Yankee Institute
Connecticut SPN think tank; took $3.7M-plus from the Koch donor funds DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund and opposes clean-energy mandates.
§ 1 · Background & fossil-fuel ties
Founded in 1984, the Yankee Institute is a Connecticut-based free-market think tank and an affiliate of the State Policy Network (SPN), a national coalition of state-based organizations that has coordinated campaigns opposing renewable energy standards, environmental regulations, and other climate policies across the country. SPN and its affiliates have received extensive support from fossil fuel interests and conservative foundations that have financed the climate denial movement for decades.
IRS records show the Yankee Institute has been supported by many of the same funding networks identified throughout this report. Between 2004 and 2018, the organization received more than $3.7 million from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, two donor-advised funds that have long served as major conduits for anonymous contributions to climate denial and anti-regulatory organizations. Additional funding included $100,000 from the Searle Freedom Trust and $50,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, two foundations that have spent decades financing organizations challenging climate science and opposing environmental regulation.
The Institute's affiliation with the State Policy Network further connects it to one of the nation's largest state-based advocacy networks advancing free-market policies, including opposition to clean energy mandates and environmental regulation. Through SPN, the Yankee Institute is linked to the same ecosystem of conservative think tanks, fossil fuel interests, and climate denial funders that supported numerous organizations filing amicus briefs in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County.
§ 2 · Record of fronting
As Connecticut's affiliate of the State Policy Network, the Yankee Institute has consistently opposed state climate and clean energy policies while promoting an expanded role for fossil fuels and other alternatives to renewable energy. The organization argues Connecticut should reject policies designed to accelerate the transition away from gasoline-powered vehicles, opposes proposals to strengthen environmental protections through a state constitutional "Green Amendment," and advocates expanding fossil fuel energy development.
The Institute frames these positions as promoting affordable and reliable energy, arguing that Connecticut's climate policies contribute to higher electricity prices. At the same time, it has opposed many of the state's signature clean energy initiatives, including restrictions on gas-powered vehicles and other policies intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These positions closely align with broader campaigns by the State Policy Network and other organizations funded by the Koch network and climate denial foundations to challenge state climate policies and slow the transition away from fossil fuels.
§ 3 · The cover story, debunked
Climate accountability lawsuits are really an attempt by states and local governments to set national energy policy through the courts.
Climate accountability lawsuits do not seek to regulate national energy policy or ban fossil fuels. Instead, they rely on longstanding state consumer protection and tort laws to determine whether fossil fuel companies misled the public about the climate risks of their products and should help pay for resulting damages. Similar legal theories have long been used against the tobacco, opioid, and asbestos industries. Whether companies engaged in deception is a question for the courts—not a new energy policy.
Climate lawsuits will raise energy prices and threaten the U.S. economy.
The purpose of these lawsuits is to determine legal responsibility for decades of alleged deception—not to dictate fuel prices or shut down energy production. The brief assumes that any financial liability will inevitably reduce domestic energy production and increase costs, but that prediction is speculative. Courts routinely hear cases involving major industries without eliminating the products they manufacture. If fossil fuel companies are ultimately found liable, they can continue operating while being held financially accountable for unlawful conduct, just as occurred in litigation involving tobacco, opioids, and other industries.