In quiet moments, Democrats and Republicans acknowledge that Connecticut’s high electric rates primarily are the product of the laws of supply and demand, coupled with what one senator calls the “original sin” of deregulation. There are no ready legislative solutions to either cost factor, but that didn’t dissuade Senate Democrats Thursday from proposing a “Ratepayers First Act” that is less a solution than a process by which they hope to find one. The legislation, Senate Bill 4, is a statement of purpose, the legislative equivalent of an IOU. Its text is 20 words: “That the general statutes be amended to provide for improved service and reduced costs for electricity ratepayers in the state.” In other words, stay tuned, details to come. The Democrats made no attempt to say otherwise. They are looking for ideas, sifting through the barrage of energy bills filed since the 2025 session opened a week ago. “This bill is an open book. There are no specific things that we’re going to talk about at this moment,” said Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee. “We’re going to listen to all the bills that are coming in, and they’re coming in at a rate much higher and faster than the energy committee has ever seen.” Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney of New Haven and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff of Norwalk joined Needleman at a press conference Thursday acknowledging Connecticut’s consistent ranking near the top in electric rates — and the importance of signaling they understand what that means to ratepayers. “We have obviously heard many, many complaints about about rates and about the volatility of rates,” Looney said. “And we are, of course, very sensitive to that.” In tone, the Democrats echoed President George H.W. Bush’s effort to convince voters rocked by a weak economy in 1992 that he heard them, even if he had no quick remedies. Bush said, “Message: I care. We’re trying.” Gov. Ned Lamont and lawmakers of both parties all say they’re trying, but the options are limited. “One of our original sins is deregulation,” Needleman said. “It created a whole different marketplace. I think it was sold to the state as a panacea and something that was going to make it better and cheaper and more available.” The deregulation law passed in 1998 forced the states’ two publicly regulated electric utilities, the dominant company that would become Eversource and the smaller United Illuminating, to get out of the business of generating electricity and focus on the distribution of power to homes and businesses. Kimberly Harriman, the head of government affairs for United Illuminating and its parent, Avangrid, noted after the Democratic news conference that distribution costs regulated by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority are only 30% of a typical electric bill. “Is that inconsequential? No, but for too many years, we’ve been jumping over $10 bills to get to the pennies on the bill. We have not been focused on supply costs,” Harriman said. Kimberly Harriman, s\the senior vice president for public and regulatory affairs at Avangrid. Credit: mark pazniokas / ctmirror.org The supply of electricity comes from a largely deregulated market, where the prices Eversource and United Illuminating pay primarily are set by competitive markets — but still influenced by public policies, most notably one that requires them to buy power from Millstone Power Station in Waterford at a higher rate. About 60% of electricity in Connecticut comes from burning natural gas, and 33% is produced by the two active nuclear reactors at Millstone. They are the region’s largest source of carbon-free electricity. In 2017, when Dominion Energy complained that its Millstone plant could not stay economically viable while competing with cheap natural gas, the General Assembly passed a law dictating that Eversource and UI, together, purchase at least half of Millstone’s output at a higher price negotiated by the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. That negotiated price is contracted though 2029, and it is reflected in the “combined public benefit” portion of every consumer’s electric bill. Last summer, when rates skyrocketed, the Millstone charge represented 77% of the public benefit charge. Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich, the ranking Senate Republican on energy, said he was happy to see Democrats engage on costs. “I think we saw concepts of a plan, so I appreciate that Senate Democrats would like to come to the table and discuss potential legislation on energy affordability. I think Connecticut residents have been asking us as a state legislature to lead and tackle questions of energy affordability for two years now,” Fazio said. Sen. Ryan Fazio Credit: mark pazniokas / ctmirror.org Some of the bills filed in the last week, including several by Republicans, would eliminate the public benefit charge without explaining exactly how that could be done.  Lesser expenses in the charge are things that lawmakers say could be either eliminated or moved from ratepayers to taxpayers, including relief for those who cannot afford their bills and the cost of building out an EV charging system.  They could mean savings, but at the margins, legislators say. The bigger costs of generating power are intertwined related to federal policies and the management of the New England grid. “I look at my job here and the job of of the leadership of our committee to be ‘fix what you can fix.’ Some parts of energy policy are very difficult,” Needleman said. “When we deregulated, we became part of a regional grid operator, and a lot of the decisions around supply of energy were taken out of our hands.” The legislature has largely focused on the performance of the regulated utilities and the ability of regulators to punish them over performance issues. On Thursday, the utilities said they welcome a shift to supply issues. “I appreciate Sen. Needleman’s recognition that deregulation hasn’t generally provided all that we thought it would,” Harriman said. “And I appreciate the fact that he talked about we’ve got to look at supply. We’ve been asking them to look for supply for many, many years. So let’s work together on a solution about how do we grow supply.” Eversource concurred. “Sen. Needleman is absolutely right, that the restructuring of energy markets decades ago has presented significant challenges for customers and they are seeing those consequences in their energy bills,” said Tricia T. Modifica, an Eversource spokesperson. “We support efforts to bring down supply costs and have a record of supporting the expansion of new supply sources including significant efforts to bring hydropower into New England. We strongly encourage these discussions and would love to have a seat at the table to provide the expertise on what will be necessary in distribution investments to deliver that power in the most cost effective way possible.”