And the two left want huge premium increases for 2027. I spoke with Sean Scanlon, who runs the biggest health plan in the state.
When Camillo's office told me there were no docs, I emailed CNG's parent company myself, they sent a statement... Short version: they've got aging infrastructure and fast growth in Greenwich, they're planning upgrades with the town, and they never once mention zoning, mandates or Hartford
Ryan Fazio is running for governor of Connecticut. But what does he do for a living?
His ethics filing says one company. His donation records say another. Neither one is in his bio and his LinkedIn just says "Growth Equity Firm". Why the secrecy?
Saw the rate filing and got pissed enough to actually look more into it. The company is asking PURA for an 11% delivery increase, which works out to as much as 13% on residential bills starting in 2027. The stated reason is a budget shortfall.
This same company booked $1.69 billion in profit last year. The CEO, Joe Nolan, got a roughly 19% raise to $13.5 million, about 94 times the average employee. If the company ever gets sold, his package is worth $60 million.
CT is running a Citizens' Assembly on property taxes out of the Comptroller's office, with CCM, Yale and UConn.
The selection process was kinda cool. UConn mailed 240K letters at random, about 2,300 people responded, and they narrowed it to a pool that matched the state's demographics on homeownership, geography, and whether people have kids. Then they used the literal CT Lottery machines to draw the final panel. The 100 members meet over six sessions this summer, recommendations due in the fall.
The logic: CT towns can't tax income or local sales, so they're stuck on property taxes for around 70% of revenue. Every reform for 50 years dies because someone loses and legislators won't take the hit. A panel of random residents is supposed to give them political cover.
Nobody's tried this at the state level on a question this big. Curious what people here think.
The bill in committee let parents of kids harmed by AI companions sue for actual + punitive damages. It's on page 21 of the committee bill, lines 632 to 642. NetChoice testified against the private right of action on March 3. The Senate amended it out on April 21. The final law says enforcement is "solely by the Attorney General."
Families can still bring ordinary tort claims. What's gone is the direct statutory claim.
It's a real charge, about 20% of your bill. But a quarter of it on Eversource and almost half on UI is hardship help and unpaid bills, which won't go away. And the Millstone nuclear credit that just took $30 and $34 off your bill runs through the same charge Fazio wants to kill. Thoughts?
Most of the coverage of CT's new AI law frames it as corporate compliance. But the thing that stood out to me is that almost all the enforcement (AI hiring tools, chatbots, deepfakes in political ads) runs through the AG's office.
As you know, Pope Leo released the first papal encyclical on AI this week with Anthropic's Chris Olah on the platform.
The takes about whether the Pope understands consciousness are already rolling in. IMO, they're avoiding the actual story.
CT's economy might be more exposed to AI displacement than almost any state. Insurance, lawyers, finance, etc.
Aetna, Cigna, Travelers and Charter all cut jobs this year. None of them said AI was the reason.
I work in audience development/publishing and this has been one of the bigger conversations internally around the Google AI push.
For years, publishers could survive platform shifts because Google still sent readers outward to the rest of the web. That assumption is starting to change.
The obvious argument for AI answers is convenience for users. But if fewer people click through to the sites doing the reporting, writing, reviewing and publishing, what happens to the ecosystem producing that information over time?
Curious how people here are thinking about it.
A year ago someone on here asked “how is this legal?” after noticing a sitting CT state senator worked for Eversource while serving.
I looked into CT's ethics rules and the answer is basically: the law was written to allow it.
Went down a rabbit hole on Eversource, PURA, the legislature and how CT defines conflicts of interest. Not surprising but still wild.
Stewart has plummeted in polling and the prediction markets but New Britain saw this coming before the rest of us.
The same thing happened last year too. The Senate passed a bill that would've put rules on AI hiring, chatbots/kids and the frontier models. It had some meat on the bones. The House never voted on it, session ended. It just disappeared.
Seems like the same thing is happening now with the updated version.
Anyone know if the House is actually planning to take this up?