Connecticut residents don’t need to wait for their next utility bill to know electricity is about to get more expensive. The policy framework driving higher costs has already been approved at the regional level — even though Connecticut has not yet completed the state-level rulemaking required to implement it.
Last summer, the states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) finalized what is known as the “Third Program Review.” The changes tighten the regional carbon cap, raise the minimum price for emissions allowances, and extend the program through 2037. The stated goal is straightforward: increase the price of carbon emissions.
Those costs will not be absorbed by utilities. They are embedded directly into the wholesale price of electricity and passed through to customers in the supply portion of their bills. Ratepayers, not power companies, will bear the impact.
The decision now moves to Connecticut, but not to the House or Senate floor. There will be no recorded vote by elected lawmakers, no public debate over whether higher electric bills are justified, and no opportunity for residents to weigh in through the normal legislative process. Instead, implementation proceeds through a regulatory pathway dominated by unelected officials and a small legislative committee with limited authority.
RGGI — often pronounced “Reggie” — operates as a multistate carbon pricing system. Power plants must purchase government-issued permits, known as allowances, for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. These allowances are sold at auction by participating states. The more fossil-fuel-based electricity a plant generates, the more allowances it must buy.
That cost is built into the wholesale price of electricity and passed on to consumers. There is no separate line item on the bill identifying RGGI charges. They are folded into the per-kilowatt-hour supply rate. That is what makes RGGI politically convenient and financially painful: it raises revenue without ever admitting it is a tax.
This lack of visibility stands in contrast to other politically unpopular costs the state knows how to make visible when it chooses to. The Public Benefits Charge, which sparked widespread backlash precisely because customers could see it clearly on their bills, is itemized for customers to see. RGGI costs are not. They are buried in the supply rate, even though the financial impact can be substantial.
The timing makes this especially significant. RGGI states already rank among the most expensive places in the country to buy electricity. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont consistently sit near the top national pricerankings. Connecticut residents pay roughly 27 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with a national average closer to 18 cents.
RGGI is not being layered onto a region with cheap power. It is being piled on top of some of the highest electricity costs in the country.
The Third Program Review does not automatically become law in Connecticut. To take effect, the state must amend its own regulations to conform to the updated regional model. That procedural step is where accountability begins to erode.
The core policy decision, whether to tighten the carbon cap and raise allowance prices, never passed through the General Assembly. It was approved by a group of interstate administrators, regulators, and political appointees operating far from voters. At the state level, lawmakers are now asked only to confirm that the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has implemented decisions already made elsewhere.
That distinction matters, because the legislature’s role at this stage is almost entirely procedural. There is no policy debate — only regulatory ratification.
The Legislative Regulation Review Committee, which oversees this process, is not designed to weigh the economic wisdom of a policy. Its role is limited to ensuring that regulations comply with existing law and agency authority. Once approved, the regulation carries the force of law — without a legislative debate on costs, tradeoffs, or alternatives.
In effect, Connecticut ratepayers are facing a cost increase approved by regulators and implemented by committee. That alone should give pause.
Supporters of RGGI often argue that the revenue is “returned” to consumers through helpful programs. In practice, ratepayers first pay higher electricity prices, and then state agencies decide how to redistribute that money.
RGGI proceeds are directed into broad spending categories. Some fund “beneficial electrification” programs, including electric vehicles, heat pumps, and charging infrastructure. Others support bill-assistance programs, meaning money collected from ratepayers is redistributed to help pay other customers’ electric bills. The rest is spread across energy efficiency programs like home weatherization and appliance rebates, renewable energy subsidies such as solar incentives, and a catch-all category for emissions reduction projects ranging from transportation initiatives to tree planting and climate planning.
However those categories are labeled, the structure is the same: ratepayers pay more for electricity, and the state decides how that money is spent.
Connecticut does not even offer basic transparency in return. Unlike some other RGGI states, it does not publish regular, comprehensive public reports detailing how RGGI revenue is allocated. There is no consistent annual accounting, no public dashboard, no clear breakdown showing how much goes to bill assistance, EV programs, administrative costs, or politically favored nonprofits.
Money goes in. Programs come out. The public is expected not to ask questions.
Compounding the concern, another RGGI program review is already scheduled by 2028, creating a cycle in which costs can continue to rise without direct legislative approval.
No recorded floor votes.
No clear tax debate.
No meaningful consent.
Just another charge embedded in the supply portion of the electric bill — growing quietly, shielded from scrutiny, and implemented through regulatory processes that keep accountability at arm’s length.
Connecticut’s next electric rate increase is not a future possibility. It has already been decided — approved in the shadows and passed on to families who never voted on it and may never see it clearly on their bills.
