When SB 1560, An Act Concerning Connecticut’s Economy, Electricity Affordability and Business Competitiveness and Establishing the Connecticut Energy Procurement Authority and the Green Bond was posted, it raised eyebrows.

It’s not often a comprehensive 80-page energy bill is introduced in a committee other than Energy & Technology.

The bill creates the Connecticut Energy Procurement Authority (CEPA), charged with taking over the buying of electricity, a function performed by our utilities. Also created is a Green Bond fund to pay for parts of electricity bills currently funded by ratepayers.  

The complexity of energy markets is daunting, but it’s important to note that there are processes, called dockets, in which all the players get a chance to participate equally. That due process is vital. It minimizes favoring one interest group over another.

SB 1560 needs work in that area. From testimony posted on the CGA’s website, it clear that many of the bill’s proposals caught energy stakeholders off guard. 

For example, if you put solar on your house or business, you are compensated for that, just like a power plant. And on really sunny days, unlike a fossil fuel plant, you’re putting 100% clean electricity into the grid. SB 1560 would drastically reduce that compensation for solar, just when grid-helpful solar with battery backup installations are increasing.

Solar vendors testified the change would wipe out the solar industry in Connecticut. The exodus of those businesses, jobs, and tax revenue from the state is in no way a positive. There’s a docket currently underway examining solar compensation. Let’s allow that to play out.

Another change proposes redefining nuclear power as renewable energy. To be clear, this won’t suddenly make spent uranium fuel rods unspent. But it will take funding away from true renewables that are cheaper in the long term. 

Ironically, for legislation promoting cost reductions, the solar and nuclear sections will save little, if anything, in the short term, and likely increase costs long term. Similarly, a section to reduce high demand charges to businesses would simply spread that among other ratepayers.

Tasked with electricity procurement, CEPA, according to the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, is not obligated to follow the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, which means “… both participants appearing before it and ratepayers are not guaranteed due process.” Further, CEPA can accept monetary gifts. It’s worth contemplating how sizable donations might influence CEPA’s politically appointed directors.

CEPA would use bonds to fund some of the combined public benefits programs. This could work if done with care. But as written, there are safeguards that are missing. Concerns raised by OCC’s analysis articulate situations that could require ratepayers to “… cover costs of the new programs in addition to the current costs ratepayers pay for on bills.” 

OCC points out they’ve already “… evaluated different potential revisions to our current procurement laws and processes…” in collaboration with the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, the Energy & Technology Committee, and other stakeholders. If legislators elect to go with a CEPA type entity, OCC has recommendations, one of which places it under the auspices of PURA or the Dept of Energy & Environmental Protection. This would continue necessary oversight on behalf of all ratepayers.  

Legislators voted SB 1560 out of the Finance, Revenue & Bonding committee, making clear it needs to be improved. They want to prudently address high utility rates. The OCC’s expertise is in understanding how to best put that in play.

Let’s put their guidance to work.

Andy Bauer is a member of the Town of Portland’s Clean Energy Task Force.

NEW FAIRFIELD, CT (WFSB) – A man was arrested on stolen vehicle charges after DNA linked him to the crime, Connecticut State police said.

Troopers charged 23-year-old Albert Sanchez-Hernandez of Bethel with larceny of a motor vehicle, sixth-degree larceny, and first-degree criminal trover.

On Dec. 17, 2024, New Fairfield police said they responded to the report of a stolen vehicle on Fulton Drive that was said to have occurred during the overnight hours.

On Dec. 19, 2024, state police said a trooper was investigating an unrelated crash in Sherman when the trooper spotted property from the previously reported stolen vehicle inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle involved in the crash.

With help from the Connecticut Adult Parole and Probation Office, New Fairfield officers interviewed one of the people involved in the collision.

“Information was developed that led police to believe that the stolen vehicle was being operated in the Stamford area, with a New York registration plate now attached,” state police said in their report.

State police said the stolen vehicle was recovered unoccupied in Danbury on Dec. 31, 2024.

They said DNA samples were collected from the stolen vehicle and sent to the state forensic laboratory for examination.

The results led to the identification of Sanchez-Hernandez as a potential suspect.

“After applying for a search and seizure warrant for Sanchez-Hernandez’s DNA, a sample was obtained which was later confirmed to be the DNA sample obtained from inside the stolen motor vehicle,” state police said.

An arrest warrant was granted by Danbury Superior Court.

On May 20, 2025, Sanchez-Hernandez was taken into custody on the strength of the warrant.

Sanchez-Hernandez was held on a court-set $50,000 bond, which troopers said he was unable to post.

He was transported to the Department of Correction ahead of his May 21 court date.

Copyright 2025 WFSB. All rights reserved.

Proposed reform to state eviction laws — which would have required landlords to provide a reason for evicting someone, a concept known as “just cause” — will not move forward this year, proponents said Tuesday.

As the legislature’s 2025 session approaches its final weeks, Housing Committee Co-Chair, Rep. Antonio Felipe, D-Bridgeport, said he doesn’t expect House Bill 6889 to come up for a vote in the House. The bill, which had broad support from Connecticut renters and housing advocates, passed the Housing Committee in March.

Although lawmakers who endorsed eviction reform said many of their colleagues privately supported it, not enough of them were willing to go public with that support by voting in favor of the bill.

“I don’t think there is any path forward at this point,” Felipe said Tuesday morning. “I believe we have the votes. I don’t believe those votes are all willing to be public at this point.”

Last year, Felipe faced problems in the House with a similar bill that would have reformed evictions in Connecticut. Although Senate leadership believed they had the votes, the House wasn’t able to secure enough support.

Felipe championed the just cause eviction bill again this session. The bill would have banned no-fault evictions, which typically occur at the end of a lease, in buildings with five or more units, after the tenant had been there for at least a year. Connecticut has similar protections in place for renters with disabilities and seniors.

Tenants say this type of eviction may be used in retaliation when renters complain about housing conditions or to evict every resident of a building or complex when new ownership purchases the property.

Negotiations over the bill have been going back and forth for weeks. Members of the Democratic party were split, even in the committee process.

H.B. 6889 drew some of the most heated debate and the largest number of speakers of any bill the Housing Committee considered this session.

Landlords opposed the bill, saying it would make it harder for them to evict problem tenants.

“There is no more cause for the ‘just cause’ bill today than there was when the legislature rejected it last year, because it does not protect Connecticut’s apartment communities and will not build one new apartment home to relieve the state’s housing shortage,” the Connecticut Apartment Association said in an April press release about the bill.

Ultimately, the bill faced a similar fate this year.

Luke Melonakos-Harrison, vice president of the Connecticut Tenants Union, said Tuesday that the news of its demise was disheartening, particularly considering the hundreds of renters who testified and the broad support it drew from advocacy groups focused on housing, homelessness, health and labor unions.

“I don’t understand what these Democrats are so afraid of,” Melonakos-Harrison said, adding that about a third of Connecticut residents are tenants compared to a much smaller number of landlords.

“It’s such a massive constituency that I struggle to understand why legislators, so many of them, seem to recognize landlords as a constituency with shared concerns, but don’t seem to recognize tenants as a constituency,” Melonakos-Harrison said.

The statewide Connecticut Tenants Union has gaining political power for the past few years, formalizing its structure and increasing lobbying activities. But lobbying groups representing landlords maintain a more established presence in the state Capitol.

While the bill was under consideration, some Connecticut residents received phone calls asking them to oppose the measure. “Imagine living next to someone who makes you feel unsafe, and there is nothing you can do about it. Can we count on you to oppose this bill?” one caller said.

House leadership earlier this month said support had been difficult to gather within the party caucus. Speaker of the House Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said he’d fielded concerns from lawmakers who feared that if new owners couldn’t evict renters, they wouldn’t be able to make renovations and rental housing would deteriorate.

Members of the Democratic caucus also raised concerns that it would be hard for landlords to evict “bad tenants,” Ritter said. Landlords have repeatedly raised the same issue — that if someone is smoking or being disruptive, it’s sometimes easier to evict them through a no-fault eviction. 

“You have people saying, ‘If you don’t incentivize people to come in, and then they can’t charge higher rents, they’re going to let their buildings be decrepit, deteriorate, and then flip it,” Ritter said. “And we could not solve that in the caucus. That was probably the single biggest issue.”

House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, said it’s a tough balance to strike between tenants’ rights and landlord issues.

Republican lawmakers broadly opposed the bill.

“I had serious concerns with this same proposal last year, which would have established a general right for any tenant to remain in a rental unit after a lease term expires in perpetuity. It didn’t even come up for a vote in the House because it’s a problematic concept,” said Housing Committee ranking member Rep. Tony Scott, R-Monroe, in a text message after the launch of the just cause campaign.

Sen. Rob Sampson of Wolcott, ranking member of the Housing Committee, has said the bill would violate landlords’ rights and that government shouldn’t encroach on private contracts like leases.

It wasn’t clear whether Gov. Ned Lamont supported the bill. At a recent press briefing, he gave what he admitted was a neutral response when questioned about his stance.

“Look, rents are going up a lot,” Lamont said. “There’s a lot of sudden shock. A lot of people are at risk of losing a place to stay. So I understand the worry about that. You also want to get a balance and make sure we have people continuing to invest in a state like this with rental units.”