WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5397

AN ACT REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL FOR COMPONENTS OF THE COMBINED PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Anne Dauphinais and 3 co-sponsors

Requires Connecticut legislature to approve changes to electricity bill surcharges funding renewable energy and efficiency programs, shifting authority from utility regulators to elected officials.

REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Energy and Technology
#electricdistributioncompanies #generalassembly #publicdeposits
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5397

Legislative bill overview

HB 5397 would require the Connecticut General Assembly to approve any changes to components included in the Combined Public Benefits Charge (CPBC), a fee added to electricity bills that funds renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other public benefit programs. Currently, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) can modify these charge components administratively. The bill essentially shifts decision-making authority from regulators to legislators.

Why is this important

The CPBC is a significant line item on Connecticut electricity bills, affecting residential and business consumers' energy costs. This change would make energy policy modifications subject to legislative debate and voting rather than regulatory processes, potentially slowing implementation but increasing legislative oversight. The bill touches on fundamental questions about who controls utility policy: elected representatives or appointed regulatory bodies.

Potential points of contention

  • Speed vs. accountability trade-off: Legislative approval could slow necessary updates to energy programs but increases democratic input; regulators argue they respond faster to market conditions and technical needs
  • Authority scope: Disagreement over whether legislators should micromanage utility regulation or trust expert regulators to implement existing statutory mandates
  • Practical impact on rates: Unclear whether this increases or decreases costs; supporters may see it as consumer protection, opponents as regulatory burden that raises administrative costs

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.