Energy and Technology Committee debates energy-affordability bill as attempts to add related measures fail

The Energy and Technology Committee on Wednesday debated a sweeping energy affordability bill, Senate Bill 4, and rejected two efforts to fold related measures into committee action.

Representative Jonathan Steinberg, cochair of the committee, opened the day’s session and said the bill is “a work in process” intended to be a ‘‘bucket in which all good ideas will rise to the surface’’ as lawmakers seek ways to reduce residents’ energy burdens while protecting reliability and environmental goals.

Committee members sparred over how to pay for programs that affect ratepayers. Senator Fazio urged caution about shifting program funding off utility bills and into the state budget, saying such moves must be weighed against the risk of increasing carrying costs or exposing programs to budgetary cuts. "I am also concerned not just how it's funded, but the aggregate funding between the taxpayers and the rate payers all added together," Fazio said. He added that some parts of SB 4 raise concerns about creating new programs that would be funded through utility bills.

Republican members and some Democrats pressed for faster, more visible action on affordability. Representative Barrack moved to add Senate Bill 647 — a separate bill described by proponents as aiming to protect consumer access to affordable electricity and reduce some public benefits charges — to the committee agenda. The motion to add SB 647 failed on a roll call vote of 8 yes, 16 no, 1 absent.

Supporters of SB 647 argued the bill would reduce the public benefits charge, cap certain power-purchase subsidies and allow a broader “all of the above” clean-energy strategy, including nuclear and hydro alongside wind and solar. "Our residents have provided over 750 letters of testimony," Representative Barrack said when moving the item. Representative Yaccarino, urging the committee to honor public testimony, said, "I think we should listen to the voice of the people and vote on this." Opponents, including Representative Steinberg and Senator Needleman, said elements of SB 647 are better vetted as possible amendments to SB 4 rather than by adding the separate bill to the agenda that day.

Lawmakers also debated a floor amendment (referred to in committee as amendment A) that would have allowed Connecticut to satisfy portions of its renewable portfolio standard (RPS) by buying renewable energy credits (RECs) from lower‑cost markets outside New England. Proponents said such purchases could lower costs for ratepayers immediately; Representative Buckby called the measure a straightforward way to buy lower‑cost RECs and cited examples of neighboring states doing so. "If you translate that to where people are with their energy bill ... that's gonna save them $25 to $30 a month," Buckby said.

Opponents, including Senator Needleman and Senator Fazio, said the amendment required more technical review because changes to the RPS have complex, long-term market and reliability effects. The amendment failed on a roll call vote of 8 yes, 16 no, 1 absent.

Other discussion centered on program oversight and transparency. Several members urged audits or stronger evaluation of existing energy-efficiency programs and public benefits expenditures. Representative Foster said constituents often expect a "silver bullet" for affordability, and cautioned against promising quick fixes. "I'm always super cautious about anytime someone promises you a silver bullet," Foster said, adding that targeted auditing and accountability measures could win bipartisan support.

Committee cochair Steinberg described SB 4 as aiming to balance short-term relief for households and long-term reliability goals. "The paramount issue is the future of energy in Connecticut ... and what its impacts are on our cost structure and our reliability, and our desire to meet certain efficiency goals," he said. He emphasized the committee would keep working on SB 4 as a vehicle for further affordability discussions.

Actions recorded during the meeting included the failed motion to add SB 647 to the agenda (8 yes, 16 no, 1 absent) and the failed REC amendment (8 yes, 16 no, 1 absent). The committee opened a roll-call on SB 4 to recommend JFS (Joint Favorable Substitute) to the floor, and multiple members’ votes were recorded; the clerk announced votes would be held open until 5:00 p.m. for members to confirm or change votes.

Why this matters: SB 4 is the committee’s primary vehicle for energy affordability this session. The debate illustrated a central tension in Connecticut energy policy: whether to pursue near-term, bill‑line changes that can lower monthly charges or to pursue structural and regulatory reforms that affect long‑term procurement, program oversight and reliability.

Looking ahead: Committee chairs said they would keep SB 4 open to amendments and further negotiation; some members signaled willingness to graft select ideas from SB 647 into SB 4 after technical review. The committee recessed until its next scheduled meeting, and votes left open were to be finalized before that deadline.

Votes and formal actions from the meeting are recorded in the committee clerk’s roll calls and in the committee minutes.