For years, Connecticut’s position atop the list of states with the priciest electric bills has served as an election-year mantra for Republicans and other critics of the state’s climate-conscious energy strategy.
But as energy costs have jumped in many parts of the country over the last year — driven in part by data center development and rising gas prices amid the war with Iran — Connecticut is bucking the trend.
Electricity prices are falling, faster than anywhere else in the country.
Connecticut’s residential electric bills declined by about 10% between June 2025 and June 2026, according to data published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. At the same time, residential rates across the U.S. rose by about 5%, on average.
As a result, Connecticut went from having the fifth-highest residential electric rates among states and the District of Columbia. The state now places 12th — behind neighbors New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
The majority of that decrease is attributable to changes to Connecticut’s public benefits charge, the portion of electric bills that goes toward funding various state-mandated energy programs and agreements to purchase power from carbon-free generators, such as the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford. Those fixed-rate contracts act as a hedge against the price of natural gas, which supplies most of New England’s power.
For Gov. Ned Lamont, who oversaw negotiations for the current contract with Millstone in 2019, the timing is fortuitous. Just two years ago, the Millstone agreement was widely blamed for a sudden spike in electricity rates amid a summer heat wave. Now, as he seeks reelection to a third term, that same contract has helped to turn the public benefits charge into a credit on customers’ bills as the price of gas-driven power has risen relative to nuclear.
“Everybody says, ‘Ah, I hate the public benefits charge.’ That’s because coming out of COVID, the price of natural gas was virtually zero,” which meant Millstone’s 5-cent-per-kilowatt hour price “was costing money,” Lamont said in a recent interview. “We’ve more than made up for that in these ensuing couple of years, that’s for sure.”
But others are less keen on giving the governor credit for recent rate cuts, which they describe as an aberration in the state’s long-running struggle to control electric prices.
Lamont’s opponent in the gubernatorial race, state Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, has attacked the governor’s record of supporting programs such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, rooftop solar incentives and credits for renewable energy projects — all of which are paid for through fees baked into customers’ electric bills.
“The governor has repeatedly passed new fees and taxes in our electric bill — whether public benefits fees or fees in the supply charge — which have raised Connecticut’s electric rates,” Fazio told reporters earlier this month.
Fazio predicted that many of the savings currently passed along to ratepayers through the public benefits charge are likely to expire over the coming months.
“It’s all temporary, it’s going to snap back,” Fazio said. “Everybody knows that it’s just one blip.”
Taking credit
Experts largely agree that, regardless of the winner of the gubernatorial election on Nov. 3, Connecticut’s electric rates are unlikely to continue their decline. What is less certain is how competitive those rates will be with surrounding states.
Eversource, the state’s largest utility company, has already filed a request for a double-digit rate hike that would take effect next year, if approved by regulators. In addition, costs associated with the generation of electricity typically rise in the winter, when Connecticut and other New England states face shortages of natural gas used to fuel power plants.
Electric rates for both Eversource and United Illuminating are officially set by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, which is made up of five members all appointed by Lamont. Those rates are divided into several categories — distribution, transmission, generation and public benefits — and state regulators only have full control over distribution charges.
Lamont has expressed confidence in the current roster of PURA commissioners, who took over last year following the resignation of the agency’s controversial former leader, Marissa Gillett. And he said the Millstone contract would continue to insulate ratepayers from some of the volatile swings in supply prices at the regional level.
PURA regulators make adjustments in the public benefits charge up to twice a year to settle up on the costs of power purchase agreements such as the Millstone deal. The current calculation, which provides customers a credit of between $30 and $34 on the typical monthly bill, is due to last through April. (Fazio also argued that the current credit level was inflated by PURA declining to issue larger refunds to customers starting in 2025.)
“We all know that the public benefits charge is very volatile,” Fazio said. “If you do a deep dive into all the line items in the public benefits charge, even currently, you’ll find that it’s mostly one-time credits.”
Fazio predicted that over time, the public benefits charge will revert back to being a cost for customers, amounting to around 15% to 20% of most residential electricity bills. He said he agreed to support S.B. 4 because the final version of the bill did include around $100 million in permanent cuts to programs within the public benefits charge, though he said the larger amount of savings was timed to occur during an election year.
“It was obviously, you know, for political purposes, and the governor deserves for that to be acknowledged,” Fazio said.
Lamont said he disagrees with Fazio’s analysis about the future of the public benefits charge, but stopped short of promising it would continue to produce its current level of savings over the long term.
“I think we’re in a pretty good place,” Lamont said. “I can’t predict forever, but I can say we’re about the only state in the country that reduced rates over the last 12 months.”
