CT Economic Development Leadership Has Been Changing, With More About to Arrive

Incoming Gov. Ned Lamont’s transition team looked at the state’s economy and business climate and declared, "Given the current fiscal pressures and environment in Connecticut, an economic development and pro-growth platform must have the laser-like focus of the new administration.” If the new administration follows through on that pointed recommendation, it will do so with a relatively new line-up in the field as well as in the administration, where, in addition to a businessman Governor, expectations are that Connecticut will have it's first Secretary of Commerce, along with a restructured economic development framework and approach.

One needs only look as far as four of the state’s leading business organizations to see that change is already underway around the state, and Connecticut’s economic development line-up is in the midst of a major makeover.

The Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce, the MetroHartford Alliance and the Danbury Chamber of Commerce all have leaders at the helm who came on board with the past year.  And less than two months ago, the Bridgeport Regional Business Council saw a new leader take the reins.

Dan Onofrio began as president and CEO of the Bridgeport Regional Business Council (BRBC) in November after a decade as executive vice president of operations and general manager of business systems operations at Environmental Data Resources. He is also a franchise partner in three Rita’s Ice franchises in Connecticut and was the co-founder of the Greater Valley Chamber of Commerce’s Young Emerging Professionals business networking group, the Fairfield County Business Journal reported.

“The greater Bridgeport region has so much opportunity and I see so much potential to be part of the good things that are ahead of us,” Onofrio said in a recent interview.  “There is a perception that it is difficult to do business in Connecticut, so I think that we — not just as a region but as a state — need to change the perception of what Connecticut is and what we have to offer.”

Among his top priorities: “to get engaged with the small-business community as well as the large corporations, and to work with the universities to see how we can create that ecosystem to create a sustainable downtown.”  Widening to a statewide lens, he observed “If policy in Hartford can change, we will see a domino effect of activity in Connecticut that will boost the economy. But it’s not a silver bullet — there are a multitude of things that need to happen.”

Garrett Sheehan has served as president of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce (GNHCC) since March. Before taking the post at the chamber, Sheehan worked as a broadcast journalist, in economic development and at United Illuminating (UI). He grew up in Middlefield before career stops elsewhere in the country, and service in the U.S. military.  The Chamber of Commerce advocates for business interests in New Haven and 15 suburbs, from Madison to Wallingford to Orange to Milford.  He also serves as 1^st Vice President of the Connecticut Economic Development Association.

Sheehan said recently, “from an economic development standpoint I think [the region] has a really strong selling point: location, quality of workforce, institutions of higher education here, and business space we have here…  I’m from Connecticut I want to be a part of the solutions to make Connecticut a great place to be.”

The MetroHartford Alliance’s new leader, David Griggs, also took the helm in March, moving to Connecticut from a similar economic development post in Minneapolis-St.Paul.

“Hartford is a fabulous region that has been flying under the radar,” Griggs said on his arrival in Hartford. “The world needs to know what a great place Hartford is, like the world knows what a great place Minneapolis is… Our focus needs to be less convention and visitors bureau-type messaging about Hartford being a great place to live, work, or play. It needs to be more of a focused message to very specific industries about why they need to be in Hartford if they want to prosper in the U.S. marketplace in their industry.”

In November, Griggs unveiled plans for a changing focus, including an internal restructuring with new leadership staff (to include a research director), strengthening recruiting strategies and an unprecedented level of travel to promote Greater Hartford across the country, the Hartford Business Journal reported.  The Alliance will also rekindle its previous chamber function, bringing back the old Hartford Chamber of Commerce name that hasn’t been used in nearly two decades.

Peter “P.J.” Prunty, who served as director of CityCenter Danbury for the last two and a half years, was appointed as president and CEO of the 10-town Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce last March. Prunty was born and raised in Danbury.

States, Including CT, Reach $575M Settlement with Wells Fargo

In a settlement described as  "the most significant engagement to date by state attorneys general involving a national bank without a federal law enforcement partner, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen announced that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. will pay $575 million to resolve claims that the bank violated state consumer protection laws by (1) opening millions of unauthorized accounts and enrolling customers into online banking services without their knowledge or consent, (2) improperly referring customers for enrollment in third-party renters and life insurance policies, (3) improperly charging auto loan customers for force-placed and unnecessary collateral protection insurance, (4) failing to ensure that customers received refunds of unearned premiums on certain optional auto finance products, and (5) incorrectly charging customers for mortgage rate lock extension fees. Connecticut served on a multistate investigation leadership and negotiating team, along with the attorneys general of Arizona, Iowa and Pennsylvania. Connecticut's share of the settlement is $5,242,279, which will be deposited into the state's General Fund.

Through this settlement with all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the company will also create a consumer redress review program through which consumers who have not been made whole through other remediation programs already in place can seek to have their inquiry or complaint reviewed by an escalation team for possible relief, officials said.

"Wells Fargo engaged in conduct that violated the public's trust and ran afoul of state laws," said Attorney General Jepsen. "This settlement resolves Connecticut's consumer protection claims against the bank and creates an important avenue for Connecticut consumers seeking redress for the bank's  improper conduct. I'm proud of the strong, bipartisan work of the states in this investigation that has helped bring this matter to a close."

As part of its settlement with the states, Wells Fargo has agreed to implement within 60 days a program through which consumers who believe they were affected by the bank's conduct, but fell outside the prior restitution programs, can contact Wells Fargo to be reviewed for potential redress. Wells Fargo will create and maintain a website for consumers to use to access the program and will provide periodic reports to the states about ongoing restitution efforts.

According to the Attorney General's office, Wells Fargo has identified more than 3.5 million accounts where customer accounts were opened, funds were transferred, credit card applications were filed, and debit cards were issued without the customers’ knowledge or consent. The bank has also identified 528,000 online bill pay enrollments nationwide that may have resulted from improper sales practices at the bank.  In addition, Wells Fargo improperly submitted more than 6,500 renters insurance and/or simplified term life insurance policy applications and payments from customer accounts without the customers’ knowledge or consent.

The states alleged that Wells Fargo imposed aggressive and unrealistic sales goals on bank employees and implemented an incentive compensation program where employees could qualify for credit by selling certain products to customers. The states further alleged that the bank's sales goals and the incentive compensation program created an impetus for employees to engage in improper sales practices in order to satisfy such sales goals and earn financial rewards. Those sales goals became increasingly harder to achieve over time, the states alleged, and employees who failed to meet them faced potential termination and career-hindering criticism from their supervisors.

The states also alleged that Wells Fargo improperly charged premiums, interest, and fees for force-placed collateral protection insurance to more than two million auto financing customers, despite evidence that the customers’ regular auto insurance policy was in effect, and despite numerous customer complaints about such unnecessary placements.  Wells Fargo has agreed to provide remediation of more than $385 million to approximately 850,000 auto finance customers.  The remediation will include payments to over 51,000 customers whose cars were repossessed.

Additionally, the states alleged that Wells Fargo failed to ensure that customers received proper refunds of unearned portions of optional Guaranteed Asset/Auto Protection (GAP) products sold as part of motor vehicle financing agreements.  As a result, the bank has agreed to provide refunds totaling more than $37 million to certain auto finance customers.

Finally, the states alleged that Wells Fargo improperly charged residential mortgage loan consumers for rate lock extension fees even when the delay was caused by Wells Fargo, a practice contrary to the bank’s policy.  Wells Fargo has identified and contacted affected consumers and has refunded or agreed to refund over $100 million of such fees.

It is the latest major settlement involving government action against Wells Fargo practices.

Wells Fargo has previously entered consent orders with federal authorities – including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – related to its alleged conduct. Wells Fargo has committed to or already provided restitution to consumers in excess of $600 million through its agreements with the OCC and CFPB as well as through settlement of a related consumer class-action lawsuit and will pay over $1 billion in civil penalties to the federal government. Additionally, under an order from the Federal Reserve, the bank is required to strengthen its corporate governance and controls, and is currently restricted from exceeding its total asset size.

More information on the redress review program, including Wells Fargo escalation phone numbers and the Wells Fargo dedicated website address for the program will be available on or before February 26, 2019.  Consumers with questions about the redress program can contact the Office of the Attorney General's Finance Department at 860-808-5270.

How Does Your Health Insurance Plan Stack Up? There’s A Resource for That

Connecticut’s Insurance Department has issued its 2018 Consumer Report Card on Health Plans in Connecticut, providing consumers with an updated snapshot of 12 health carriers in the Connecticut marketplace.  The goal:  to help consumers make informed choices when choosing a health plan. “The Department’s annual Report Card is designed to deliver side-by-side comparisons of health carriers across a variety of quality measures, including coverage for mental health and substance abuse treatment,” Commissioner Katharine L. Wade said recently. The analysis includes health claims, mental healthcare, pregnancy coverage and preventative care, and reviews the reasons cited in instances of denial of coverage. 

Among the trends identified in the latest annual report care are:

• Total enrollment over 2.2 million, a slight increase from 2016.
• 5 percent of those covered (1.85 million people) get their insurance from large group plans
• 131,000 people have individual plans (5.9 percent)
• 235,000 people are covered under small group plans (10.6 percent)

The 72-page data-filled report card also notes that there was an increase in the number of primary care providers, specialists and pharmacies participating in health plan networks. There was a decline in the number of participating hospitals, officials indicated, but attributed it “primarily due to consolidations in the industry and not facilities closing.”

Customers surveyed said they were always or usually able to see a specialist or get routine care as soon as they wanted.  The enrollment breakdown in Connecticut is lopsided.  Among HMO's, Anthem has 81% of the market, ConnectiCare 17%, Oxford 2%.  Among indemnity enrollments, Anthem has 42%, followed by Aetna's 20%, CIGNA's 19%, United's 7% and ConnectiCare's 5%.

The report card, issued this fall,  includes “terms” that consumers should know, a series of frequently asked questions and answers, and results of a member satisfaction survey for HMO’s Anthem, ConnectiCare, Harvard Pilgrim and Oxford Health.  Indemnity insurers Aetna Life, Anthem, CIGNA, ConnectiCare, Harvard Pilgrim, United Health and Oxford Health also had members surveyed on a range of “satisfaction” queries.

This report includes three years of data, where available, to be informative for consumers, officials said.  The data utilized was through 2017.

The mission of the Connecticut Insurance Department is to protect consumers through regulation of the industry, outreach, education and advocacy. The Department recovers an average of $4 million yearly on behalf of consumers, according to officials, and regulates the industry by ensuring carriers adhere to state insurance laws and regulations and are financially solvent to pay claims.

Each year, the Department returns an average of $100 million a year to the state General Fund in license fees, premium taxes, fines and other revenue sources to support various state programs, including childhood immunization. The Department’s annual budget is funded through assessments from the insurance industry.

Individuals with questions or seeking further information may contact the Department at  insurance@ct.gov or 860-297-3900.

Most Expensive States for Car Insurance? CT Ranks Fifth in Survey of 50 States

Connecticut is fifth, but Michigan has been first for five consecutive years in an annual comparison of car insurance rates.  Connecticut is 34 percent more expensive than the national average, according to the criteria used in the state-to-state comparison. When the website insure.com looked to compare car insurance rates, they worked with Quadrant Information Services to calculate car insurance rates for a 40-year old man seeking full coverage from six different major carriers. They tabulated the price quoted in 10 zip codes for every state, looking for the average of a 2018 model-year version of America’s 20 best-selling vehicles.

Their finding: car insurance rates can vary widely depending on the state you call home, and numerous other factors. Connecticut was near the top – in the middle of the top ten most expensive states for car insurance, based on this criteria.  A year ago, Connecticut ranked third.

The website’s analysis pointed out that high vehicle density is one culprit for higher than average premiums. They noted that Connecticut is the fourth densest state in the country and “tons of cars piled into a small space leads to accidents, which leads to claims, which ends in high car insurance rates.”

The top five states with the highest rates were Michigan ($2,239), Louisiana ($2,126), Florida ($2,050), Rhode Island ($1,852) and Connecticut ($1,831).  Rounding out the top ten most expensive states for car insurance, according to the survey, were Washington DC ($1,827), California (1,731), Georgia ($1,668), Delaware ($1,600), and Texas ($1,589).

Across the Northeast, Vermont ranks lowest in the entire country at just $932.  New Hampshire was also among the lowest, at $1,039.  Massachusetts ranked number 38, with an annual premium of $1,176.

Hartford Surges into Top 50 Cities to Start a Business

Hartford is surging.  So says Inc. magazine, in the latest ranking of the leading “Surge Cities” in the U.S. – the 50 Best Places in America for Starting a Business.  Of Hartford, which ranked number 46, the publication said “Hartford gets its groove back by doubling down on manufacturing--and social impact startups.” Hartford ranked just ahead of Memphis, Cleveland, Virginia Beach and Buffalo in rounding out the top 50.  Leading the list were Austin, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, Nashville, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Denver, Orlando and Portland.

Inc. pointed out that “Despite years of state budgetary woes, the Hartford area is on an upswing--thanks, in part, to a rebound in manufacturing. Aerospace company Pratt & Whitney can't keep up with jet engine orders, and Otis Elevator does over $12.3 billion in net sales.”  They went on to highlight what’s new: “Pioneering accelerator ReSet, which has a social impact focus, has graduated 100 area companies over the past five years. Toolmaker Stanley Black & Decker recently launched a manufacturing accelerator with Techstars. And Hartford--the ‘insurance capital of the world’--was named one of the state's four Innovations Places, making it eligible for $2 million in matching funds, part of which it's putting toward an accelerator aimed at insurance startups.”

Among the criteria in the analysis, and Hartford’s ranking:  rate of entrepreneurship (38), high-growth company density (48), net business creation (35), early-stage funding deals (35) and wage growth (21).

Elsewhere in New England, Boston ranked number 15; Providence was number 44.

Ghosts of Whalers Past Return in Carolina with Win, Attendance Boost, and Criticism

With the ghosts of Hartford Whalers past brought back to life for a one-night stand in Raleigh, North Carolina this past weekend, a glimpse at attendance numbers may give some perspective on what was, what is, and what might have been. The Carolina Hurricanes home attendance in the 31-team National Hockey League ranks 29^th in the league thus far in the 2018-19 season, after 20 home games, not including Whalers night.  The team has been drawing considerably better on the road (17,258) than at home (13,245). 

That home attendance figure should come as no surprise.  It is on pace for last season’s home attendance average over 41 games of 13,320.  Then as now, it was the third lowest home attendance average in the league.  Only Arizona and the New York Islanders drew fewer fans to home games.

It’s no wonder that the Hurricanes were seeking to recapture some of that Whalers magic – or should we say Bonanza.  And also cash in on merchandise sales, as well as seeking an attendance boost, even if only for a night.

In early 1996, a 45-day “Save the Whale” season-ticket drive in Hartford resulted in 8,300 season tickets sold, about 3,000 more than the previous year.  In the aftermath of the season ticket drive, and heading into the 1996-97 season, the Whalers management said they would remain in Hartford for two more years, in accordance with their lease. Yet they ended their 18-year history as the Whalers in Hartford, moving to Greensboro, North Carolina seeking redder pastures and becoming the Carolina Hurricanes for the start of the 1997-98 season.

In the Whalers’ final season in Hartford, 1996-97, attendance at the Hartford Civic Center had grown to 87 percent of capacity, with an average attendance of 13,680 per game.  Published reports suggest that the average attendance was, in reality, higher than 14,000 per game by 1996-97, but Whalers ownership did not count the skyboxes and coliseum club seating because the revenue streams went to the state, rather than the team.  Attendance increased for four consecutive years before management moved the team from Hartford. (To 10,407 in 1993-94, 11,835 in 1994-95, 11,983 in 1995-96 and 13,680 in 1996-97.)

During the team’s tenure in Hartford, average attendance exceeded 14,000 twice – in 1987-88 and 1986-87, when the team ranked 13th in the league in attendance in both seasons.  The Hurricanes had somewhat higher attendance numbers in the immediate aftermath of winning the Stanley Cup a decade ago, but they did not sustain those levels and were among the top half of NHL teams in attendance only once.

Keep in mind that as we approach 2019, after two decades in North Carolina, the Hurricanes are only a couple of seasons removed from the recent low water mark in NHL attendance.  In the 2016-17 season, the average home crowd was the lowest in the NHL – only 11,776.  It was the second consecutive season that the Hurricanes had the league’s worst home attendance numbers. (They were second worst the previous year.)

The Hurricanes/Whalers will next skate in Boston against the Bruins in early spring, taking to ice in the green uniforms originally worn as road uniforms by Hartford from 1985-89, then again in 1991-92.  The Whalers, by the way, are now undefeated this season, as the Hurricanes defeated the Bruins 5-3 on Sunday afternoon.  The win was not without criticism, with one published report describing the Hurricanes new first-year management as leading "the desecration of a grave and a shameless ploy to drum up some jersey and merchandise sales. A cash grab."

The crowd was, as CBS Sports phrased it: "much bigger than they’re used to":  17,491.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1076998933707177986

CT Attorney General Initiates Lawsuit Against Stamford's Purdue Pharma for Role in National Opioid Crisis

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen has initiated a lawsuit against Stamford-based Purdue Pharma and several current and former members of Purdue's management and board of directors alleging that they designed, financed and waged a pervasive and aggressive campaign to mislead doctors and patients, claiming that prescription opioid medications manufactured and marketed by the company were safe and effective and strategically downplaying risks of addiction that they knew were inherent in their opioid products. The state alleges that Purdue "peddled a series of falsehoods" to push patients toward its opioids, reaping massive profits from sales while opioid addiction skyrocketed to the crisis level that is currently impacting Connecticut and states across the country.

"For a number of months, Connecticut and our multistate partners have been engaged in intensive negotiations with opioid manufacturers and distributors in the hope of resolving potential legal claims in a way that would avoid protracted litigation and would bring opioid treatment resources to those who are desperately in need," said Attorney General Jepsen.  Jepsen, who leaves office next month, currently serves as  part of the leadership of a multistate coalition of attorneys general who are investigating opioid manufacturers and distributors. "I expect those negotiations to continue, and I remain hopeful they will bring a resolution that helps to address this ongoing crisis."

In Connecticut, 1,038 people died of accidental drug overdoses in 2017, the vast majority from opioid-related overdoses. The Connecticut Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has projected that 1,030 more people will die of overdoses in 2018. From 2013 to 2016, Connecticut experienced a fourfold increase in deaths from prescription opioid overdoses, and the estimated economic cost of the opioid epidemic in Connecticut in 2016 was $10.27 billion.  Nationwide from 2002-2017 there was a 4.1-fold increase in the total number of deaths involving opioids, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

The Attorney General said that Purdue Pharma “has not demonstrated to me that it is serious about addressing the states' very real allegations of misconduct and coming to a meaningful settlement. It is my hope that, in filing this lawsuit at this time, Connecticut can assist in the collective effort to hold this company and responsible individuals accountable.

Jepsen said the state alleges that “Purdue knowingly put its own exorbitant profits first when it purposefully and systematically misled doctors by not just downplaying the terrible risks of addiction, but by forcefully asserting that opioid products were safe, that the risk of addiction was low, and that patients experiencing symptoms of addiction should actually be prescribed higher and greater doses of Purdue's opioid drugs. We allege that this behavior was endorsed and promoted by the highest leadership of the company and that it was in violation of Connecticut law."

The state alleges that Purdue misinformed patients and doctors to get more and more people taking its premier opioid drug, OxyContin, and its two other opioid medications, Hysingla and Butrans.

The lawsuit will be filed in Superior Court in Hartford. It alleges four counts of violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and seeks damages, civil penalties, forfeiture of ill-gotten profits and restitution as well as permanent injunctive and other relief.  The suit indicates that Purdue allegedly:

• led patients and doctors to believe that opioids were safe to treat even minor pain, and that patients could and should take higher and more dangerous doses.
• sent sales representatives to doctors' offices, clinics, pharmacies and hospitals in Connecticut to make deceptive sales pitches about opioid drugs;
• rewarded high-prescribing doctors with attention, meals, gifts and money; and
• awarded prizes and bonuses to sales representatives who generated the most opioid prescriptions.

The company did not tell doctors that higher doses of opioids carried heightened risk of addiction, overdose and death, the state alleges, and the company funded and distributed publications that misrepresented the addictive nature of prescription opioids and made claims that were not supported by scientific evidence.

The state further alleges that Purdue promoted the idea of "pseudoaddiction," suggesting that patients who appeared to be addicted were instead receiving inadequate doses and needed more prescription opioid drugs.

In addition to the company, the state's lawsuit names current and former board members as defendants, alleging that they tracked sales representatives and oversaw the tactics used to push opioid drugs. The individual defendants include: Richard Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Beverly Sackler, David Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Cecil Pickett, Paulo Costa, Ralph Snyderman, Frank Peter Boer and Judy Lewent. The lawsuit also names past CEOs John Stewart and Mark Timney as defendants.

Ratepayers, Businesses, and Environmental Advocates Seek to Reverse Decision on Ratepayer Fund Raids

Attorneys for ratepayers, efficiency businesses and environmental organizations have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York , asking the appellate court to reverse an October 25 U.S. District Court decision that denied plaintiffs a remedy in their lawsuit to force the State of Connecticut to restore $145 million in ratepayer dollars intended to save families money on energy bills and reduce climate pollution. The original lawsuit, filed in May, was filed to stop the state legislature’s 2017 sweep of Connecticut’s energy efficiency and clean energy funds, and to prevent future diversions of ratepayer funds. The original complaint argued that diverting ratepayer funding to plug a budget deficit instead of using the dedicated funds for its intended purpose violates the Contract Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and functions as an illegal tax on tax-exempt organizations like churches and nonprofits.

“We are pursuing the case to fix the damage the raids have done to Connecticut families and businesses,” said Roger Reynolds, chief legal director at Connecticut Fund for the Environment. “Residents trusted that their ratepayer dollars would go where their electric bills said they would—towards energy efficiency and clean energy programs that save money and cut climate pollution. Instead those hard-earned dollars were used to plug a hole in the state budget. We believe the appellate court will see that the state’s action violated federal contract and tax law, and ask them to correct that mistake to put Connecticut back on the path to a healthier energy future and a stronger economy.”

Judge Janet C. Hall at the U.S. District Court in New Haven ruled in October that the state’s 2017 budget that swept ratepayer funds did not impair contracts between ratepayers and their electric distribution companies because neither utility tariffs nor state law ever promised ratepayers that their dollars would not be transferred to the General Fund for unrelated purposes.

The organizations filing the suit pointed out that when the General Assembly found itself facing a deficit in fall 2017, they passed a budget instructing the state to “sweep” and divert the energy efficiency and clean energy funds to the general fund. However, these funds are not government property, they stressed,  and were not raised through state taxes but were paid by ratepayers to utilities for specific services. Therefore, "seizing these funds amounts to taking ratepayer funds that were paid for another purpose."

As a result of the "raids", the filers of the lawsuit pointed out that "12,900 homes will not receive energy assessments, weatherization upgrades, reduced pricing on insulation, or associated energy bill savings. Furthermore, 5,600 of these are low income households that often require additional financial assistance to close the energy affordability gap.  The award-winning Connecticut Green Bank leverages $6 in private investment for every $1 of renewable energy funding. Yet these sweeps resulted in a 53% reduction in this program’s budget, requiring layoffs and project cancellations."

This case raises an important legal issue relevant beyond Connecticut, according to environment groups,  because it is the first time ratepayers argued in court that when they pay their utility bills with surcharges dedicated for specific programs or services—such as energy efficiency and renewable energy—enforceable contracts arise that cannot be invaded by any state.

"Connecticut’s leaders broke the trust of their constituents when they turned electric ratepayer dollars into an illegal tax,” said lead plaintiff Leticia Colon de Mejias, chair of Efficiency For All (EFA) and founder. “Even in these difficult times, it is obvious that stealing ratepayer funds intended to help Connecticut residents and businesses reduce energy waste, save money on energy bills, and access clean resources is a bad choice."

“Sierra Club Connecticut supports this legal appeal by Connecticut Fund for the Environment and allies, and the advocacy of groups including Efficiency for All, to restore the misappropriated energy efficiency monies that our General Assembly voted to take away and use as a stop gap for our budget woes" said Martha Klein, chair, Sierra Club Connecticut. "It was a myopic mistake, as these funds have been proven to create jobs, make revenue for the state, and reduce climate-destroying greenhouse gas emissions. This type of fund raiding hurts all of us in the long run. That money was taken from ratepayers specifically to improve the efficiency of our whole state, which would save all of us money on energy costs, and improve our health and climate.”

When the initial suit was filed against the state back in May, Governor Malloy  issued a statement that, rather than defending the state action, seemed to take the opposite view:

"This should come as a surprise to no one. I have long maintained that these shortsighted sweeps would increase energy costs for consumers and businesses and cause untold harm to our green energy economy. [W]e should be cementing our role as a national leader in our efforts to combat climate change and protect our communities. The energy sweeps . . . represented a massive step backwards, and I continue to strongly oppose them," Malloy said.