How Connecticut’s governor candidates plan to lower energy costs

The steep cost of electricity is a high-voltage campaign issue that is once again energizing Connecticut voters and candidates in the 2026 state elections, including the race for governor.

“People are angry when they look at skyrocketing electric bills,” Gov. Ned Lamont said.

Lamont, Hamden state Rep. Josh Elliott, the governor’s Democratic primary challenger, and Greenwich state Sen. Ryan Fazio, the Republican nominee for governor, are all campaigning on lowering energy costs and holding big electric utility companies accountable.

Lamont’s approach is targeted rate relief, regulatory changes, and more competition, while keeping the state’s broader energy and climate policy framework in place. One of Elliott’s chief proposals is ending what he calls the monopoly of investor-owned utility companies and expanding public power. A centerpiece of Fazio’s plan is eliminating government-mandated charges on electric bills that he says are driving up costs for customers.

Just in time to spotlight the issue of electricity costs for the 2026 election campaigns Eversource Energy has formally requested its first base rate increase in nine years that could result in a potential 13% increase next July for residential customers if approved, up from the possible 11% increase it floated this spring. It could potentially be as high as 18% if the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority approve a separate Eversource request to recover deferred storm restoration costs from 2018 to 2023.

Eversource is the state’s largest power distribution company, and a publicly traded Fortune 500 company.

Lamont, Elliott and Fazio all came out against the planned request when it was first announced, and have continued to criticize Eversource over high electric bills, as well as each other over their competing plans for lowering energy costs.

The cost of electricity is such a touchstone issue in state politics because Connecticut rates consistently rank among the highest in the United States, driven by a heavy reliance on natural gas and high transmission costs, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency.

In April, households in the state paid the third highest residential rate of 32.24 cents per kilowatt hour in the U.S. behind only 46.62 cents in Hawaii and 35.25 cents in California, according to the latest monthly EIA averages. The next closest among the six New England states was 29.45 cents in Massachusetts.

If not for the Millstone Power Station, electricity costs in Connecticut would likely be even higher, but the state’s reliance on the nuclear power plant in Waterford sometimes adds costs to customer bills, as occurred in 2024. Millstone generates close to 40% of Connecticut’s in-state electricity.

High electricity costs and other blows to public trust in recent years are also generating frustration with the whole system, including power companies, regulators, state energy policy, public benefits charges and the regional market.

But much of the public anger gets directed at Eversource and The United Illuminating Co. as the state’s two leading power distribution companies, and they are repeated political targets.

Many residents see the utilities as monopolies with high profits and too little accountability. A national poll earlier this year from the Pew Research Center found 64% of U.S. adults cited utility companies wanting to make more money as the top reason for why energy costs are going up.

Eversource reported $1.69 billion in profit for last year, which was more than double the $811.7 million profit for 2024, according to the company’s earnings report.

Eversource spokeswoman Jamie Ratliff said the continued politicking over the company’s base distribution rate request is counterproductive.

“We recognize this is an election year. Our concern is that constant attempts to politicize energy policy and trade on charged rhetoric around electric rates do not serve the interests of customers or do anything to solve the pressing energy issues facing our state and region,” she said. “It’s been nearly a decade since we filed our last distribution rate review, and while other charges on a customer’s bill have wildly fluctuated over the past several years, the electric distribution rate has remained stable.”

Ratliff said the supply portion of electric bills remains the largest and most volatile, typically making up approximately half a customer’s bill. She said Eversource maintains increasing energy generation to the Northeast is crucial to reducing energy supply costs for customers, and there is a pressing need for regional collaboration on the state level, including for replacing retiring power plants.

Angela Baccaro, spokesperson for Avangrid, corporate parent of United Illuminating, said electric bills in Connecticut are largely driven by wholesale electricity supply costs established through regional energy markets and by state-mandated public benefit programs and policy charges that have accumulated over time.

“The largest and fastest-growing portion of the bill is the supply component, which now accounts for more than 40 percent of a typical residential bill. Supply costs are driven by factors such as regional energy prices, geopolitical events, fuel markets, and generation availability, all of which are outside the utility’s control,” she said.

In addition, she said customers pay for a growing number of state-directed programs through public benefits charges and their costs have increasingly shifted onto monthly electric bills.

“Any discussion about affordability must start with these underlying drivers, which together account for more than half of a customer’s total bill,” Baccaro said. “That is why we continue to advocate for long-term policy solutions that reduce the amount of non-energy and non-delivery costs recovered through electric bills and ease the burden on Connecticut families and businesses while preserving support for important public policy goals.”

Much of monthly electric bills cover the costs of producing and delivering electricity, but bills also include public benefit charges that fund state and federal government programs, policies and initiatives.

Fazio proposes eliminating public benefit charges as part of a six-point plan that he estimates will cut electric bills by 15% to 20%. 

“I don’t think that the general public in Connecticut should have to pay those excess fees and taxes,” he said.

Fazio cosponsored legislation in 2023 to require electric utilities to report public benefit charges as a separate line item on customer bills. The legislature passed a state law that year that imposed the mandate. As a result, the charges became highly visible — and highly debated. 

“It’s been extraordinarily helpful because now people know a little bit more or have a more general understanding of what’s happening with energy costs, and electricity bills, and policy in particular,” Fazio said. “They’ve come to understand this is not all poles and wires and electrons and that costs are often discretionary, and they’re sometimes imposed by the state.”

Fazio would have the next governor and legislature decide which of the programs, mandates and expenses currently supported through public benefit charges to continue to fund through the state budget and at what funding levels.

The targeted public policy charges raise funding for renewable energy subsidies, energy efficiency programs for homes and businesses, low-income hardship assistance, state and regional grid operations, and regulatory obligations, including a 2017 state mandate that requires Eversource and The United Illuminating Co. to buy half of the electricity output from the Millstone nuclear power plant.

Fazio has called for scaling back or ending clean energy initiatives, including halting further state spending and ratepayer subsidies for electric vehicle charging incentive programs.

“We could end the programs entirely, which I would support, but there’s other ways to eliminate the cost while keeping certain parts of the policy that maybe my more liberal friends would like,” Fazio sid. “For instance, you could change the renewable portfolio standard to include nuclear energy and you could cut the costs by hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Lamont said Fazio and Republicans have been grandstanding on the public benefits charge, and Fazio’s proposal will just shift costs from electric bills to tax bills. He said Connecticut pays for nuclear power with the public benefits charge.

The Fazio energy plan calls advocates for a broader mix of energy sources, including supporting more nuclear power and increasing natural gas capacity.

Fazio also proposes pulling Connecticut out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an interstate cap-and-trade program. The state became a founding member in 2005 when then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed a memorandum of understanding with six other Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states.

Fazio additionally proposes requiring state regulators first get the legislature’s approval to create or expand programs that affect what utility customers pay.

The Fazio plan would also cap the cost of long-term power purchase agreements because he contends past contracts have forced state residents to overpay for clean energy. He would prohibit state agreements that buy electricity at more than 150% above the wholesale market price.

Elliott is campaigning on revoking Eversource’s franchise to distribute electricity to most of Connecticut. He argues Eversource and UI earn excessive profits and the for-profit monopoly structure keeps electric bills high.

“We need an alternative to the for-profit monopoly that answers to Wall Street instead of working families,” Elliott said.

Elliott is calling for a “public power option” as an alternative to investor-owned utilities, whether it is a municipal utility, a statewide consumer-owned authority, or something else.

“In places where energy is publicly delivered, it is always cheaper,” Elliott said. “Here in Connecticut we have six towns where the distribution is done publicly. It is cheaper.”

Generally, public power utilities have lower rates than other types of electric utilities, according to the American Public Power Association. 

Fazio said the municipal utilities in Connecticut have cheaper rates because there are no public benefit charges, but that only accounts for a small percentage of the savings. 

“The vast majority of what you save is just not paying for the profit of Eversource,” he said.

Elliott would make it easier for towns and cities to form or join municipal electric utilities and create state-backed financing tools for municipalities to buy distribution infrastructure. In addition, he proposes changing eminent domain laws to allow local governments or the state to acquire utility infrastructure more cheaply based on book value based on actual costs minus depreciation rather than market value.

Another of Elliott’s campaign proposals would have Connecticut bury more electric lines underground to improve reliability and reduce storm-related outages, even though he acknowledges that would require major upfront investment.

Both Lamont and Fazio said the costs would be too astronomical and the return on investment too low to justify the mammoth outlay and people’s higher monthly bills.

Elliott said undergrounding power lines is a much smaller component of his plan than Lamont and Fazio are making out to try to belittle him.

“I wouldn’t bury all lines. I wouldn’t do it all at once. You would have a slow, methodical rollout over time,” he said. 

Elliott would also end state support for natural gas expansion and adopt a binding plan to transition Connecticut off natural gas. Both Lamont and Fazio contend that increasing natural gas supplies is necessary to offset high electricity costs.

Elliott is advocating for expanding rooftop and community solar and microgrids for towns, schools and critical facilities. He supports accelerating the adoption of heat pumps for summer cooling and winter heating.

Elliott is also proposing to tie CEO pay to frontline worker pay and ban ratepayer-funded executive bonuses. Eversource CEO Joseph Nolan received approximately $13.5 million in compensation in 2025, according to company filings.

One of the foundations of Lamont’s energy plan would add ratepayer affordability as a rate-setting standard. He would require PURA to consider such factors as household energy burden, rate of return, and authorized capital structure.

He also wants to require Eversource and UI to file cost-effectiveness analyses before undertaking large grid upgrades that would ultimately be recovered through rates. His plan also proposes to impose caps on the profit rate PURA allows a utility to earn for its investors.

Lamont is additionally proposing to strengthen the ability of the Office of Consumer Counsel to investigate utility practices and challenge proposed rate increases, including providing the watchdog office for ratepayers full subpoena power to investigate statutory violations and allowing for expanded use of independent experts to counter utility applications.

“If utilities want to raise rates, they’ll have to prove they’ve earned it and Connecticut families will have a watchdog with real teeth to make sure they do,” Lamont said.

Lamont started out 2026 pitching a one-time $200-per-person rebate to help offset high energy costs in Connecticut to the legislature, but it failed electrify many outside of the governor’s office and flopped.

Lamont has been getting attacked from Fazio on the right and Elliott on the left for not doing enough to lower energy costs during his almost eight years in office.

Elliott said Lamont is just throwing out proposals but has no concrete plan for reducing energy.

Lamont has been pushing back against this criticism.

“Look, I can’t put a straw in the ground and get out oil and gas,” he said. “We have a very old distribution system that goes back 60, 80 years. So, I play the cards I’m dealt.” 

Lamont said electric prices have been high for decades, including through the legislative terms of Elliott and Fazio.

“We’re the first ones to actually make a little progress,” Lamont said.

Lamont said his administration, working with the legislature, reduced public benefits charges.

The governor and legislature approved legislation in 2025 to use $300 million in state bond funds to partially offset public benefit charges for two years. Elliott and Fazio both voted for the bill.

Under Lamont, the State Bond Commission last August approved borrowing $155 million to reduce public benefit charges. In April, PURA approved rate adjustments that reflected those bond-funded offsets for a 12-month period that ends April 30, 2027. In April, PURA estimated annual savings of $360 for Eversource customers and $408 for UI customers.

Fazio said Democratic and Republican legislators proposed to authorize up to $700 million in state bonds for this purpose, but that borrowing plan was whittled down to $300 million in negotiations with the Lamont administration.

Lamont is also counting on a shift to performance-based regulation for rate cases to hold utilities to account and control energy costs. A 2020 law requires PURA to establish such a regulatory framework that ties utility returns to how well they perform based on certain criteria, including affordability, customer satisfaction, efficiency, grid reliability and resilience, emergency response, emissions reduction. Elliott voted for the law. 

“We’ll pay a premium if you get people’s lights on faster than anticipated, but if you do it slower, maybe there will be a penalty involved,” Lamont said.

Fazio said he was not a legislator in 2020, but supports the idea of offering utilities incentives to provide better service and penalties when they provide poor service through performance-based regulation.

To increase accountability, Lamont is proposing that the electric utilities be given 15-year franchise terms and require them to come before utility regulators at the end of that time to justify franchise renewal. He would establish an orderly transition process if a franchise is not renewed, but Elliott said another private company could do the same thing.