This week and the Wheelhouse.

Power Generation Bureau.

Poking the bear on its environmental policy in Connecticut.

For Connecticut Public, I'm Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

The show that connects politics to the people.

We got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

One year ago, during Earth Week, state officials fussed over when the state would adopt California Class zero carbon emission standards.

Fast forward to today.

There's a different president in the white House with different ideas about what makes a greener future.

And at the local level, the fight is over.

Who gets to lead a state public utilities regulator?

High energy costs may prevent Connecticut from achieving its long term climate goals, and push the state towards less clean means of power generation, at least for the next few years.

Tell us more about where the state is now on environmental initiatives.

Michayla Savitt joins us.

Michaela, is Connecticut public state government reporter.

Good morning.

Michayla.

Good morning, Frank.

So good to see you this morning.

I'm going to open up the phone lines in a second.

But before I do, there's a lot of anxiety around the the climate right now.

We just talked about the state having to essentially change its outlook.

And I'm sure many states are right now about the environment.

Is there anywhere that anybody could go if they need to not necessarily ease their anxiety, but at least a place where they can go and they could learn more about what they could do, maybe for the environment or to maybe just kind of, you know, chill out a little bit over what's happening with this news.

Yeah.

Well, you're absolutely right, Frankie.

Climate anxiety is up.

You know, a lot of the, you know, surveys over the years and latest surveys are showing that a lot of people, especially young people, are feeling a lot of sense of, you know, loss of control or hopelessness when it comes to the climate crisis.

You know, to answer your question more broadly, you know, we can talk to each other about what we can do to, you know, help the planet.

But, you know, looking for solutions in the community is great.

You know, there's a lot of things happening in every town and city.

I was I was thinking about this, you know, this week, and I found a website that it's called unthinkable Dot Earth.

And, you know, they brand themselves as, you know, they help, provide resources.

You know, this is like a hub for to accelerate coping and healing and change making through climate psychology.

You know, we talk a lot about, like, you know, the policy when it comes to climate change here on the show, but and the impacts of climate change on our health and well-being, and, you know, our minds are all part of that.

So, you know, just wanted to put that out there before we talk about everything that's going on.

And the loss happens.

If you were in a purple suit, an orange turtleneck and, about a, about an issue that is very serious, but it's good that, we start that out in the show so that people know that there is a place that they can go, and people know that we have real people working here at Connecticut Public, including Mikayla Savitt.

Thank you for sharing that wonderful information.

With us, I want to open up the phone lines to folks.

(888) 720-9677, (888) 720-9677.

We're taking your calls regarding anxiety about, climate change.

Maybe there's folks out there who are excited, about fossil fuels and, using more gas and this drill baby drill mentality.

Maybe you are out there, I don't know, give us a call (888)720-9677.

But, folks, we are here to answer your questions and talk about maybe some of the things you're doing, to save the Earth, as it were, this legislative session.

Lawmakers in Connecticut hoping to move the needle, to, to on a key part of tackling the climate crisis resiliency.

And that's why I'm excited to talk to Michaela today.

You spoke with the House chair of the environment committee.

What did he tell you about the state's plan to address our climate?

Yeah.

Well, like you said, you know, solutions big and small are needed.

So when we when we look at this on, you know, the state policy level, there are two bills which are, you know, work.

There's the House chair.

John Michael Parker's was saying work really nicely together, in his view, to tackle, you know, the side of addressing energy and environment.

So that is, you know, reviving House Bill 5004 from last year, which, just as a reminder, just more tackling the, reducing emissions part of the issue here in Connecticut and working alongside this other piece, which is a Senate bill, Senate Bill nine, which is more about, you know, the long term plans, more of the planning, how municipal, municipal cities can work on conservation, development.

Think about floodplains, and, you know, vulnerability assessments.

We're talking about helping towns and cities, you know, pinpoint which areas may be at more risk of climate hazards and working on that mitigation planning for, rising sea levels along the shoreline.

So, you know, working together on and you're going to talk about this more, I know later on, but more working on the renewable energy side.

In the House bill and, updating targets for the state and the agencies to meet, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

And then, you know, with the Senate bill really working on that planning side and planting seeds for making sure that residents and their homes, are ready for what's to come, why now?

And is there urgency?

Yeah.

Why now?

There's a couple of answers.

But specifically, are they I would let me let me get closer.

Is it is it because they're addressing potential cuts with the government?

Is it because of the mentality we talked about drill baby drill.

That's kind of the mentality that they have in the white House right now.

And they've even said that, is it because of that or is it because the state has shied away from from, EV mandates and zero carbon emission legislation?

Total.

So what would you say is an.

Answer to let me start with the, you know, the the concerns on the federal level.

And I'm not going to I'm not going to get into all of it because there's so much still in flux.

But, you know, overarching, you know, these bills were on the minds of our local lawmakers and, Governor Lamont, both even before the Trump administration started making these, deep cuts to federal programs and offices like the Environmental Protection Agency, and FEMA, which are so critical to local response to disasters, but also in the work of, you know, all the other, monitoring and, of, of our environment, you know, when we look to the August flooding and Naugatuck Valley, for example, it's, hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

And, you know, we had to, we had a federal disaster declaration approved, and we needed the EPA's help for that technical assistance.

And we needed FEMA's help, as well.

You know, so a lot of officials and advocates feel it's important for the state to scale up, you know, these long term plans to ensure that we're ready to I hate to say this weather the storm.

And and I would imagine that's why we're seeing some folks.

I think about Oxford, I think about the roadways.

And I spoke to, the commissioner of the Department of Transportation shortly after that.

And they were talking about those resiliency efforts where you're just simply, you know, putting tar or whatever you can or trying to stand up those curbs on the side of the road.

And that was a huge issue down in Oxford at the time.

So that's one of the things you're talking about.

That'll be in 500 4 or 5004 or whatever it is in that bill.

It'll be in the Senate bill.

But but I know it's things get confusing when it comes to policy.

And sometimes things just get rolled into one bill.

But, you know, in 500 for this House, Bill Moore looking at making sure our energy sector is resilient to, to, to, you know, impacts of climate change and being able to produce more energy and, you know, getting, you know, our greenhouse gas emissions down.

We're not meeting our state targets that were set out a couple of years ago.

And I do want to speak to the the other point, you know, there has been, you know, some advocates, some advocates feel like there's been, you know, a lag in action on the state's part when it comes to legislation.

There's been we'll talk a little bit later in the segment about, you know, some of the projects the state has invested in.

But, you know, just laying it out and, you know, in January, NOAA said that to that 2024 was the globe's hottest year since records started being kept in the 1800s.

And, you know, I could list off all of the many different ways climate change touches our lives.

You know, from the food in our fridge to public health to, I don't know.

We're right now we're we're downwind from pollutants emanating from other states like Ohio.

And last year, I it's famously, I guess, not infamously.

Attorney general William Tong put it this way.

Connecticut sits at the end of our nation's tailpipe.

What does that mean for our health?

Well, we can blame it on the wind for that.

Just bringing over pollution from the Midwest or there is, you know, more, pollution.

And we're talking about ground level ozone, fine particulate matter.

In layman's terms, these are types of pollution that can cause really serious health issues, especially impacting our, you know, people's respiratory and cardiovascular health and, you know, extreme heat days, which we're seeing more and more of the long term data showing that, you know, we're seeing more, the globe is getting hotter.

We can't deny that our climate is changing.

These extreme heat days that are also happening in Connecticut, make the impacts of, pollution on air quality worse.

Had we made strides in our air quality, and our emission standards in recent years as the, as the, as the local government, as federal government in recent years, made strides on, on air quality initiatives.

I don't think you and I were alive when the Clean Air Act was first, enforced in 1970.

But we've we've seen, our air quality dramatically improve, especially in cities.

Thanks to that federal Clean Air Act.

Now we're seeing dozens of bedrock rules just being challenged by left and right by the, new administration.

You know, some of these other, other laws that have, you know, benefited our state is, you know, the Good neighbor rule, which was adopted in 2023 to protect downwind states like Connecticut.

We've also got the endangerment finding, which is almost two decades old, which declared greenhouse gases are warming up and harming the planet and requires that the EPA limit them.

You know, so those are just a handful of some of these really, bedrock rules that are important.

And, you know, it's coming.

It's coming at a time of a lot of upheaval.

Just yesterday, I read that, the EPA began laying off hundreds of its environmental justice staff.

I want to underscore this point.

It's a really quick one, but you're saying that people in the cities feel this the most, the air quality concerns.

So in Connecticut, we're talking about Hartford, Bridgeport, I would imagine New Haven as well.

Yeah.

I mean, I would I would have to look at, I don't know, the most recent studies, but when we look at like another thing that came out yesterday was the American Lung Association annual report card showing us, you know, pollution exposure is, you know, first of all, worse in the nation than it was last year.

But yeah, we are seeing more significant levels of high ground level ozone in Fairfield County, especially, but also seeing it in, you know, there's ozone impacts in New Haven, Middlesex and New London counties.

But coming back to your point about cities, That's a big concentration of people, though, in Fairfield County.

So that is rather important.

Yes, yes.

And, I mean, coming back, you know, we have to look back.

We always have to look back to history when it comes to, disparities.

And there's a huge amount of research and data that shows that, you know, historic policies that are like a century old, such as redlining, which is residential segregation, plus the placement of highways, play a huge role in the, equity of, air quality.

And so, you know, predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods, we're seeing in, in studies for, for a long time now are seeing worse air quality.

And, this is not just in Connecticut.

It's all over the US.

It's not.

But there's been a big effort, particularly locally here in Hartford, to to have more trees and, focus on the environmental racism aspect, where you can, try to improve your air quality as best as you can, because the reality is, it's hot in in America, it's hot in Connecticut in the summer, it's really hot in the cities, 10 to 15 degrees, sometimes more.

So, important to look at that.

Just last week, you reported that the state is funding more efforts to divert food scraps.

And I'm heartened by this, because I see a lot more of green compost bags out there.

I know I use it, I need to focus on on the on the amount of food that we waste every week.

As I've seen how many green compost bags I'm using and it just, helps me see that.

And I'm seeing, in dumpsters and things like that, at least that schools are starting to, to divert their food scraps.

So how is the state getting food out of our waste stream?

And why are lawmakers acting now?

First of all, yes, absolutely.

Just, one of the big climate solutions that, scientists, recommend is just reducing the amount of, food we're, throwing out in general, because there's so many emissions that go into the process of making food, especially, things like, with beef, which is a huge, you know, creates a lot of emissions in that process.

But, just to, you know, briefly go over this.

It's one of the bright spots, you know, in the state, working on a solution.

So we, in the last five years, we've been the state's been funding grants for pilot programs, for ways for folks to dispose of their food scraps and organic matter.

And they found that there was over 2.5 million pounds of food diverted from these, 15, pilot programs.

And of those 15, six were made permanent by the cities.

So they've, continued to, fund the grants that, cities and towns compete for and or can apply for.

And they just awarded a bunch more last month.

New Haven's one of them.

That'll be interesting.

It's kind of the biggest city that's, going to be trying it out for the first time.

But the purpose is twofold.

Like you were saying, you know, it's to make sure there's, less food going into the waste stream because food in landfills, rotting creates methane, a super potent, greenhouse gas, I think, 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide heating up our atmosphere even more.

Part two and we could do a whole show about this.

Is that will in the future.

We're in a garbage where we are in a solid waste crisis in the state.

With the closure of a waste to energy, incinerator in 2022, in Hartford.

Mirror closing.

That was big in our headlines.

That added a lot to our.

You know, ongoing problem of just a lack of real estate, of where to put our trash.

But, 40% of our garbage is shipped out of states to Europe like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

And, you know, lawmakers want to are working on that.

And there is a bill working on that, House environment chair Rep Parker said, you know, this bill, that's currently in process, you know, wants to work on that, you know, fund more pilots for the future, work on more solutions.

But no single bill is going to solve the waste crisis.

We can talk about this all day.

I wish we could, but unfortunately, we're out of time.

You did a tremendous job today, Michayla.

Thank you for your reporting on this, and thank you for putting your heart into your reporting.

We appreciate it very much.

It's our planet.

We only get one.

We only get one.

We only get one planet.

You been listening to Michayla Savitt state government reporter for Connecticut Public.

Thank you so much for coming on the show.

Thank you.

Frankie.

This is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

We're going to take a short break.

We just talked about climate resiliency efforts.

What are you all doing to protect the planet this Earth Day, this Earth week?

Join the conversation.

(888) 720-9677, (888) 720-9677.

Back with more Wheelhouse after this break.

Coming up this morning at 11, give a gift to Connecticut Public and yourself when you let us take your unwanted vehicle off your hands.

Not only will your donation help support the news and programs our community relies on every day, but it may even qualify for a tax deduction.

Go to CT public.org/car and thanks.

Support comes from the New Britain Museum of American Art presenting bluegrass, green skies, American Impressionism and realism from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art on view through May 18th, 2025.

Plan your visit at NBM.

AA dawg.

This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

Apparently, lawmakers in Connecticut can't agree on exactly why energy bills are so high among the highest in the nation.

There are many reasons why our energy bills are high.

A costly reliance on out of state natural gas, fluctuating energy markets, and a controversial power purchase agreement with the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant in Waterford.

That deal says utilities have to buy a portion of their power from that nuclear plant, which doesn't always save rate payers money.

When natural gas prices are cheaper.

But not all lawmakers want to talk about purchasing agreements.

Now we're paying for power.

Or excuse me, how we're paying for power.

They want to talk about who's got the power here.

With more on the argument over who should lead a state regulatory authority.

Is Jacqueline Rabe Thomas.

Good morning.

Jackie.

How are you today?

I'm good.

Thanks for having.

Me.

Thank you so much for coming on the show, Jackie, an investigative reporter with Hearst Connecticut Media.

Also with us.

Someone who's cultivated data to inform lawmakers about energy policy.

Charles Venator-Santiago, associate professor with a joint appointment in the Department of Political Science and l'Institut, though, at University of Connecticut.

Good morning Charles.

Hi again, Frankie.

Thank you so much for coming in.

And thank you for bringing on a colleague of yours here, Volodymyr Gupan, a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at UConn.

How are you doing, Volodymyr?

Good.

Thank you for having me to.

Thank you for coming on the show.

We appreciate it, folks.

You got questions?

(888)720-9677.

You're asking, why are my energy bills so high?

You're also asking, why are they talking about pure all the time?

What does that mean?

Well, listen, for the next few minutes, hopefully we'll help you out with that.

You're following the, controversial confirmation process for chairperson of Connecticut's Public utilities Regulatory Authority.

First of all, what is pure, and, who's in charge of pure?

Sure.

So APRA is essentially the entity that helps regulate prices of what shows up on your, largely what shows up on your, bills that you're receiving each month and is tasked with making sure the requests that are coming in and the rate requests that they are reasonable, that, different portions are needed of what's being asked to do, capital investments and other types of, explanations that are being given.

And so there's been a lot of controversy over some of their decisions recently.

But they're essentially the ones that, sort of are the last, backstop before the bill gets to you.

They're trying to make sure that there's, like, not some crazy rate hike, basically.

Exactly.

They, you know, they they make the math.

Math and make sure that, there's only certain parts of a bill that are allowed to be have profits.

And so, the capital investments is the main source of capital of, of utilities making earnings and in return on their investment.

And so there's an incentive to sort of build out in, in Connecticut for things.

And so, cura is tasked with making sure that the infrastructure that, that they're building out is, is appropriate.

Why would some lawmakers then, if they're trying to make sure that if you're trying to make sure that the bills aren't sky high and they don't go out of control, why would some lawmakers look to pure, or why would they look at someone named Marissa Gillette as, as somebody who might be responsible for the bills going the other way, I guess skyrocketing.

Why would they look at them?

Sure.

So pure, is a is it has historically been a three person panel and, there is, been a push to expand that to five members.

And essentially, you know, if you if you ask Governor Ned Lamont, you know, in in previous months, he would say, I don't really understand what moving from 3 to 5 commissioners would do to help draw down costs.

If if on the other side of the equation, you have people who say you need more debate about what's going on and having that sort of authority rest with one person isn't necessarily good.

Governing.

And so, you know, the more minds, making decisions, the better.

But, you know, having this idea of sort of ruling by consensus, sometimes things need to be, you know, not a little bit weakened to get across the finish line, to reach consensus or to get that, majority vote versus one person can really make some bold decisions that are needed.

And so this idea of the administration of Pyra has had a lot of focus, for some reason.

And, I'm just not sure how much that actually impacts costs for, for ratepayers.

And I know that Charles and Volodymyr will have some more on, on why you might want to go from 3 to 5 in a moment, but we're talking about the confirmation.

Of Marissa Gillette and having a second term here.

And it sounds like that's already pretty much done.

Marissa Gillette is is ready to go, but they were making a stink over her confirmation.

Yes, she won final approval.

All my week's merge.

I think it was last week in the Senate.

And so.

We were both taking care of our kids on spring break and trying to work.

Yes, yes.

Multitasking at, Yeah.

So she was approved when final approval last week.

And the next question is whether they expand to the five.

There was a deal that was made, to try to get up to five to, to essentially firm up her approval.

There's been some controversy about whether or not that will move forward, though.

That's Juliette, but that doesn't even do it for maybe the most controversial seat on this board.

This is where we start talking about John Fonfara, a state senator seeking a pure appointment.

Who is he and why is he so controversial?

So Sandra Fonfara is a long time senator from Hartford.

That was previously the Energy Committee chairman for years, I think it was eight years.

And he also is now the chairman of the powerful finance, revenue and Bonding Committee, which is your tax writing committee.

And he essentially, has a lot of history with, with energy.

He ran a supply, a small supply company as well as, has done some innovative, tried to do some innovative things in the energy market, and has kind of pushed boundaries.

He, I discovered that he has been fined by PRA for when, when he was closing his company.

Before the company officially closed that pier, actually had find him, for not paying a $50,000 fee that, many utilities, suppliers were refined to sort of to redevelop the bill that consumers receive.

And so he, just never paid it.

He insists that he was never given the opportunity to appeal it.

I received records that show that his, his business partners did receive notice.

And that they just didn't avail themselves of the appeals process to that $58,000 fee.

And so it ballooned.

And now it's at one, $1.1 million.

To $1.1 million.

Okay, before we get more into that, I want to bring in UConn and, l'Institut those Charles Villatoro Santiago, why might it be beneficial to have commissioners added to the puro board go to for 3 to 5?

Well, you have multiple areas that you work with.

So it would be great to have a specific commissioner that could work in multiple areas like water, electricity.

Communicate telecommunications.

And then you can have, a broader base for a consensus discussion.

With Fonfara being a, Lamont pick.

Jackie, the concern over Fonfara, his business dealings, the fact that he's already got a job as center, and the finance Revenue Bond committee, appointment as well, has become too much for lawmakers to get behind.

Or is this something that's eventually going to go through?

Do we do we know anything?

So I just want to be clear.

It's not Lamont's pick.

He agreed to pick.

Sorry.

He agreed to pick.

Yeah.

So, you know.

Thank you for that clarification.

The legislators are the ones who put him forward.

And so, you know, it's to be determined what happens with the $1.1 million outstanding fee?

There's a clear conflict of him sitting on a board that he hasn't huge outstanding fine from.

I think most would agree.

How that gets resolved.

There's really no precedent for this, of, you know, what happens when there's this huge outstanding fee and sort of settling that, it, you know, his lawyers sent the governor a letter.

Again, time is a thief.

Like three weeks ago, I think it was, and asked for an investigation into how those fines ballooned so much.

I I'll spare you all the, the specific details, but essentially debating whether he should have ever been fined to begin with and, and how it escalated, so quickly.

And who approved those?

And so he essentially, is debating that and asking the governor's office to, sort of scrap the fees or look into whether they were ever appropriate.

The governor doesn't seem super interested in doing that.

He's really been backing his commissioner and his commission, so far.

But he's also, sort of just hoping that I think the controversy goes away surrounding it.

So big controversy surrounding it.

Jackie said that it doesn't necessarily have much to do with our, our energy costs.

When we were talking about, Marissa Gillette's pick in the and the fight over it, the complaint that many people have, Charles, is that we're talking about not really the issues that the fight won't necessarily result in a resolution everybody wants, which is cheaper electric bills.

But to achieve just that, you and your colleagues at l'Institut, though, have made some policy recommendations.

I think there may be seven in total.

There was five, seven, ten.

What is it?

How many?

So we originally made about 40 to get in the in our last meeting with Representative Gonzalez, we settled on two recommendations, one and wholesale market.

Now you're all the way down to two.

Okay, well, two with multiple.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

And the RFPs, renewable portfolio standard, but I'll pass it to, well, me.

Yes.

Yeah.

So, we have a lot of recommendations to you of the ones that we are focusing on are related to some of the, energy, renewable energy policy, and some of them are related to more of the wholesale energy side in terms of pure commissioners.

We actually did some, we did look into a number of commissioners and how numbers correlate with prices.

And when I'm saying it's correlating is because I don't know what causes it.

But the correlation is very strong in states, deregulated states where five member commissioners are the prices are generally lower, and the difference is the average for, deregulated states was three commissioners is about $0.19 per kilowatt hour.

And for those was five is $0.14.

So that's a correlation that's there.

Connecticut is obviously outlier for the data that we were looking at.

That was November I believe 2022 for Connecticut was $0.24.

So that was way out of that.

Those averages.

But that's the correlation that is in the data in terms of number of commissioners.

When we're talking about $0.19 per kilowatt hour, that's where people generally die in these discussions.

When we're when we're super weedy and they they kind of lose it.

But it's important because this is how people are charged.

So when you go from 19 to 14, how much is there any way we can quantify what that might look like on somebody's bill?

How much of average savings that is?

It is exactly how it looks between 19 and 14.

Those $0.03 would translate.

So those $0.03 are roughly what, what it would be 20% difference.

Okay.

So something around that.

So that's going to be the same because it's.

About 20%.

Yeah.

That's a good way.

The average household household in Connecticut spend uses about 700 kilowatt hours per month.

So that is your that it's quite easy to calculate those savings.

Sure.

So I should mention that there's two things that are going to naturally happen to draw down people's costs.

In, in in the coming months that could help provide more immediately relief.

The sort of the longer term policy goals of changing things are really is a really important discussion.

But millstone on the public benefits cost millstone is a is a huge driver of those costs.

And, there was a vote to have those costs be incurred by ratepayers over ten months.

And so that's supposed to be coming off relatively soon as well as just this morning, there was a vote by peer, to decrease, some of the additional costs because of, because of some unrelated, things to millstone, but on the public benefits charge that would reduce Eversource bills by $13 a month and UI by $3 a month.

And so there's, you know, some things that are happening that are able to sort of be more immediately done at the pier board, to draw down the costs.

Could you guys help us?

We only have a couple of minutes left.

Could you guys help us with the wholesale, and of your recommendations?

And then what was the other one?

The, On the renewable.

Renewable?

Yeah, yeah.

Go ahead.

Just in a couple of minutes.

Yeah, yeah.

So on renewable portfolio standard, the policy is great in principle.

We want it.

We all want clean water, clean air and all of that.

But when we're looking at the, emissions data for last two decades, really we see that emissions were reducing since 2009, actually before 2009.

But after 2009, they were also reducing.

And then they started increasing.

And they are they keep increasing.

The early data for 20 to 24 also shows that they're increasing.

We are producing more electricity.

However, we're supposed to get about 38% in 2025.

What is called clean renewable energy per, renewable portfolio standard.

So how is it happens that we are getting higher emissions?

The answer is actually quite easy, because Renewable Portfolio Standard only tells us that we need to have certification for the energy to be clean.

It doesn't mean that the energy has to be clean.

It doesn't mean that natural gas power plants function in the state has to produce less.

Actually, they have every incentive to produce more because some states one of our neighbors, Massachusetts, has a huge energy deficit of about 60%.

They have ever incentive to produce more electricity to Connecticut, to south north.

So you're saying we're in and incentivize natural gas producers and nuclear power producers, basically to produce more?

Well, the market incentivizes.

Okay, the.

Market.

But, the policy adds an incentive because per renewable portfolio standard, every ratepayer has to receive 38% of clean energy.

And where would that clean energy come if the whole New England region only produces 8% out of total energy mix?

Connecticut itself is around 5 to 7% by different estimates.

So where does that energy comes really?

Can we believe that if if clean energy produced in Georgia or in California, because some certificates come from those states, can it get to Connecticut being clean.

Yeah.

Does it really clean our air?

I'm not so sure.

I'm being very skeptical about that in terms of wholesale prices.

When we're talking about most on the price of electricity, or it is said by the 2018 agreement and 49.929, I think honestly, it's a great price because if you look at the Eversource Ferc filings that they have to file every year to federal government in terms of how much we're paying for electricity, the standard service rate is about $200.

How is it possible that we are supposed to get that 49, 9 to 9, electricity, but the average is $200 at the same time for too long.

For 2023, the price on New England wholesale market is on.

New England is seven to dollars.

So most on price in 2023 was lower than, wholesale.

Yet we're still paying $200 per megawatt hour through a paid in 2,023% or so.

The bottom line here is that you guys were saying that perhaps we we try to get out of ISO New England, perhaps we negotiate with New York, perhaps we create our own regional initiative.

Perhaps.

Yeah.

Yeah, perhaps that or perhaps maybe we could incent the state can get to the wholesale market and maybe start buying electricity from its own natural gas power plants that are in the state and compete was wholesalers that charge sometimes 170% more for the electricity compared to the wholesale price.

Very quickly, because we got to go.

You said this to lawmakers.

You made some of these policy recommendations.

What they say to you?

Nothing.

Not yet.

Not there hasn't been a response yet.

Some lawmakers are really excited to represent the many Gonzalez in the Puerto Rican Latino Caucus, because it's an opportunity to reduce prices and save money for the state, given the potential crisis.

Oh my God, I wish we had all day to talk about this.

We're running out of time.

We have to get to our final segment.

What a tremendous, discussion that we had very, helpful in terms of illuminating where we could go on this and particularly what may not necessarily be the issue and what we have to move away from, which is some of this puro drama that we're having.

This is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frank Graziano.

We're going to see what happens at the end of the session, and we'll follow it, until the end of June.

Jackie Rabe Thomas, she is a investigative reporter with Hearst Connecticut Media.

Thank you so much for coming on the show.

Thanks for having me, Charles.

Mentor Santiago with anything to do, though, and you can thank you for coming on the show.

Alex and Volodymyr, it was so nice to meet you.

Thank you so much.

Volodymyr Gabon, a PhD candidate at UConn.

Thank you so much.

More to come on the show, including maybe the moment you all been waiting for their time.

We're going to get into the habituation situation.

Connecticut the hot plus we'll talk about those viral bear videos.

You've all been watching that are may be scaring you when we come back.

Environmental policy.

As it relates to Ursus americanus, the black bear.

Are you aware?

Are you bear aware?

Have you heated D.E.E.P.

's recommendation to bring those bird feeders and join the conversation?

(888) 720-9677, (888) 720-9677.

Back with more Wheelhouse after this.

This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

An estimated 1000 to 1200 black bears residing in Connecticut.

That's according to the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

Because they live among us and are becoming used to our presence, lawmakers in recent years have debated black bear populations in control.

Here to talk about the proposals being put on the table and pulled off of it is CT Mirror Energy and Environment reporter John Moritz.

Thank you for stopping by, John.

Thanks for having me.

We're going to have a nice conversation here.

We want to hear if you're seeing some of the hundreds of bears that are in garbage cans and running up near trees, near the mall.

Join the conversation.

(888) 720-9677, (888) 720-9677.

John, there's a lot for us to get into in a short time.

But before we do all this, there's the videos.

The bears in the backyards, bears at the mall, bears and cars.

Would experts consider this behavior to be pretty brazen from the black bears?

I think if you talk to anyone, I specifically the video that I would know was making the rounds, last week at the West Farms mall.

People, people are shocked by, some of these encounters, and they're encroaching increasingly, encroaching on areas, you know, not just kind of at the edge of the woods, but in suburban areas.

And people's homes.

Even in, you know, there was last year, a bear sighted in New Haven by the highway, which is, pretty surprising, if you think about where we came from several decades ago, where the bear population in Connecticut was very small.

Moose near, North Haven as well.

So, people are traveling pretty far south at this point.

At least the animals are.

One of my favorite, phrases I've gotten into since I started doing capital J journalism.

This is capital journalism right here.

Habituation.

You can't talk about bears without hearing this concept.

Why?

Yeah.

So habituation basically refers to the idea that certain bears as they encroach into, more human populated areas.

You know, they might get fed, either intentionally or unintentionally.

They find sources of trash.

In the most extreme cases, we've even seen them breaking into people's homes and into their fridges to find food.

And, you know, basically it's just, a fancy term for if a bear finds food and it's easy for to get it, that food, it's going to go back, and that's going to bring it increasingly into contact with people.

You're seeing a video of it, right there in a kitchen.

Oh, and also pulling out the refrigerator.

I've done play by play for years, folks.

Never been able to do play by play for something like this.

This is exciting.

That's the American black bear right there pulling out of somebody.

I'm going to say that's a General Electric fridge or something like that.

Oh, and then climbing out the window, that is a very smart bear.

What's D.E.E.P.

's position?

Their policy position on bears.

So D.E.E.P., has supported, the idea of a managed bear hunt in recent years.

They've asked lawmakers to put forward legislation that would allow them to set up, essentially what would be a lottery based hunt so people could put in for, a license and there be, be able to go out into the woods and certain areas and hunt bears.

That, has prompted strong pushback from, you know, conservation groups and members of the environmental community.

And so far, we've not seen that, go forward, but we've also seen D.E.E.P., push for things.

They have a bear aware campaign encouraging people to basically, you know, lock your doors, keep trash, out of areas where bears can easily get to it.

Don't put your trash out several days before trash day, especially if you live in an area with high concentrations of bears.

And, you know, in the late summer and fall months when the bears are fattening up to, to go into, the winter and their hibernation, hibernation period, encouraging people to take down bird feeders and other sources, food that might.

You're saying that in the fall they would do that?

Yeah.

I believe the regulations currently last basically from summer to fall when when bears are most active.

The idea of a bear hunt, as you just mentioned, was, floated through the legislator.

We're talking about a managed bear hunt, but it's not necessarily going to look like, what we were talking about with people going into the woods.

It may be, it might have even been stripped out of of bill language.

Help us understand where we're at on that.

Are we talking about maybe even only protecting farmers?

What are we talking about in terms of any kind of bears?

So so the proposals that, were put forward in their original form both this year and in 2023, did, ask for, a managed bear hunt that would, take place primarily in the Litchfield Hills and the northwest corner of the state where, the population is densest, due to the opposition that, kind of pure anyone can apply for a license, go for a hunt if they are, approved.

That was stripped out of the bill.

And that's not going to be moving forward at this point.

What?

What was able to get lawmakers to do in 2023 is kind of a compromise is, if you are a farmer and you can prove that, you've suffered crop or livestock damage as a result of bears, encroaching on to your property, you can apply for a permit from D.E.E.P., to shoot and kill that bear to defend your own property.

The bill also, allows people to kill bears in self-defense in certain situations if they feel that their lives or the lives of their pets, or put in, danger.

And we have seen, they're rare, but we have seen, you know, several instances of actual bear attacks on humans in the last couple of years.

So we know now that the limited bear hunt won't get passed.

What it stands is what we have from 2023.

And, and essentially, you can't kill the bear.

You have to prove, the leap.

Excuse me?

You can only kill a bear in self-defense, but you would have to get a permit first.

You would have to do that.

You could prove that if if, if you're a farmer who's worried that the, bear bears damaging your crops or livestock, that would require a permit.

If it's in self-defense, that is allowed, you would just, you know, have to make that argument.

Afterwards.

What's the reaction been from people that were supportive of this when the bill was stripped out?

People supportive of a hunt.

They've been disappointed.

And, you know.

We lawmakers too.

Sorry.

And and lawmakers who are supportive of those hunters have also been disappointed.

And one of the things that we've heard from them, and frankly, from D.E.E.P.

is that, you know, as the population expands, and isn't coming into increasing, contact with people, the likelihood of someone getting hurt, is increasing.

And, you know, advocates or opponents of higher hunt argue that we need to take more stringent measures, that are non-lethal to try to discourage contact between bears.

So D.E.E.P.

even supports the managed bear hunt.

So that's kind of the nuance in this conversation, is it seems like there's, wide support for a managed bear hunt.

Won't happen in 2025.

It just as we finish out the show here, we want to know.

I think he gave us some tips, but there was the Bear Aware campaign.

Any other thoughts for folks, to try to be more bear aware here?

Maybe as you're hiking or maybe as you're, as you're, planning out, where your garbage goes in the street.

Tell us more.

Bear where kind of idea.

Yeah.

So you mentioned the garbage, not putting out the garbage, several day, keeping it in your garage or somewhere where a bear can't keep get to it until it's actually trash day.

If you're going out into the woods, you know, bring, a whistle or some type of, device that could kind of, you know, scare off a bear.

The black bears that we have in Connecticut are not grizzlies.

But, it's important to keep yourself safe.

And if you do see a bear in the woods, it's probably best idea to, call D.E.E.P..

Especially if that's, a bear that's close to, you know, areas where people lives and homes.

John, we had a lot of fun here talking about bears.

We even got to do a little play by play there.

Very serious issue, though.

People want to be, bear aware, obviously, whether on their hike or hanging out in the backyard.

I appreciate the fact that you were able to go through this with us.

John Moritz, reporter with the Connecticut Mirror.

Thank you so much for coming on the Wheelhouse.

Thank you for having me.

So great to have you on the show.

Today's show, produced by Chloe Wynn.

It was edited by Rob and Duane Aiken.

You can't do a show about the environment without some great support.

In our rundown from Patrick Scahill, thank you so much.

Our technical producer is Dylan Reyes.

Thank you so much to Meg Fitzgerald and the rest of the team here, including operations Megan Boone and Joe Kos.

Download the Wheelhouse anytime on your favorite podcast app.

Thank you so much to Brad O'Connor.

Thank you to our visuals team, including Julianne Versace and Sam Hockaday.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

Thank you so much for listening.

We.

Look forward to being flexible panelists today.

Forget about your worries and money.

Yes.

I'm not betting since the beat backs up their contracts today with just the bare necessities of life.

Yeah, with just the bare.

This is such.

That is a blessing.

Yes, ma'am.