Can state lawmakers reduce high electric rates?
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (WTNH) — The biggest complaint we get from viewers is about their electric bills, and people want to know if anything can be done to help reduce the cost of power. Dennis House talked with State Representative Josh Elliott, a Democrat, and State Senator Ryan Fazio, a Republican.
Watch above.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
36 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom pushes major housing reform through California Legislature
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers stood around Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday and celebrated the passage of the state budget and 'transformative' housing legislation at the state Capitol. Between mutual praise and handshakes in front of television news cameras, there was little acknowledgment of the power dynamics that played out behind the scenes: Democratic lawmakers once again gave into the demands of the soon-to-be termed out governor. 'We've seen multiple situations now where it's clear that the Legislature is one place and the governor is in another, whether that's bills that have passed overwhelmingly and been vetoed, or it's dragging the Legislature along on budget bills,' said Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation. 'At some point the Legislature needs to legislate.' Newsom took a rare step earlier this year and publicly supported two bills to lessen environmental review standards to speed up the construction of housing in California. Despite vowing to supercharge home building, Newsom previously backed only smaller-scale policies and construction has stagnated. In his recently published book 'Abundance,' journalist Ezra Klein argued that California's marquee environmental law stands in the way of housing construction — a critique that struck a chord with the governor. Newsom, who is considering a 2028 presidential run, this year was hellbent on proving that he's the kind of Democrat who can be part of the solution and push through the government and political logjams. When a pivotal bill designed to streamline housing construction recently stalled in the state Senate, Newsom effectively forced it through despite the concerns of progressive lawmakers, environmental interest groups and labor unions. The governor did so by ensuring that a state budget bill included a 'poison pill' provision that required lawmakers to pass the housing legislation in order for the spending plan to go into effect on July 1. Newsom called the bills the 'most consequential housing reform that we've seen in modern history in the state of California' on Monday evening. 'This was too important to play chance,' Newsom said, adding that he worried reforms would have fallen prey to the same opposition as prior years if he allowed the 'process to unfold in the traditional way.' Democratic lawmakers for years have tried to cut through the thicket of regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, and faced stiff opposition from powerful labor groups. These groups, notably the State Building and Construction Trades Council, have argued that any relief offered to developers should be paired with wage and other benefits for workers. The legislation Newsom signed Monday sidestepped those demands from labor. Assembly Bill 130, based on legislation introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), exempts most urban housing projects from CEQA, requiring only developers of high-rise — taller than 85 feet — and low-income buildings to pay union-level wages for construction workers. Senate Bill 131 also narrows CEQA mandates for housing construction and further waives the environmental restrictions for some residential rezoning changes. The bill, led by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), additionally designates a host of non-residential projects — health clinics, childcare and advanced manufacturing facilities, food banks and more — no longer subject to CEQA. Experts in development said the new legislation could provide the most significant reforms to CEQA in its 55-year history, especially for urban housing. CEQA generally requires proponents to disclose and, if possible, lessen the environmental effects of a construction project. The process sounds simple but often results in thousands of pages of environmental assessments and years of litigation. CEQA creates substantial legal risk for homebuilders and developers and past efforts to alleviate its burdens fell short, said Dave Rand, a prominent Southern California land-use attorney. The bills signed Monday provide relief for the vast majority of housing, he said. High-rise and affordable housing construction often already require union-level pay. 'The worst cog in the wheel has always been CEQA,' Rand said. 'It's always been the place where projects get stuck. This is the first clean, across-the-board, objective, straightforward exemption that anyone can figure out.' He said clients are eager to take advantage of the new rules, which take effect immediately. 'There's over 10 projects we're going to push the go button on with this exemption probably Tuesday,' Rand said. For non-housing projects, the changes do not amount to a comprehensive overhaul but are still meaningful, said Bill Fulton, publisher of the California Planning & Development Report. In the past, state lawmakers have passed narrow, one-off CEQA waivers for projects they supported, such as increased enrollment at UC Berkeley in 2022. SB 131 continues the Legislature's penchant for exempting specific kinds of development from CEQA rules, he said, though the nine categories of projects affected provide more expansive relief than prior efforts. 'They're cherry picking things that they want to speed through,' said Fulton, who has termed the phenomenon 'Swiss cheese CEQA.' Observers said Newsom's actions were the strongest he's taken to force large-scale housing policies through the Legislature. For years, the governor has made audacious promises — on the campaign trail in 2017, Newsom famously promised to support the construction of 3.5 million new homes by the end of this year, a goal likely to fall millions short. But he's been more likely to work behind the scenes or swoop in and praise bills once they've passed rather than publicly shape housing policy, said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor. Elmendorf, who supports the new laws, called Newsom's arm-twisting and willingness to challenge entrenched interests, 'an incredible about-face from his MO with respect to the legislative process on controversial housing and environmental issues for the last six, seven years.' The governor has jammed his policy priorities on other topics through Legislature before, including climate legislation, infrastructure and oil regulations, with mixed results over the years. Newsom's term ends in early 2027. His endorsement of the meaningful housing policies, and his strategy to propel one through the state Senate, became a bellwether of his strength at the Capitol as his time in office wanes. Wicks said Newsom 'put a ton of skin in the game' to force the proposals through. 'He went all in on pushing for taking on these sacred cows like CEQA because I think he recognizes that we have to tackle this problem,' Wicks said. Wicks' legislation had cleared the Assembly before the proposal became part of the state budget process, which added pressure on lawmakers to pass the bills. She described herself as 'cautiously optimistic' as it moved through the Capitol and said her house understood the need for reform. Wiener's legislation was slower to gain traction. Just last week, the inability of the Senate and the governor's office to reach an agreement on the proposal held up the announcement of a budget deal. Then Newsom tied the proposal to the budget, essentially requiring lawmakers to pass the bill or risk starting the fiscal year on July 1 without a spending plan. During the debate on SB 131, Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas) said the legislation had 'significant issues' but that he would vote in favor of the measure because of assurances that those would eventually be addressed. 'I think nature and abundance can live side-by-side. In fact, they must,' Stern said. 'We don't want to live in a moonscape California. Want to live in a livable one.' Despite the concerns, lawmakers passed both bills on Monday. Gonzalez was critical of legislators, saying 'nobody is voting their values.' She compared the Legislature going along with Newsom's plan to Republicans in Congress. 'California Democrats are crying foul that legislators and senators are passing things that they don't even know the effect of that aren't in line with their constituents that are just being shoved down their throats by Donald Trump,' Gonzalez said. 'And those same legislators in California are allowing that to happen to themselves.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Top Democrat questions ‘special treatment' for Alaska, Hawaii in GOP SNAP proposal
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, questioned why only two states should receive 'special treatment' in a GOP-backed plan to reduce federal dollars for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the coming years. As part of a major package being considered in the Senate to advance President Trump's tax priorities, Republicans also include a major change that would require some states to cover a share of SNAP benefit costs, which are currently funded by the federal government, for the first time. Republicans are floating changes to that plan that would create special carveouts for Alaska and Hawaii amid internal GOP pushback. But senators signal the exemption could be at risk as Democrats question 'special treatment' for the states. 'On the SNAP side, as you know, they've shifted $64 billion to the states, of which 44 have balanced budget amendments,' Klobuchar argued on Monday. 'And we tried to stop that, because the states aren't going to be able to do this.' 'Two states, they threw in Hawaii, two states get this special treatment, and no one else, and so I just figure, if they get that treatment, maybe every other state should, you know, maybe we should be doing that for Wisconsin,' she told The Hill. 'Maybe we should be doing that for Iowa.' 'This cost shift to the states is the biggest cost shift in the bill,' she also said. Republicans are still waiting on a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian to see if the reworked proposal passes muster with the chamber's Byrd Rule. That decision, in turn, could be instrumental in whether Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will support the bill. Her comments come as Alaska's other senator, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R), is pointing fingers at Democrats as he says the exemption – which is aimed at helping shield Alaska from steep cuts to federal dollars for food assistance – hangs in the balance because of pushback from the other side of the aisle. Politico was first to report the news. '[Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the Democrats are trying, once again, to strip a provision that helps Hawaii and Alaska's most vulnerable,' Sullivan told The Hill on Monday. 'Everything that we're trying to do for Alaska and Hawaii, Schumer and the Democrats strip it,' Sullivan said, while urging his Democratic colleagues to call to tell their leadership, 'Don't screw our provision that's just trying to make it a little less difficult on challenging communities to implement their SNAP requirements.' As part of the SNAP proposal, some states will cover a share of the cost of SNAP benefits if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028. But in a change from a previous version of the SNAP proposal assembled by the Senate Agriculture Committee, the bill also includes a 'waiver authority' section that could allow for noncontiguous states, or Alaska and Hawaii, to see the requirements waived if they're found to be 'actively implementing a corrective action plan' and carrying out other activities to reduce their error rate. The update came after Alaska Republicans raised concerns over the GOP-crafted proposal. Republicans say the proposal is aimed at incentivizing states to get their payment error rates down, while Democrats have argued the measure could lead to states having to cut benefits. Figures recently unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found the state's payment error rate — which factors in overpayment and underpayment error rates — hit 24.66 percent in fiscal 2024. The rate is the highest in any state. The national average in the new reporting was 10.93 percent.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Blackburn says AI deal with Cruz is off
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said Monday that a deal to update language of a provision in President Trump's tax package seeking to bar states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) is off. Just one day earlier, Blackburn announced she had reached an agreement with Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on new text that would bar states from regulating AI for five years and featured exemptions for laws on child online safety and publicity rights. However, she pulled support for the updated provision Monday evening. 'While I appreciate Chairman Cruz's efforts to find acceptable language that allows states to protect their citizens from the abuses of AI, the current language is not acceptable to those who need these protections the most,' Blackburn said in a statement. 'This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives,' she continued. 'Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from making laws that protect their citizens.' Blackburn has been a key proponent of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which she reintroduced last month alongside Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Senate leadership. 'For as long as I've been in Congress, I've worked alongside federal and state legislators, parents seeking to protect their kids online, and the creative community in Tennessee to fight back against Big Tech's exploitation by passing legislation to govern the virtual space,' she added. The Tennessee Republican now plans to co-sponsor Sen. Maria Cantwell's (D-Wash.) amendment to strip the AI provision from the reconciliation bill, in addition to filing her own amendment, according to Cantwell's office. Cantwell, in turn, also plans to co-sponsor Blackburn's amendment, alongside Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Earlier in the day, she had slammed the deal between Blackburn and Cruz, arguing it did 'nothing to protect kids or consumers.' 'It's just another giveaway to tech companies,' Cantwell, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement. 'This provision gives AI and social media a brand-new shield against litigation and state regulation. This is Section 230 on steroids.' 'And when [Commerce Secretary] Howard Lutnick has the authority to force states to take this deal or lose all of their BEAD funding, consumers will find out just how catastrophic this deal is,' she added. The provision is tied to $500 million in AI infrastructure and deployment funding under the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Under the updated language, if states want access to the funds, they cannot regulate AI for five years. The measure previously sought to bar state regulation for a 10-year period. Blackburn's last-minute shift on the provision comes at a key moment, as the Senate has been voting for hours on amendments to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which Republicans are hoping to get across the finish line before the July 4 holiday.
