In a move that could further strain Connecticut ratepayers, this year’s controversial climate bill the “Green Monster” — which failed to pass this last legislative session — is set to make a return in 2025. This proposal, aimed at advancing green energy policies, threatens to push electric bills even higher at a time when consumers are already grappling with two recent rate hikes.
In an interview with Fox61 on Tuesday (Aug. 20), Rep. Joseph Gresko (D-Stratford) — co-chair of the Environment Committee — revealed his plan to reintroduce the bill early in the session. “If we do it as early as possible,” said Rep. Gresko, “you have that wiggle room for when the horse trading happens, that it can get called with enough time in the Senate.”
Last year, the “Green Monster” failed to pass due to a purported lack time, according to some lawmakers.
Early drafts of the bill were extremely ambitious, featuring a sweeping all-electric mandate that would have banned the use of natural gas, propane, and oil in new construction and major renovations.
However, this mandate faced significant pushback, leading to a substantial rollback. A revised version of the bill limited the all-electric requirement to state agencies, setting a goal for these public institutions to use only zero-carbon generating electricity by 2030.
Another contentious proposal that stirred debate would have required the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to explore how Connecticut might phase out natural gas usage entirely. This provision was also removed from the final draft of the bill.
Despite the removal of some of the more problematic provisions, the climate bill that ultimately passed the House still contains elements that could lead to higher electric rates as the state pushes forward with its environmental agenda.
As the 2025 session approaches, it remains uncertain which version of the bill will be proposed, leaving ratepayers to wonder whether the next iteration will revive some of the more troubling provisions.
A key element of the climate bill is the introduction of more aggressive greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) targets set by the Connecticut Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). The GWSA currently mandates a reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to 45% below 2001 levels by 2030 and 80% below those levels by 2050.The new bill ups the ante, setting a more ambitious target of reducing emissions to at least 65% below 2001 levels by 2030, including to a level of zero percent from electricity supplied to electric customers by 2050.
Additionally, the 2050 goal is revised to require an economy-wide net-zero level, with direct and indirect emissions cut by at least 80% below 2001 levels.
To support these goals, the bill authorizes the Commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to hire a consultant to prepare a report on GHG strategies, at an estimated cost of $600,000. This report would evaluate the effectiveness of the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which mandate that electricity providers source a portion of their power from renewable energy and recommend strategies to meet both general and sector-specific emission reduction targets.
Meeting these targets likely means a significant increase in the adoption of renewable energy sources — like wind and solar — which currently tend to be more expensive than traditional fossil fuels, especially when factoring in the costs of transitioning infrastructure and integrating renewables into the grid.
By aggressively pushing for a transition to renewable energy sources, the costs of this forced mandate will almost certainly be passed down to consumers.
The Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), the nonpartisan fiscal research branch of the General Assembly, has confirmed that adopting additional GHG reduction targets will indeed “result in a cost to ratepayers.”
According to the OFA report, these costs are primarily tied to the necessary development and upgrade of the grid by electric distribution companies to meet the bill’s ambitious targets.
It‘s also worth noting that state and local governments, as ratepayers themselves, would not be immune to these increased costs — potentially leading to higher taxes at both the state and local levels, further straining taxpayers.
Another provision that threatens to drive up costs is the requirement for the DEEP commissioner to develop a statewide plan for installing heat pumps, leveraging existing state programs like the Clean Energy Fund within the Connecticut Green Bank. This fund is partially financed by ratepayers to support various clean energy initiatives. It’s worth noting that the original “Green Monster” bill called for the installation of 310,000 heat pumps across the state. While this specific mandate was eventually removed from the final bill, the revised version still leaves ratepayers on the hook for a plan that could significantly increase their electricity costs.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Connecticut’s ratepayers were forced to foot the bill to help finance the state’s green goals.
On August 14, it was announced that starting September 1, customers of Eversource and United Illuminating (UI) will face yet another rate hike — in the public benefits portion of their electric bills — to cover costs associated with electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure enhancements and rebates.
Additionally, ratepayers are currently subsidizing rebates for EVs through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade program, which requires power plants to purchase permits, or allowances, for each ton of CO2 they emit. The proceeds from these auctions fund renewable energy and efficiency projects.
The reality is that the cost of these allowances is passed down to consumers, leading to higher electricity rates. In effect, residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers are the ones bearing the financial burden of these green initiatives, despite already paying some of the highest electricity rates in the country.
However, not all sections of the “Green Monster” bill carry the same financial risk. Provisions such as the task force to study underutilized sites for green economy entrepreneurs and the creation of a centralized data dashboard for renewable energy transparency are initiatives that could advance Connecticut’s clean energy goals without adding to the financial strain on residents.
Given the economic impact that the more costly provisions could have on ratepayers, lawmakers would do well to consider introducing these less burdensome items separately. By isolating the initiatives that do not directly increase electric bills, the state could still make meaningful progress on its environmental goals without further inflating the already sky-high energy costs that Connecticut residents are forced to bear. This approach would allow the state to move forward with its clean energy agenda while protecting consumers from unnecessary financial hardship.
Yet, even without the less contentious portions of the bill, the overall language in the “Green Monster” bill remains deeply concerning for those already struggling with the state’s exorbitant energy costs — Connecticut currently holds the distinction of having the fifth highest electric rates in the country.
The bill’s return suggests that its supporters are unfazed by the potential economic impact on ratepayers, prioritizing an aggressive green agenda over the financial well-being of Connecticut residents.
As the 2025 session approaches, ratepayers will be watching closely to see how lawmakers address these pressing concerns. For now, the reintroduction of the “Green Monster” threatens to make an already dire situation even worse, adding fuel to the fire of Connecticut’s ever increasing electric prices.
