| At yesterday’s public hearing on Senate Bill 647, we heard a wide range of perspectives on how this proposal could impact energy costs, consumer protections, and funding for key programs. As your representative, my priority is ensuring that any changes we make lower costs for ratepayers while maintaining transparency and accountability in our energy system.
One of the key issues at stake is the systems benefits charge (SBC)—a fee on electric bills that funds energy efficiency programs. Supporters of SB 647 argue that restructuring or eliminating this charge could provide immediate relief to consumers. Opponents warn, however, that doing so could lead to higher long-term costs by cutting funding for programs that help reduce energy use and lower overall bills.
What We Learned from the Legislative Report
The newly released Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board 2024 Programs and Operations Report provides important context for this debate. Here are a few key takeaways:
- For every $1 invested in energy efficiency programs, Connecticut ratepayers receive $3 in lifetime savings. These savings help keep energy bills lower for both participants and non-participants in the programs.
- The systems benefits charge (SBC) funded programs saved Connecticut residents and businesses $39.4 million in annual energy costs in 2024 and $408.2 million in lifetime savings.
- Programs supported by these funds have reduced the state’s energy burden, especially for low-income families, by funding weatherization, insulation, and efficient heating and cooling systems.
- Connecticut’s energy efficiency programs have saved enough electricity to avoid building a new 58 MW power plant, which helps maintain grid reliability and prevent the need for costly new infrastructure investments
What We Need to Weigh Moving Forward
With this information in mind, I’ll be considering the following questions before deciding how to vote on SB 647:
- Would restructuring or eliminating the SBC actually lower consumer costs, or would it shift the burden in ways that lead to higher long-term energy bills?
- How would this impact low-income households and seniors who rely on these programs to reduce their energy costs?
- Would cutting this funding increase dependence on fossil fuels, driving up costs and emissions in the future?
- Are there ways to reform the SBC to provide immediate rate relief while maintaining long-term savings for consumers?
I want to hear from you. How do you feel about this proposal? Let me know your thoughts by replying to this email or reaching out to my office.
I’ll continue to keep you updated as we work through this bill and advocate for policies that put Connecticut ratepayers first. |
