With the 2025 legislative session underway, among the top priorities for the Democratic and Republican caucuses is addressing Connecticut’s skyrocketing electric rates, which are some of the highest in the nation.
Unsurprisingly, both parties have different ideas of achieving energy affordability, with the Democrats introducing the “Ratepayers First Energy Bill” and Republicans presenting a six-point plan. The former is an “open book” with “no specific things” currently solidified in the bill, according to Sen. Norm Needleman (D-Essex) at a Jan. 16 press conference. Yet, as Sen. Needleman asserted, Democrats aim to “provide the most reliable, best priced energy to the state of Connecticut,” while listening to “ideas from across the spectrum” over the next several months.
Meanwhile, on Jan. 22, Republicans offered more specificity in their plan to make energy more affordable by:
- Removing the Public Benefits Charge (PBC) from electric bills
- Prohibiting agreements that buy electricity at 150% above the wholesale price
- Redefining “Class I renewable energy source” to include any electricity generated from a hydropower or nuclear power generating facility
- Separating the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) from the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP)
- Eliminating incentive programs that increase electric demand, including electric vehicle (EV) rebate programs
- Studying ways to increase the supply of natural gas
“People are hurting,” Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding (R-Brookfield) said during the press conference. “Small businesses are clamoring for relief. We must act, and we have a detailed plan to help consumers.”
Both parties have criticized the other, with Republicans showing a blank board titled “CT Democrats’ Plan to Lower Electricity Costs” and Senate Democrats calling the GOP plan “disingenuous.”
But why is this focus on electric rates happening now? How do Connecticut’s environmental aspirations impact the state’s energy policy and prices? How is the state reacting to the recently inaugurated Trump administration’s executive orders? And what can Connecticut lawmakers do to achieve both short- and long-term energy and environmental goals?
‘Energy Prices Are Too Dang High’
This past July, state residents were stunned when they opened their monthly electric bills to discover rates jumped by hundreds of dollars. For Monroe resident Scott Pearson, his bill rose from $40 to $200. In response, Pearson launched an online petition — which has since garnered more than 70,000 signatures — for Gov. Ned Lamont, PURA (the agency that regulates Connecticut’s utility companies) and state leaders to provide relief.
Even the governor expressed his frustration by rising energy costs during his 2025 State of the State Address, telling lawmakers, “These high prices impact all of us — working families, seniors on a fixed income, small businesses and large manufacturers,” adding, “Everyone was mad as hell looking at their bills following the hottest July in recorded history — so was I.”
Lawmakers, as well as Pearson, recognized the spike in prices was tied to the Public Benefits Charge (PBC), which passes along to consumers the costs of the government mandates imposed on power companies for a variety of state energy policies, including “clean” energy.
Although the PBC has caused agita recently, it is more than 20 years old, averaging “only $16.58 per month for an average Eversource residential ratepayer” between 2004 and 2024, according to Connecticut Inside Investigator.
Yet last summer’s PBC increase was mostly due to Eversource and United Illuminating (UI) recouping hundreds of millions of dollars the companies had been forced to buy power from the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant in Waterford, the state’s only nuclear power plant. In 2017, the General Assembly passed a “power purchase agreement” to keep Millstone operational since it provides electricity to 2 million homes not only in Connecticut, but New England, while its closure would have slashed more than 1,000 jobs in the state.
Moreover, during the pandemic, there was a moratorium on disconnecting people’s electricity when they did not pay their bills. While all other New England states rolled back this policy by July 2021, Connecticut ended the moratorium only last May; therefore, energy companies are recouping the losses from the past several years, which also impacted the PBC’s increase.
But Connecticut has been among the states with the highest electricity rates in the nation prior to July 2024 because, as noted by NBC CT, Eversource and UI “only deliver electricity, meaning neither produces their own” and that they purchase “much of that energy from out of state,” which raises prices.
Meanwhile, Connecticut has had a 20-year-plus history of committing to environmental goals. In 1998, the General Assembly enacted the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that “severely restrict the ability of utilities to find the cleanest and most efficient means of providing electricity to Connecticut’s residents and businesses, creating higher electric bills as a consequence,” according to Yankee Institute’s report Re-Energize Connecticut: Toward Affordable Electricity for All. Additionally, its intent on creating jobs in the Constitution State has also backfired, as Maine, New York and Quebec have directly benefited from the RPS rules.
By 2030, the RPS will drive up energy costs and lead to economic stagnation in Connecticut if kept intact. As the report asserts, more than $1.5 billion will be lost between income, high prices, and low sales, as well as 1,930 jobs and $337 million in real disposable income.
To make matters worse, according to University of Connecticut (UConn) professor Fred Carstensen, 60% of the natural gas “that flows in CT flows back out, to New York and Rhode Island,” meaning the state only uses 40% of the natural gas it imports.
Drill, Baby Drill?
In his State of the State Address, Gov. Lamont applauded Budderfly, a Shelton-based company that helps Connecticut companies “meet their energy efficiency and climate sustainability goals,” since it is lowering costs through “better insulation, heat pumps, [and] solar arrays.”
The shoutout served a purpose: the governor expressed to lawmakers on the need for “energy efficiency, with no extra demands on the grid reliability” as the “cheapest, and most timely solution” to deal with current issues and incentivize economic growth.
During his tenure, Gov. Lamont has been committed to green energy solutions by signing executive orders, including establishing a goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of “at least 45% below 2001’s GHG emissions level by January 1, 2030.” He also signed into law requiring that Connecticut gets “all of our energy from zero carbon sources by 2040.”
Nevertheless, in December 2024, Connecticut “closed its solicitation for offshore wind resources,” effectively ending a tri-state effort that included Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Instead, DEEP announced its commitment toward “518 megawatts (MW) of new solar generation and 200 MW of new electric storage capacity.”
This is not the first time Gov. Lamont’s administration has changed course on its environmental initiatives. After the November 2024 election, the governor reneged on implementing an Electric Vehicle (EV) Mandate that would have required all new vehicles — cars and trucks — sold in the state to be electric or zero-emission by 2035. (The EV mandates also met heavy criticism from the public, despite DEEP suggesting otherwise. In Yankee Institute’s research, of the 3,898 unique individuals expressing an opinion on the car regulation, 75% were opposed; while 70.9% voiced opposition to the truck regulation.)
Even if Connecticut wished to re-engage discussions on an EV mandate there may not be much appetite politically. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order putting the kibosh on a Biden administration policy that “pledged electric vehicles would make up 50 percent of new car sales in the United States by 2030,” according to the Washington Post. On the campaign trail and during his inauguration speech, the U.S. president has advocated for a “drill, baby drill” mantra, with the intent of “unleash[ing] America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” Moreover, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, a 2016 international treaty compelling countries to combat climate change.
On CBS’s “Face the Nation” (Jan. 26), Vice President J.D. Vance defended the administration’s actions, tying inflation to the rise in energy prices, telling viewers that President Trump’s executive orders are “going to lower energy prices, and I do believe that means consumers are going to see lower prices at the pump and at the grocery store,” adding that “it’s going to take a little bit of time.”
While the executive orders may have a “limited effect” on the Northeast’s offshore wind projects, Gov. Lamont criticized the environmental executive orders, saying, “China produces more CO2 emissions in a day than New England does in a year, we’ve got to work with other countries on this,” according to the CT Mirror. On Jan. 21, the governor announced a “package of legislative proposals” aimed to “strengthen Connecticut’s resilience against the impacts of extreme weather events and climate change.” He further emphasized that the state needs to “make sound investments that harden our infrastructure, defend our natural resources, and enact the protections we need to save human lives, property, and livelihood.”
As reported by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2024 was the second hottest year recorded in Connecticut history.
So, how can the state achieve both its environmental goals and lower costs for Connecticut’s hardworking families and businesses?
Going Only Green Is Not the Way
State residents and businesses need reliable energy. For vulnerable populations (such as the elderly, the sick, or those relying on medical devices like dialysis machines), a blackout could be life-threatening. Yet, if Connecticut and the New England states remain firm on their environmental ambitions by being 100 percent carbon-free by 2040, there could be severe impact on the states’ economy and residents’ quality of life.
In November 2024, Yankee Institute — along with other national and regional think tanks — published a report, The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies — that finds compliance to decarbonization plans will cost $815 billion through 2050. Meanwhile, Connecticut families would see their electric bills increase by an average of nearly $99 per year; costs for commercial businesses would increase by $489 per year; and the electric bills for industrial (manufacturing) customers would skyrocket by an average of almost $5,280 per year.
Additionally, ISO-New England, the region’s grid, may not be able to power homes and businesses within 11 years as demand increases. This would fare worse if the region was solely reliant on wind and solar, since New England states would have to build 12,000 wind turbines and 129 million solar panels to meet demand. Yet the region is responsible for less than 0.4% of global emissions, according to the report.
Going only “green” then is not feasible in terms of affordability, efficiency, and reliability. And if China’s daily carbon emissions is offsetting Connecticut’s yearly carbon footprint, then is enforcing these environmental goals, to the detriment of peoples’ livelihood and the economy, make a difference in combatting global climate change? (i.e., is the juice worth the squeeze).
Aside from repealing the RPS mandate, state lawmakers should stop forcing electricity providers, like Eversource and UI, to buy solar and wind, which directly impacts the PBC, thus lowering the month-to-month bills.
Yet that’s a temporary solution — Connecticut needs a long-term plan and must weigh whether to strive for more affordable energy or achieve net-zero carbon emissions. To date, Connecticut has three interstate gas pipelines, so the state could allow for more construction of natural gas pipelines, like Project Maple: a Canadian-owned pipeline that runs from New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Simple economics concludes that more supply would lower costs.
However, climate activists are not in favor of such projects, and it stands to reason that the Democratic-led General Assembly might not be enthusiastic to approve the construction of more pipelines — or at least have natural gas be the long-term solution. Currently, lawmakers are debating a new climate omnibus bill that would “protect the state’s environment while providing for the development of renewable energy sources,” and adding a Green Amendment to the state constitution.
Connecticut, then, should consider nuclear energy and eliminate the ban on constructing small reactors of which only Millstone has been exempted so far. Currently, there are 54 nuclear power plants in nearly 30 states, providing “48% of America’s carbon-free electricity in 2023, making it the largest domestic source of clean energy,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Moreover, nuclear energy is “one of the most reliable energy sources in America due to its high availability.”
For climate and green energy enthusiasts, nuclear energy prevents more than 470 million metric tons of carbon from being spewed into the atmosphere every year, which the DOE equates to “removing 100 million cars off of the road.” Other advantages involved in going nuclear are creating jobs (the industry already employs nearly half a million people) and strengthening the nation’s energy independence.
Meanwhile, nuclear energy has shaken its doomsday perception as a majority of Americans “remain supportive of expanding nuclear power” in the United States; however, there are still challenges regarding the disposal of nuclear waste (which has seen improvements), as well as the high costs to constructing new reactors. To be sure, nuclear reactors also cannot be built overnight, but it’s a long-term solution that is economically affordable for the average day American and clean. For perspective, the European Union depends on nuclear power for nearly 25% of its electricity, according to the World Nuclear Association.
In short, green energy sources should not be the only way forward to cleaner, cost-effective electricity for Connecticut’s residents and businesses. As reported, solar and wind are risky alternatives that could leave residents without power for long periods of time. For the short-term, lawmakers should consider remedying its importation of natural gas and repeal stringent standards that will cost the state billions. For the long-term, with nuclear power as a solution, Connecticut lawmakers can, effectively, ‘have their cake and eat it too’ in terms of achieving net-zero carbon emissions, affordable energy, and propelling the state’s economy to a brighter future.
It is time to set new energy goals, so that we can do more than simply keeping the lights on — but power Connecticut’s renaissance well into this century and centuries beyond.
