Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
In politics, it’s not uncommon for a lawmaker to tailor their message to different audiences but Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (D-Westport) is taking the art of double-speak to a whole new level.
In the span of five days, the Westport Democrat gave two strikingly conflicting speeches on energy policy — one to environmental activists and one to business leaders.
Speaking on June 6 to the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (CTLCV), Rep. Steinberg declared that the 2025 legislative session was hijacked by affordability concerns, saying, “If affordability remains the dominant factor in setting energy policy, going forward, we’re going to have a problem.” He further bemoaned that “environmental responsibility was on the table, if you will, and I was very concerned,” describing himself as caught in a “defensive posture trying to keep us from making bad decisions.”
He pointed fingers at those focused on energy affordability as the state has the highest electric rates in the country, second only to Hawaii.
“Frankly, everybody from the governor to caucus leadership, everybody was on the affordability wagon,” Rep. Steinberg said. He went so far as to suggest that many of his fellow lawmakers don’t grasp the complexities of energy policy: “Most legislators are willfully ignorant because it’s complicated and not easily finding solutions, and those things that you don’t understand, you don’t value to the same degree.”
But five days later, at a June 11 conference hosted by the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA), Rep. Steinberg had a remarkably different take. There, he framed the session as a resounding success — proof that lawmakers “heard” the pain of businesses and consumers and delivered a piece of legislation designed to reduce energy costs.
He highlighted procurement reforms, emphasized efforts to “moderate the short-term impact on ratepayers,” and spoke favorably of bonding to cover “arrearages, for customers who couldn’t pay their bills, or for small businesses that may have gone out of business” and EV infrastructure to reduce costs.
One Rep. Steinberg warned that focusing too much on affordability “concerned” him. The other Rep. Steinberg declared that affordability had become a central legislative priority — and took credit for it.
To the environmental crowd, Rep. Steinberg cast Republicans as the villains, gleefully targeting long-standing programs paid through the public benefit charges. He called them “Cornerstone programs” and complained that their visibility on utility bills — finally identified due to a 2023 law — had made them an easy target.
According to Rep. Steinberg, the only reason these “green” charges drew scrutiny was that ratepayers finally realized they existed. He brushed off the criticism not as a response to high costs, but as a failure of the public to appreciate programs they had never seen itemized before.
But to business leaders, he sounded almost proud that lawmakers had opened up those same charges to scrutiny, saying, “We’re going to evaluate the public benefits charges and see if we can do them differently in the future.” There was no mention of Republican sabotage.
Even Rep. Steinberg’s tone changed depending on who was listening. To environmentalists, he described himself as embattled, trying to “move the ball forward” while surrounded by colleagues who didn’t understand or value climate policy. He suggested Connecticut’s clean energy investments had barely survived the session and warned that they “may be on the chopping block next year.”
Yet in front of business leaders, Rep. Steinberg praised the bill as a carefully negotiated success that balanced affordability with longer-term needs. He highlighted bipartisan input, procurement modernization, and utility incentives as evidence that the process had worked. Far from a defensive session, it was more like a victory lap.
The contradictions didn’t stop there.
To his green allies, Rep. Steinberg blamed President Donald Trump’s policies for “chilling” the offshore wind industry and stalling the country’s renewable momentum. But when speaking to CBIA members — a bipartisan group — Trump’s name never came up. Instead, he calmly discussed nuclear energy, transmission expansion, and long-term grid reliability.
Rep. Steinberg barely mentioned nuclear energy at the CTLCV event. But to business leaders, he was a champion. “I’ve been a proponent of nuclear for some time,” he said, praising small modular reactors and even pointing out new funding and support for future facilities.
To his credit, there were a few moments of consistency. In both speeches, Rep. Steinberg emphasized the need for long-term infrastructure investment, particularly around grid reliability and transmission. He acknowledged that ratepayers “will have to pay a portion” of those upgrades and stressed that “we need to be making those investments going forward,” regardless of short-term political pressure.
But consistency on infrastructure doesn’t excuse inconsistency everywhere else.
This kind of flip-flopping isn’t just frustrating — it erodes trust. With Connecticut’s sky-high energy bills pushing businesses to consider leaving or growing here and driving ratepayers to their limits, residents deserve leaders who deliver a consistent message — not one that changes with the audience. He may think he is striking a balance between the two audiences, but it comes off more like political shapeshifting with the hopes that no one is paying close enough attention to notice.
