🔒Top Eversource exec calls for removing public benefits charge from electric bills; Democratic lawmaker pushes back

A top executive at the state’s largest utility is renewing calls to remove the controversial public benefits charge from electric bills, reigniting debate over how Connecticut funds energy-efficiency programs, renewable energy initiatives and assistance for low-income customers. At the Hartford Business Journal’s Politics & Policy Forum on Nov. 13, Digaunto Chatterjee, Eversource’s senior vice president of engineering, argued the charge should be taken off utility bills entirely and funded through the state budget. He said the current system confuses customers and obscures the true cost of state-mandated programs. “Every aspect, every line item, should be taken out of the bill,” Chatterjee said during a panel discussion on renewable energy policy. “Not that we don’t support it. I think a lot of those are legitimately useful programs. But when you take it out of the bill, what happens is accountability comes, and more awareness comes with it.”

State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (D-Westport), co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, pushed back, calling the programs supported by the charge “investments we have to make,” from energy efficiency to grid modernization. These efforts, he said, safeguard reliability “not only when you flip the switch, but when the storm comes through.” He warned against proposals that promise quick savings. “There are a lot of people out there who would love to tell you that they’ve got the secret on how we can reduce energy rates for everybody, and they might be able to do a little bit for a short time, but that’s not good policy either,” Steinberg said. Republicans counter that the public benefits charge functions as a “hidden tax,” funding government-mandated programs without the transparency of the state budget. They argue the roughly $1 billion in annual costs should be paid through the general fund. Democrats and Gov. Ned Lamont have rejected that approach, saying shifting the full amount to the budget would require tax increases or cuts to other programs. The public benefits charge accounts for about 20% of a typical Eversource bill and just over 18% for United Illuminating customers. It pays for state and federal mandates including efficiency programs, low-income assistance, regional grid operator ISO-New England operating costs, and long-term contracts with power suppliers such as Millstone. The debate, likely to be brought up again during the upcoming legislative session, comes as the state continues to have some of the highest electricity rates in the country. In 2024, commercial customers in Connecticut faced the fourth-highest average electricity price in the nation at 21.21 cents per kilowatt-hour, while industrial customers paid the sixth-highest rate at 17.12 cents, according to federal data.

Fonfara’s proposal

The public benefits charge took center stage during the 2025 legislative session when state Sen. John Fonfara (D-Hartford), co-chair of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, proposed eliminating it and replacing the funding with up to $800 million a year in state-backed “green bonds” for three years. He argued the change could cut customer bills by about 20% right away, with the potential for additional savings. Eversource backed parts of the proposal, telling lawmakers that eliminating the charge could lower a typical residential bill by $40 to $55 a month for a household using 700 kilowatt-hours. But the bill never moved forward as written.

Instead, legislators passed a separate measure that uses $155 million in state borrowing to partially offset the charge. Fonfara opposed the final bill. The change is expected to save customers about $5 to $10 a month through early 2027 — far less than what Fonfara had pushed for. At the HBJ forum, Fonfara repeated his argument that Connecticut shouldn’t rely on electric bills to fund public programs, noting that most states do not. He also criticized the state for pursuing environmental goals through ratepayer dollars without fully accounting for the cost burden on residents and businesses.

Growing charge

The public benefits charge gained visibility in 2023 after lawmakers required utilities to list it as a separate line item on customers’ bills — a change that arrived just as the fee rose sharply. The charge, which has been in existence for decades, now comprises 63 separate fees and costs that appear as two line items on monthly bills. One covers more than 40 grid and power-contract expenses, including payments to ISO-New England, congestion mitigation, backup power plants, long-term nuclear contracts and renewable energy programs. The other supports Connecticut Green Bank’s renewable energy initiatives, statewide energy-efficiency efforts and about 20 public programs ranging from low-income assistance to consumer education. Recently, the public benefit charge has increased due to a multitude of factors: utilities recovering past under-collections tied to nuclear contracts, rising demand for low-income assistance, higher renewable-energy and grid-resiliency costs, and unpaid bills from the pandemic and winter shutoff moratoriums. Hardship-related programs accounted for nearly 25% of Eversource’s public benefits charge in 2024 and more than 45% of UI’s, the CT Mirror reported.

Other states

At HBJ’s forum, Chatterjee contrasted Connecticut’s electric bills with those in other states, noting that residents here pay roughly 6 cents per kilowatt-hour in public-policy costs, compared with zero in Indiana. He said those charges — on top of about 9 cents for supply, 3.5 cents for transmission and 8 cents for distribution — make the state less competitive and confuse customers who often blame utilities for policy-driven costs. Chatterjee also questioned the fairness of billing rooftop-solar incentives and other programs through electric rates, arguing they disproportionately benefit wealthier homeowners and require renters and manufacturers to subsidize them. He called the system “taxation without representation,” and urged moving those expenses to the state budget.

State Sen. Ryan Fazio (R-Greenwich), who is running for governor, echoed that view. He said Connecticut should cut or eliminate the public benefits charge, noting that New Jersey’s electricity rates are roughly 30% lower even though it has its own, smaller societal benefits fee. But Steinberg said eliminating the charge would jeopardize programs critical to reliability and long-term cost control. Instead, he urged more transparency by breaking the charge into additional line items so customers can see exactly what they’re paying for. “Either you believe in energy efficiency and investing in the future of the grid … or you don’t,” he said.

Looking ahead

Energy affordability is expected to be a hot issue during the upcoming legislative session as lawmakers confront Connecticut’s persistently high electricity costs and their effect on economic growth. Steinberg said legislators may look at extending the temporary reductions that offset the public benefits charge, though he noted that shifting costs from electric bills to the state budget would not change much for most residents. “Either you’re paying it through your taxes, or you’re paying it through your electric bill,” he said. He added that the state must also tackle the underlying forces driving prices, including supply constraints, grid modernization needs and access to remote renewable energy. “We used to joke that nobody cared about energy policy, and now we joke that we were happier when nobody cared,” Steinberg said. “It seems to be in the news a lot lately, and it’s for a reason. Things are changing rapidly. It’s part of the affordability crisis, and it really matters for our future.”