Connecticut’s legislative Energy and Technology Committee advanced a bill that would require PURA officials to create a pilot program to install solar panels and extend three renewable energy programs at its Committee Meeting on Thursday, March 19.
As written, HB 5340, or “An Act Concerning Renewable Power Generation,” would create a pilot program to subsidize the installation of solar panels in “environmental justice communities,” which are defined as either distressed municipalities or areas where 30% of the population lives below 200% of the federal poverty line.
The law would also require PURA to create successor programs to the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions (RRES), the Non-residential Renewable Energy Solutions (NRES), and the Shared Clean Energy Facilities (SCEF) Programs. The state provides green energy tariffs to compensate residential and non-residential owners of solar panels and other renewable energy sources that feed into the state’s electric grid through RRES and NRES.
The SCEF Program is more complex. Eversource and United Illuminating issue annual requests for proposals to purchase renewable energy credits to construct Class I renewable generation facilities. These projects are meant to provide renewable energy to people whose land, houses, or buildings are not suitable for solar panels or other sources of green energy. After a project is selected, certain residents subscribe to these programs. The subscription needs to be approved by Eversource or UI, and eligibility is based on income. Once the project goes online, subscribers will receive credits on their electric bill.
“This is an extension of existing proven programs that we are refining to make more efficient. We are not adding to public benefits; we are continuing to reduce public benefits for something that should matter a lot to the state of Connecticut going forward,” Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (D-Westport) said. “This is why this bill is so important for me and others—we must be able to control our own destiny and look after ratepayers in the long-term, and that involves more than just price, it involves value, it involves reliability, it involves stability, which are all in danger with the current circumstances.”
The circumstances that Steinberg referenced are the fluctuating costs of oil and gas, and the Trump Administration’s ongoing efforts to stop the wind farms in Long Island Sound.
Sen. Ryan Fazio (R-Greenwich), who voted against HB 5340, argued that these subsidies will need to end eventually.
“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, since I was in middle school, in this state. There has to be an honest conversation about when those industrial policies end and when industries are expected to stand on their own two feet,” he said. He went on to say, “I truly believe that it is better for industries in the long run to compete on their own two feet, rather than to be ‘Mother may I,’ to the government every five or 10 years for a new subsidy.”
The bill was voted passed through the committee along partisan lines, with 18 Democrats supporting the bill and 8 Republicans opposing it. Now it will be processed by the Legislative Commissioners’ Office before being debated by the Connecticut General Assembly.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Fazio is correct. Another failed policy with cost obscured in electric bills. At least be open and own it legislators. Maybe propose something that might make a difference like better access to natural gas and an LNG facility with jobs in Bridgeport? Better, how about nuclear? Greener and more efficient per unit of power than other choices. Solar and wind in CT? Be real!
Contrary to Sen. Steinberg, this bill will add $11+B to the public benefits charge according to UI’s testimony on this bill.
My testimony is that the customer solar (this bill) costs 3-9 times utility scale solar. If we’re going to do solar/storage, it should be utility scale.
For more see (and its links): https://yankeeinstitute.org/2026/03/20/green-dreams-11-billion-reality-connecticut-energy-bill-could-drive-up-electric-bills/
Buy all solar for 32 cents…. and sell it for 4 cents.
Under the “buy-all” option the utility purchases all residential solar output for a proposed 32 c/kWh (one vendor says they need 42 c/kWh without the federal tax credit) and sells it into the ISO market for about 4 c/kWh. The difference 28 c/kWh goes into the Public Benefits Charge. The PURA procurement team finds intermittent solar worthless in creating a risk-managed fixed-price Standard Supply offer and sells it into the market instead of “stacking” the contracts (Unlike nuclear contracts which are stacked). That puts us at the risk of drastic price escalation during shortages.
Customer BTM solar is given winter credit of 0% of its nameplate MW by the ISO as it is intermittent and because it doesn’t generate when needed- during the evening and early morning peaks.
The existing 8000 MW of nameplate solar can provide at most 4000MW in winter but generates 0-2000 MW for only a few hours during the recent winter event. See graph in https://isonewswire.com/2026/03/05/winter-2025-2026-recap-grid-stays-reliable-during-prolonged-cold/?utm_source=isone&utm_medium=newsfeed. \
Expensive and absent.
Customer Solar basically steals from non-solar customer and gives it to the solar customer. The legislature argues that we’ve placed limits on the amount of stealing (but the bill has no limits on residential solar according to UI). No amount of stealing should be acceptable.
Please write your legislator to vote NO on 5340.