Connecticut lawmakers say they want to make energy more affordable. Their latest proposal could do the opposite — starting at the gas pump.
House Bill 5156 would create a state “Climate Superfund,” requiring fossil-fuel companies to pay billions of dollars for greenhouse-gas emissions dating back nearly three decades. Supporters frame the plan as holding polluters accountable. Opponents warn it functions as a large retroactive tax that would ultimately be passed on to drivers, homeowners, and businesses.
Industry groups say the impact could be immediate — and measurable.
One analysis estimates the policy would add roughly 33 cents per gallon to gasoline, diesel, and heating oil.
What the Climate Superfund Would Do
The bill would establish a state-run “cost recovery” program to collect payments from fossil-fuel companies and use the proceeds for climate-related infrastructure projects, including flood mitigation, stormwater upgrades, and weather-resilience initiatives.
Companies deemed “responsible parties” — generally large firms involved in extracting or refining fossil fuels — would be held strictly liable for a share of the state’s climate-related costs based on historical emissions between 1995 and 2024. Payments could be made upfront or in installments over nine years, with interest.
When substantial mandatory costs are attached to fuel production, those costs move through the supply chain — from producers to distributors to retailers — before ultimately appearing in the price consumers pay.
The Math Behind the 33-Cent Estimate
The roughly 33-cent estimate comes from an analysis by the Connecticut Energy Marketers Association (CEMA), which scaled a similar program adopted in New York to Connecticut’s size and fuel consumption.
New York’s program seeks $75 billion. CEMA adjusted that figure proportionally based on Connecticut’s smaller population and economy, producing an estimated potential liability of roughly $13 billion.
Approximately half of that burden would fall on petroleum fuels. When the projected annual payments are divided across the roughly 2.2 billion gallons of gasoline, diesel, and heating oil consumed in Connecticut each year, the cost works out to approximately 33 cents per gallon.
CEMA summarized its position clearly: “Anyone supporting this proposal is supporting a 33-cent increase in the price of gasoline per gallon.”
The organization also rejected the suggestion that producers would absorb the cost. “This is our industry, and we understand how it works,” CEMA stated. “Petroleum producers will not be able to absorb a retroactive 30-year tax of this magnitude. The cost will be passed on … Plain and simple.”
Business Groups Warn the Costs Will Be Passed On
Opposition to the bill has come from multiple sectors, including fuel retailers, small-business advocates, and statewide business associations.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) warned that “significant assessments on energy producers are likely to be reflected in higher fuel prices at the pump, higher natural gas costs, increased electricity rates, and overall higher transportation expenses.”
The New England Convenience Store & Energy Marketers Association testified that “the parties that would ultimately pay for these bills are Connecticut residents — your constituents and our customers.”
The Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA) emphasized that costs imposed on fuel suppliers “will not remain with the targeted industry” and “will be passed through the energy supply chain and ultimately show up as higher electricity, heating, and fuel costs for Connecticut employers and residents.”
CBIA further cautioned that fuel prices are “a primary driver of wholesale electricity costs in the regional power market,” adding that “a fee imposed on oil and natural gas will only increase our energy prices in Connecticut.”
The American Petroleum Institute (API) similarly cautioned that imposing retroactive liability for decades of lawful activity could create legal uncertainty and significant economic consequences.
Across industries, the message was consistent: large mandatory costs imposed upstream rarely stay there.
The Agency That Would Run It Stayed Silent
If the Climate Super Fund is as urgent and necessary as supporters claim, the state agency tasked with running it might be expected to weigh in.
It didn’t.
During the public hearing, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) Commissioner Katie Dykes acknowledged that DEEP did not submit formal testimony on the proposal.
That absence is notable. The proposal would create a new “climate superfund cost recovery program” administered by DEEP, requiring the agency to calculate emissions shares dating back to 1995, determine liability, issue payment demands, and oversee collections potentially totaling billions of dollars.
When asked about implementation, Commissioner Dykes indicated that the program would require additional analysis and regulations and would likely take years to fully implement.
In other words, lawmakers are considering a multibillion-dollar policy whose administering agency has not formally endorsed — or fully outlined — how it would function.
Affordability at Stake
Affordability remains a top concern for Connecticut residents.
HB 5156 asks Connecticut residents to absorb billions in new energy costs while assuming the economic consequences will somehow stay contained.
The math suggests otherwise.
If fuel prices rise by 33 cents per gallon, drivers will see it immediately. Businesses that rely on transportation will see it in operating costs. And because energy touches nearly every part of the economy — from food distribution to home heating — the effects would not stop at the pump.
Before moving forward, lawmakers may want to answer a simple question:
Can Connecticut afford another policy that risks raising energy prices?
