Connecticut lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban gas-powered leaf blowers, and use the public benefits charges, forcing ratepayers to subsidize battery-powered leaf blowers.
Senate Bill 319 would prohibit the sale of gas-powered handheld and backpack leaf blowers beginning in 2029 and ban their use statewide by 2030. State agencies and contractors working on state property would be required to transition to electric equipment even sooner.
But the ban is only part of the story.
The bill also directs funding from the state’s Public Benefits Charge, a surcharge embedded in electric bills, to finance the purchase of battery-powered lawn and garden equipment from 2026 through 2030.
In effect, Connecticut would eliminate gas-powered leaf blowers and then use electricity customers’ money to subsidize compliance.
A Growing Charge on Electric Bills
The public benefits charge, formally known as the systems benefits charge, funds various state-mandated programs, including energy efficiency initiatives, renewable energy programs, assistance for low-income households.
Over time, however, lawmakers have repeatedly expanded its scope to include an ever-widening array of policy priorities only loosely connected to electricity service. SB 319 would add another category: electrification of lawn equipment.
Unlike programs funded through the state budget, charges embedded in utility bills often receive less scrutiny. Yet for households already struggling with some of the highest electricity rates in the country, that distinction is meaningless. The bill still comes due.
Because the charge applies broadly to nearly all electricity customers, renters, seniors on fixed incomes, and small businesses would contribute to financing equipment they may never use.
Mandates First, Subsidies Second
The bill does not merely encourage electric equipment, it mandates it.
Beginning in 2027, state agencies would be required to replace gas-powered lawn equipment with electric versions when existing tools reach the end of their useful life. Contractors maintaining state property would face similar requirements. By 2030, gas-powered leaf blowers would be banned on state property entirely.
Sales to the public would be prohibited starting in 2029, followed by a statewide use ban.
Municipalities and regional school districts would also be pushed to comply through a reactivated Lawn Equipment Exchange Fund and state-run demonstrations aimed at speeding the transition. Private landscaping companies would have access to Green Bank loans to help cover the cost of new equipment.
The structure is straightforward: eliminate gas-powered equipment, then use ratepayer-funded subsidies to cushion the economic impact.
The Real Cost of Electrification
Battery-powered equipment often carries higher upfront costs than gas alternatives. For professional landscapers, transitioning entire fleets can require substantial investment in charging infrastructure, additional batteries, and operational adjustments.
Those costs rarely disappear. They are redistributed. Contractors pass them on to customers, municipalities pass them on to taxpayers, and ratepayers help finance subsidies through their electric bills.
Supporters argue electric equipment reduces emissions and noise. Critics question whether the environmental gains justify the costs — especially in a state where electricity prices are already elevated.
There are also operational concerns. Battery tools can face runtime limitations for crews working full days, requiring multiple battery swaps and extended charging time.
Electricity as a Policy Vehicle
The more significant issue may be the funding mechanism itself.
Utility bills are increasingly being used nationwide as vehicles for social and environmental policy, from renewable subsidies to energy-efficiency mandates. Because these charges are embedded in regulated rates rather than debated as line items in the state budget, they can grow without the same level of public visibility.
Lower-income households tend to spend a larger share of their income on energy, making such charges function similarly to regressive taxes.
Under SB 319, a renter without a yard could help finance the equipment upgrade of a commercial landscaping business.
A Broader Electrification Strategy
The leaf-blower ban fits into a larger push toward electrification of transportation, heating, and equipment. Each transition increases demand for electricity — and, in many cases, shifts costs onto utility customers.
When electric bills become the default financing mechanism for environmental policy, ratepayers effectively serve as a captive funding base.
Today it is leaf blowers. Tomorrow it could be other categories of equipment.
The Accountability Question
Whether one views electrification as progress or overreach, how it is financed matters.
By routing spending through utility charges rather than traditional taxation, policymakers can advance sweeping mandates without voting on explicit tax increases. But the economic impact remainsreal.
Electricity is not optional. It is essential. And when public policy is financed through mandatory charges on essential services, households cannot opt out.
Residents may never see a line item labeled “Leaf Blower Electrification Program.” They will simply see higher electric bills.
