Connecticut lawmakers are advancing a sweeping renewable energy bill that could commit ratepayers to billions in long-term costs — and even the state’s largest utilities are warning it may significantly increase electric bills.
House Bill 5340 would expand and restructure several of Connecticut’s renewable energy programs. Supporters describe it as a step forward for clean energy and broader access to solar power. Critics, including utilities, regulators, and energy experts, warn the bill could increase costs while weakening existing safeguards that help keep prices in check.
At the center of the proposal is an expansion of solar incentive programs. The bill extends residential and non-residential solar programs, expands community solar offerings, and opens new enrollment rounds for additional projects.
These programs are not short-term commitments. Once approved, projects can receive fixed payments for up to 20 years, with those costs recovered from all ratepayers through the Public Benefits Charge on electric bills.
That structure means costs build year after year.
United Illuminating (UI) estimates the total cost exposure from the bill could approach $11 billion over time. That cost is driven by how the bill is designed. It authorizes $25 million per year for the Non-Residential Renewable Energy Solutions (NRES) program and $16 million per year for the Shared Clean Energy Facility (SCEF) program, but those are not one-time expenses. Projects approved under these programs receive payments for up to 20 years, meaning new costs are layered on top of existing obligations each year.
UI estimates that structure would produce roughly $8.2 billion in costs from those two programs alone, with additional exposure from a third program, Residential Renewable Energy Solutions (RRES), that currently has no cap.
Those costs do not remain with developers. They are distributed across ratepayers, including households and businesses that do not participate in the programs.
Another concern is how the bill sets prices.
Robert Keen, a retired power engineer with experience in on-site generation and ISO-New England markets, warns that customer-sited solar — the type heavily supported by the bill — can cost three to nine times more than utility-scale projects.
Utilities warn that moving away from competition could increase costs. Eversource says the annual cost of existing clean energy programs has grown from less than $10 million in 2015 to nearly $180 million in 2025, with at least $2 billion more expected over the next decade from current policies alone. The bill, it warns, would add to that trajectory without sufficient safeguards.
The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) raises a similar concern, noting that competition has traditionally served as a cost-control mechanism by forcing developers to bid against one another.
Historically, Connecticut has relied on competitive bidding to procure renewable energy at lower cost. HB 5340 shifts more authority to regulators, allowing the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to set compensation rates administratively.
Without that pressure, there is a risk that rates could be set above market levels and then locked in for decades.
The bill also does not require compensation rates to decline as technology costs fall. In some cases, utilities warn, solar producers are paid at or near retail electricity rates for excess generation, shifting grid costs onto other customers.
HB 5340 would build on that trajectory.
Additional provisions, including new programs such as agrivoltaics, introduce further cost exposure without clear long-term caps.
Taken together, the concerns raised by utilities, regulators, and independent experts point in the same direction: Connecticut is expanding renewable energy programs while reducing some of the mechanisms that previously helped control costs.
State Sen. Ryan Fazio (R-Greenwich), who opposed the bill in committee, framed the issue more bluntly.
“We have been subsidizing solar development on the backs of ratepayers to the tune of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars since the 2000s… There has to be an honest conversation about when those policies end and when industries are expected to stand on their own two feet,” he said.
None of this negates the importance of clean energy goals. The question is how those goals are pursued.
As electric bills continue to rise, policymakers face a growing challenge: balancing environmental objectives with affordability for residents and businesses.
Because once these costs are approved, they do not remain theoretical.
They show up — month after month — on ratepayers’ bills.
