Connecticut residents rank among the strongest supporters of climate policy in the country. In 2022, Gov. Ned Lamont was reelected by a wide margin shortly after he and the legislature committed the state to a bold decarbonization pathway.
The science behind climate risks is stronger than ever, and there’s little reason to believe concern in Connecticut has waned. But the world around us has changed dramatically: our climate strategy was designed when there was strong momentum for global decarbonization that has since stalled. Because Connecticut’s efforts only matter in the context of a global response, we must ask whether our strategy fits today’s realities.
A few years ago, optimism for global climate progress was high. President Joe Biden committed the country to ambitious targets, and Congress passed landmark legislation—most notably the Inflation Reduction Act— pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into clean energy. Other major economies were pushing forward as well: China stunned the world with its net-zero pledge, and the European Green Deal promised the first carbon-neutral continent.
Connecticut followed suit with a bold climate law of its own, including a mandate for 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2040. At the time, we were doing our “fair share” as part of a global coalition committed to climate leadership.
Today, that context looks different. Under President Trump, the U.S. is retreating from domestic decarbonization and actively undermining global efforts —including sabotaging an international pact on shipping emissions. In Europe, the war in Ukraine has shifted focus to energy security and affordability. China’s latest climate pledge merely codifies its business-as-usual trajectory. Instead of accelerating, global climate action is losing steam.
Connecticut faces its own headwinds. In 2021, regulators envisioned offshore wind supplying roughly half of the state’s electricity by 2040. Today, the offshore wind industry is struggling due to rising costs and the loss of federal support. More broadly, clean energy projects will be costlier for ratepayers due to the pullback of federal subsidies.
This doesn’t mean we should abandon our climate goals. But we should rethink our strategy. How should a small state like Connecticut, that is committed to climate progress, navigate a world that’s not moving in the same direction?
One option is to stay the course and strive to be a model. We teach our children to keep promises even when others don’t —shouldn’t we do the same? A small state can have global influence by becoming a success story that others can replicate.
Major changes would be needed to get there. Replacing the 60% of Connecticut’s electricity that comes from natural gas will require massive investments— not just in renewables and batteries but also in 24/7 generation like nuclear power. That would come with a steep price tag. Those costs may be worthwhile given the climate, health, and community benefits of clean energy.
However, few will look to Connecticut as a model if we simply stack large costs on top of an already expensive system. Our electricity rates are among the highest in the country, and nearly double those in Pennsylvania. Leading by example would require cutting costs while cutting emissions.
I’ve authored a study that highlights some opportunities, including streamlining the permitting and interconnection processes for critical clean energy infrastructure; reducing the overlap between our cap-and-trade program, renewable portfolio standard, and state-led procurements; and completing the transition to performance-based regulation, aligning the incentives of utilities with our affordability and decarbonization goals.
Instead of sticking with existing targets, Connecticut could recalibrate its goals to better align with today’s economic and political realities. More gradual decarbonization could enable the state to postpone major investments —such as in offshore wind or new nuclear plants— until the costs of these technologies fall. We could reevaluate expensive rooftop solar subsidies, which pay about three times as much per kilowatt-hour as grid-scale solar. And we could consider investments in natural gas infrastructure —additional pipeline capacity could help relieve bottlenecks that drive up costs and emissions each winter.
Counterintuitive as it may seem, easing off aggressive climate targets could enable faster emissions reductions. More affordable energy helps to sustain support for climate policies and encourages more households to switch to electric cars and appliances.
Reasonable people will disagree on which of these two paths —or others— best reflects Connecticut’s values and constraints. The worst option is to press forward blindly until we hit a breaking point: ambitious targets, no credible way to meet them, and public frustration over rising energy bills.
Energy prices will be a key issue in next year’s governor’s election, just as they were in New Jersey this year. Connecticut needs an honest debate, and fresh thinking, to shape a strategy fit for today, not 2022.
As economist John Maynard Keynes put it, “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”
Noah Kaufman PhD of West Hartford is a Senior Research Scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA.
