures could disrupt navigation during the height of the summer season, create safety risks on crowded waterways and hurt businesses that depend on fishing and recreational boating.

Amtrak also said is “exploring all options to move travelers safely and reliably during the World Cup with minimal interruption and inconvenience to local communities, visitors, and other stakeholders and travelers.”

Fans are expected to use rail service along the Northeast Corridor to travel to matches in the Northeast, including in the Boston area, where passengers would use connecting service to reach the stadium in Foxborough.

Earlier Tuesday, the U.S. Coast Guard told NBC Connecticut it was reviewing Amtrak’s request related to the bridge proposal.

“The Coast Guard has received Amtrak’s request for the bridge closures and are reviewing it to reach a final decision. When that decision is made, the Coast Guard will work with Amtrak. We are also aware of the mariners and boating communities concerns regarding this,” the Coast Guard had said.

Advertisement

It was not immediately clear whether Amtrak had formally withdrawn that request or whether the rail operator’s latest statement means the bridge closures are no longer under consideration.

NBC Connecticut reached out to the Coast Guard to request additional information.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Marylin A. Shields Obituary

Published

on

Marylin A. Shields Obituary


East Windsor, Connecticut — Marylin A. Shields (née Ouellette) passed away peacefully in the early morning hours of Friday, April 3, 2026—Good Friday— while receiving care at a healthcare facility in Windsor, Connecticut. She was surrounded…



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending