Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
One of the Democrats’ top climate bills, H.B. 5004, cleared the House on May 1 — but the real story isn’t what made it into the bill, it’s what got quietly pulled out and reshuffled behind the scenes.
Activists didn’t view the stripped-down bill as a setback. In fact, they were already hinting that the missing pieces were simply being moved elsewhere.
In a May 2 press release from the environmental group Save the Sound made it clear that H.B. 5004 was only the opening act. Several climate activists quoted in the release echoed the same message — the real agenda is still coming.
“H.B. 5004 is a modest first step,” added Environment Connecticut Director Chris Phelps. “We hope it is a first step towards the legislature accepting the challenge to enact substantive policies to grow clean energy and mitigate climate change.”
Phelps went on to say that S.B. 4 — the Senate Democrat bill, which they claim will lower costs for ratepayers — is expected to be the “main vehicle for energy legislation this session.” He also openly called for lawmakers to use it to incorporate the energy components that were removed from H.B. 5004.
That includes a mandate for the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) — the state’s utility regulator — to conduct “future of gas” study to begin planning for a transition from natural gas to renewable energy sources, the promotion of government-run thermal energy networks, new appliance efficiency standards, and demand response mandates for gas distribution customers.
Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (CTLCV), also alluded to incorporating a stricter climate agenda in S.B. 4, saying, “There are a couple of pieces that then got pulled out [from H.B. 5004] that we’re working very hard to get into the top, number one priority energy bill,” during a May 8 legislative update.
CTLCV Deputy Director Connor Yakaitis — also on the call — made no effort to conceal the strategy. He explained that Rep. John-Michael Parker (D-Madison) took last year’s failed climate bill — dubbed the “Green Monster” by Yankee Institute — and imported as much of it as possible into this year’s version of H.B. 5004.
After several revisions, lawmakers ultimately removed many of the most controversial provisions — particularly those likely to raise energy costs for Connecticut residents — to secure passage.
But those provisions weren’t abandoned. Instead Yakaitis pointed to two sections that would be moved to S.B.4.
First, there is the “future of gas study.” In the original version of H.B. 5004, PURA would be required to launch a formal review of how natural gas fits into Connecticut’s climate goals.
That sounds harmless until you realize what it’s actually designed to do: lay the legal groundwork to ban gas. The bill specifically calls for PURA to evaluate how Connecticut can switch from natural gas to “beneficial electrification,” a phrase environmental groups use when they want to ban fossil fuels without saying the word “ban.”
The agency would also be required to consider geothermal systems and heat pumps, and deliver recommendations for new laws by January 2026.
Natural gas heats nearly a third of Connecticut homes, but lawmakers seem to be more interested in forcing people onto electric heat — whether they can afford it or not.
PURA’s so-called “future of gas” review isn’t about exploring options. It’s about making natural gas more expensive and harder to access until it’s no longer viable. And once regulators decide that “beneficial electrification” is the only acceptable path, gas customers won’t get a say — they’ll be left with no choice but to comply.
The second section he pointed to was one that forces gas companies to bankroll “renewable thermal energy networks” — systems that use underground piping to transfer heating and cooling between multiple buildings as an alternative to individual heating systems.
These networks would be owned by municipalities or designated entities, but the gas companies would be required to create incentive programs to fund them. Meaning they will be allowed to recoup their investment through fees on your utility bill — even if you never use one of these systems.
Brown said that Sen. Norm Needleman (D-Essex) is “really kind of running the show right now” when it comes to what gets into S.B. 4 and what stays out.
According to Brown, the plan is to load S.B. 4 with the same provisions that were stripped out of H.B. 5004 — but she also admitted that no one really knows what else might get quietly added in.
“That’s where the action is right now,” she said. In other words, if it didn’t survive the public process the first time, don’t worry they’ll just bury it in S.B. 4 and hope no one notices.
Ratepayers in Connecticut already pay some of the highest energy bills in the country. Now lawmakers want to use those bills as a slush fund to finance heat pumps, geothermal systems, and backdoor bans on natural gas.
Lawmakers claim they’re focused on affordability, but behind the scenes, S.B. 4 is being quietly rewritten to include the very mandates that were too toxic to survive H.B. 5004.
Connecticut ratepayers deserve better than revisions being done in secret — especially when those revisions could mean higher bills. Details on S.B. 4 are still limited, and with just weeks left before the session ends on June 4, no one knows what the final draft will look like. The Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) hasn’t reviewed the bill yet, though according to the General Assembly’s website, a draft is expected to land on their desk by May 12.
If lawmakers think this is a winning strategy, they should try explaining it to the families staring down yet another electric bill hike — not from inflation, not from market forces, but straight from the General Assembly.
