Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
Connecticut wants to tighten a program that can raise the cost of electricity. Before moving ahead, the state should answer a basic question: What are customers already paying for it?
The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) decided Sept. 11 to advance tougher Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) rules. The proposal would tighten emissions limits through 2037. DEEP wants the changes effective Jan. 1, 2027.
RGGI, referred to as “Reggie,” requires large fossil-fuel power plants to buy an allowance for every ton (2,000 pounds) of carbon dioxide they emit. States limit the number of allowances available and sell them at auctions. Power plants pay for them, and those costs can ultimately make their way onto your electric bill.
DEEP projects that the update could either shave $1.51 off an average household’s monthly electric bill or add 38 cents during 2028–2037. Those estimates are expressed in 2022 dollars. The 38-cent increase is a projection, not a guaranteed maximum.
Here’s what that reassuring range leaves unanswered: How much is RGGI already costing you?
DEEP’s comparison starts with electricity prices that already include RGGI allowance costs, then estimates how the tougher rules could change bills. In other words, it measures the projected change against a baseline that already includes RGGI. It does not tell customers how much the program is already costing them.
Eversource questioned the costs in comments submitted to DEEP on the proposed rules. DEEP’s Sept. 11 report states that the utility estimated that RGGI increased Connecticut’s wholesale electricity costs by approximately $250 million in 2025. While the state brought in roughly $85 million in auction proceeds that year.
DEEP says that comparison does not account for Connecticut’s contracts with Millstone and other zero-carbon generators. Those contracts can offset some wholesale electricity costs by returning revenue to customers. As a result, DEEP argues that the agreements “insulate Connecticut ratepayers from nearly half the wholesale market costs Eversource raises.”
But Eversource’s estimate is for 2025, while DEEP says those contracts cover about 46% of Connecticut’s electricity demand in 2026. DEEP does not show how much those contracts reduced the costs identified in Eversource’s 2025 estimate. That is the missing piece in the agency’s rebuttal.
The contracts belong in the math. But DEEP also highlights benefits from efficiency programs that receive funding beyond RGGI. It argues that efficiency spending can reduce grid costs for everyone, not just the customers who use the programs.
DEEP also cites a projected $3.30 in economic benefits for every dollar invested in the broader efficiency programs. But that does not mean customers save $3.30 on their electric bills for every RGGI dollar spent. The programs also receive money from charges on customers’ electric bills, with RGGI proceeds adding to that pot.
Lawmakers should ask how much of those benefits comes from RGGI-funded spending, how much customers actually saved during the year and how much is projected over the lifetime of the improvements.
DEEP provides figures for direct relief and estimates of other benefits. But it does not bring 2025 wholesale costs, contract offsets, bill credits and customer savings together into one calculation for that year. If the agency believes Eversource’s estimate overstates the burden, it should show those dollars and not leave ratepayers pulling out their own calculators.
Where the auction money goes is easier to track. According to DEEP, Connecticut received roughly $85 million in RGGI proceeds in 2025. Of that, $39.5 million, about 46%, was returned as direct rate relief to Eversource and United Illuminating customers.
Connecticut’s formula puts program funding first. The state reserves proceeds for efficiency programs, the Connecticut Green Bank, electric-vehicle rebates and administration before returning the excess through electric bills. That annual threshold rises 2.5% each year and is approximately $47 million in 2026. Direct bill relief gets what exceeds it.
New Hampshire makes a different choice. Its law requires auction proceeds above $1 per allowance sold to be returned to all retail electric customers according to electricity use. If an allowance sells for $25, the rebate requirement applies to $24. Connecticut could give customers greater priority without leaving RGGI.
That would mean less money for Connecticut’s efficiency programs and EV rebates. Efficiency projects can have broader benefits, as DEEP argues, but an EV rebate helps people buying qualifying cars. A bill credit puts relief directly on the electric bill. Connecticut should put that direct relief first.
New Jersey offers another example Connecticut could follow: a public dashboard tracking RGGI-funded projects. Connecticut should make its auction receipts, spending, recipients, unspent balances and bill credits equally easy to follow. Customers should not need to search through agency filings to trace money collected through a program they help pay for.
The proposed rules require review by the General Assembly’s Legislative Regulation Review Committee. Before approving them, members should request a Connecticut-specific accounting of RGGI’s costs customers and how much they save for the same year. DEEP should separate direct bill credits from program savings and distinguish measured results from lifetime projections. It should also explain how bills could change if allowance prices or other market conditions turn out worse than its modeling assumes.
RGGI does have a backup supply of allowances that can be released when prices cross a preset trigger, and DEEP proposes expanding it. But that supply is limited, and releasing more allowances does not guarantee prices will stop climbing.
Lawmakers should ask DEEP to show how the backup supply would hold up if electricity demand grows faster than new generation arrives — and what customers could pay if the reserve’s annual supply is exhausted. Calling it a protection is not a substitute for showing how much protection it provides.
Committee review provides legislative oversight, but this update does not require a vote from the entire General Assembly. Lawmakers gave DEEP authority to implement RGGI through regulations. That is too much control for an unelected agency. Major changes to climate policy that affect electric bills should go through the full legislature.
Future major changes to emissions caps and the mechanisms intended to control allowance prices should require affirmative approval from both chambers, supported by a public cost analysis. Legislators should also revisit Connecticut’s proceeds formula so more money returns directly through electric bills.
If legislators want to impose those costs, they should defend them publicly and put their names on the decision. Ratepayers already have to answer for the bill. Elected officials should have to answer for the policy.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
