An Act Eliminating The Charge Assessed To End Use Customers Of Electric Services That Is Deposited Into The Clean Energy Fund.
Summary
SB 597 would amend section 16-245n of the Connecticut General Statutes to eliminate the charge assessed to end-use customers of electric services that is deposited into the Clean Energy Fund. In practical terms, the bill would remove a surcharge from electric bills that currently helps finance the state’s Clean Energy Fund, which supports energy efficiency and clean energy programs.
The bill is narrowly focused on one funding mechanism rather than on the broader structure of the fund itself. If enacted, it would reduce or eliminate a line item on customer electric bills and would likely decrease revenue available for programs currently supported by the Clean Energy Fund unless replaced by another funding source.
Impact
The bill would directly amend state law governing electric service charges by removing the statutory assessment that funds the Clean Energy Fund. This would affect electric utility customers statewide, as well as the agencies, administrators, and program recipients that rely on Clean Energy Fund revenues for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and related clean energy initiatives. It could also require adjustments to existing program funding and implementation if the surcharge is eliminated without a substitute revenue source.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal legislative sentiment can be measured from the record here. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears to reflect a cost-reduction or rate-relief position for electric customers, while implicitly opposing the continued collection of a dedicated clean energy surcharge. The absence of discussion or votes means support and opposition cannot be assessed from the available context.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the tradeoff between lowering electric bills and preserving funding for clean energy programs. Supporters would likely favor eliminating the surcharge as a way to reduce customer costs, while opponents would likely argue that the charge is necessary to sustain energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other Clean Energy Fund-supported initiatives. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, the specific arguments and stakeholders are not identified in the record.