Sleek campaign videos on social media share a common theme. A family huddled over the kitchen table, staring at their electric bill. Chalkboard signs in a coffee shop bemoaning Connecticut’s high energy costs. The incumbent Democratic governor promising to open new power plants, even if it means expanding natural gas. As issues of affordability take center stage in this year’s midterm elections, Connecticut’s nagging struggle with high electricity bills is making its way to the top of early messaging in the state’s budding 2026 gubernatorial race. Politicians and voters in Connecticut are no strangers to frustrations over their utility bills and the vexing efforts to lower them. For years, and across several election cycles, the state has ranked near the top in the nation for the highest average cost of electricity. But with electricity prices nationally now rising faster than inflation, candidates in other states have begun to tackle the issue in ways that serve as a prelude to this year’s races. In a handful of recent elections in New Jersey, Virginia and Georgia, for example, Democrats outperformed expectations by running on keeping utility rate hikes in check and raising warnings about the proliferation of power-guzzling AI data centers. The party’s earlier focus on adopting renewable, carbon-free power has given way to promoting the development of new nuclear reactors — and even natural gas — as a way of meeting rising demand without harming voters’ pocketbooks. Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 5 is seen from the Seaside park. The natural gas-powered plant opened in 2019 to provide energy to homes and businesses across Connecticut. Credit: Yehyun Kim / CT Mirror The shift in attention toward energy prices was evident at the 2025 national convention of state utility regulators in Seattle, according to Elin Swanson Katz, who previously led Connecticut’s Office of Consumer Counsel, which advocates on behalf of utility customers. Katz, who now works as a consultant on energy issues, said the convention schedule was packed with panels discussing the trends that are driving up prices, as well as ways to maintain affordability while making investments in grid infrastructure and new sources of electricity. “As someone who has spent my career largely as a consumer advocate and somebody who thinks about public engagement, it was a real sea change, something that I think we should have been talking about all along,” Katz said. “There’s no doubt, based on national polling, that consumers — customers — want affordable energy, but they also want investments in renewable so, I mean, there’s definitely tension on that.” In April, a poll conducted by Ipsos and the consumer nonprofit PowerLines found that nearly three-quarters of Americans were concerned about rising energy costs, and nearly 60% said they felt their state governments were not doing enough to protect ratepayers. Already, efforts have been made over the last year to address Connecticut’s energy costs. The results have been mixed. In June, Gov. Ned Lamont — who is seeking a third term — signed legislation promising to save customers roughly $100 a year on their electric bills, mostly by borrowing money to offset portions of what’s known as the public benefits charge on customer bills. Those savings were quickly dissipated, however, by a new rate hike for United Illuminating customers and the announcement of higher winter supply rates. The legislature’s efforts were also largely overshadowed by a clash between utility companies and their regulators at the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority that resulted in the agency’s leader, Marissa Gillett, stepping down in October. While Gillett had been hailed by some, including Lamont, as a champion of consumers, critics accused her of skirting laws to exert control over the agency — a charge that was largely upheld in court. At the same time, President Donald Trump’s efforts to steer federal energy policy in the direction of more fossil fuels has upended long-term investments that states like Connecticut have already made in pursuing cleaner forms of electricity such as solar and wind. Noah Kaufman, an economist at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, published a paper in November citing rising electric prices as an obstacle to Connecticut’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions. A lack of local fuel resources combined with high delivery costs and certain clean-energy programs all contributed to the state’s high cost of electricity, the paper found. In an interview, Kaufman said candidates here may have to adjust their pitches to appeal to voters who are concerned about both costs and the climate. “We have very ambitious decarbonization targets without an obvious plan for how to achieve them at this point,” Kaufman said. “Politicians may have to consider strategies that would have been off the table a few years ago — might not have seemed politically viable — because any sort of reforms are going to go up against constituencies that like the policies in place now.” New Jersey Democratic Gov. elect Mikie Sherrill and Lt. Gov. elect Dale Caldwell celebrate during an election night party in East Brunswick, N.J., Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025. Credit: Matt Rourke / AP Photo Democrat Abigail Spanberger takes pictures with supporters after she was declared the winner of the Virginia governor’s race during an election night watch party Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Richmond, Va. Credit: Stephanie Scarbrough / AP Photo Recent elections elsewhere Historically, electricity prices have tended to take a backseat to other pocketbook issues, such as taxes and gas prices, in political campaigns. That has changed as electricity prices have risen faster than inflation, on average, since 2022. In New Jersey, one of two states that held gubernatorial elections in November, summer electric rates were up 22% compared to the previous year. “The No. 1, 2 and 3 issues in our race was Trump,” said Matthew Hale, an expert on New Jersey politics and professor at Seton Hall University. “But four, five and six were all affordability, and so energy was certainly a big deal,” he said. “Energy costs are something people see every single day. When they jump right in the middle of a campaign, it’s a big issue,” Hale said. The winner of that race, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, promised to freeze electric rates during her first year in office, though experts as well as New Jersey’s regulated utility companies questioned her ability to do so. She also criticized the state’s grid operator, PJM Interconnection, for approving rate hikes as well as the Trump administration for scrapping federal support for solar panels and energy efficiency programs. At the same time, Sherrill faced a barrage of attack ads from her opponent, Republican Jack Ciattarelli, that used selectively-edited footage of Sherrill appearing to say that voters should support renewable energy programs even if it costs them “an arm and a leg.” Sherrill was actually critiquing how other Democrats had spoken about such issues. Hale said that Sherrill neutralized those attacks by talking about modernizing natural gas infrastructure and building new nuclear power reactors as part of her energy platform, in addition to her support for renewable energy. “She didn’t lean into the environmentalists’ wing,” Hale said. “She just sort of said, ‘We need to do better.’ She didn’t back the idea that it was going to be nothing but renewables.” In Virginia, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger released her own affordability plan that focused on developing more generation from offshore wind, solar panels and small modular reactors — in addition to energy efficiency programs — as a way to bring down bills. Spanberger also warned that the proliferation of data centers in Virginia was pushing the state toward an “energy crisis.” Her plan called for data center owners to pay their share of the cost to build the new power plants and transmission lines needed to power the facilities. The Republican in that race, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, said in interviews that Virginia’s data centers were “here to stay” and that she supported an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that included older, dirtier forms of generation such as coal. Both Spanberger and Sherrill won their respective states by healthy margins. The 2025 elections also saw Democrats in Georgia flip two seats on the state’s Public Service Commission, which regulates utility companies. The winning candidates in those races focused on recent price hikes and the need to transition away from fossil fuels. Still, experts caution that elected officials generally have a limited ability to actually lower the price of electricity. That’s because a large percentage of customers’ bills go to pay for things like the maintenance of the transmission and distribution system, which is also growing more expensive. In many states, including Connecticut and New Jersey, utilities purchase electricity from power plants, then sell that power to customers without any markup. While elected officials may appoint regulators to approve utility rates — in Connecticut, appointments to PURA are made by the governor — those regulators are typically expected to approve justifiable costs. “Politicians make those decisions, and it’s going to affect things a little bit, but that’s not going to fundamentally fix the fact that Connecticut has really high energy prices,” said Erik Katovich, a professor of energy and resource economics at the University of Connecticut. Katz, the former Connecticut consumer counsel, echoed that sentiment saying candidates such as Sherrill and Spanberger now face the tough task of formulating policies that will fulfill their promises to voters. “I don’t think there’s any really fully developed policy in any of these states, because it’s really, really hard to do,” Katz said. “If there were simple answers we would have done it already. But, I do feel encouraged that so many smart, skilled, experienced professionals are now recognizing that affordability should be in the top two issues that we address around our electric system.” The Connecticut Capitol Building in Hartford, March 25, 2021. Credit: Tony Spinelli / Connecticut Public What Connecticut candidates are saying Since taking office seven years ago, Lamont has signed numerous climate-related measures, including a 2022 law that promised to eliminate greenhouse gases from the electricity supplied to Connecticut customers by 2040. But with the cost of utility bills proving a perennial issue throughout his tenure, the centrist Democrat has been wary of pursuing a more immediate decarbonization agenda sought by many environmental advocates and those on the Left. In a recent interview with the Connecticut Mirror, Lamont said that his is an “all-the-above” energy strategy that includes support for renewable such as solar and wind along with natural gas and the nuclear power supplied by the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford. “In most cases, a lot of the renewables are also part of our long term solution to hold down costs,” Lamont said. “Natural gas — which I’ve been talking to our neighboring states and the White House about how it can replace some of the liquefied natural gas with more piped-in natural gas — that would be a lot less expensive and always on as well.” Gov. Ned Lamont signs two climate-focused bills, H.B. 5004 and S.B. 9, on Tuesday, July 1, 2025. After the ceremony, he reiterated to reporters his support for expanding pipelines bringing fracked natural gas into the state. Credit: John Moritz / CT Mirror Early last year, Lamont met with Trump administration officials in Washington, D.C., to discuss an expansion of pipelines that could deliver more natural gas into Connecticut and the rest of New England. In August, the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection signaled its intent to approve a pair of compressor stations in Brookfield, expanding the capacity of the existing Iroquois Pipeline. And while Lamont was an early backer of efforts to grow New England’s offshore wind industry, his administration has opted against buying into any new projects with the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, citing the rising costs of wind power. Now, the governor faces challenges from both sides of the aisle over the cost of electricity and his commitment to the climate. Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, speaks during special session on November 13, 2025. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror On the Republican side, state Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich and former New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart have both launched campaigns that zero in on the state’s high cost of electricity. (Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, is also reportedly mulling a run for governor but has yet to formally launch a campaign. Appearing on Newsmax in late December, she criticized offshore wind projects supported by Connecticut and other New England states.) Fazio, who serves as the ranking Republican on the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee, has been one of the leading voices among lawmakers in favor of eliminating — or at least sharply reducing — the public benefits charge that pays for things such as energy efficiency programs, financial aid and investments in renewable energy that have been mandated by state lawmakers. Fazio also criticized the costs of some of the renewable investments supported by customers as “obscenely expensive.” “I think the evidence is there that it’s important to Connecticut residents and voters who are becoming increasingly wise to the fact that it’s actually elected officials in the state government who have been inflating the cost of the public benefits charge and electricity rates in general,” Fazio said. During the 2025 legislative session, Fazio proposed shifting the cost of the public benefits charge — currently around $1 billion a year — onto the state’s budget. When that effort failed to gain traction, Fazio worked with Democratic leaders and Lamont’s office on a compromise measure, Senate Bill 4, that ultimately passed with bipartisan support. The bill authorized officials to borrow up to $250 million over two years to pay off some of the public benefits charge. Moving forward, Fazio said lawmakers should examine each of the programs in the public benefits charge to determine whether they should remain a charge to customers, be covered in the state budget or be ended entirely. That would include making decisions over whether to provide public funding for certain programs, such as the low-income discount rate, that are intended to help some customers pay their bills. “Should we have more of this program, less of this program? That’s, I think, a conversation for the appropriations process,” Fazio said. “On its face, it is not something you just shove in the electricity bill.” Candidate for governor Erin Stewart in New Britain on December 2, 2025. Credit: Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror Stewart’s campaign declined to make the candidate available for an interview on energy policy. In April, then-Mayor Stewart posted on X that she attended a signing ceremony for Trump’s executive order supporting the coal industry, where she said she met with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and talked about the state’s “affordable energy future.” Connecticut’s last coal plant, Bridgeport Harbor Station, closed down in 2021 and was partially demolished last year. In another social media post, Stewart also criticized the bipartisan effort to borrow money to reduce the public benefits charge as “fake relief” because that money would have to be paid back, with interest, by taxpayers. She also called for an end to the public benefits charge and an increase in energy supply, without going into details. While Lamont supported the bonds included in S.B. 4, he expressed skepticism of proposals for the state to pick up more of the public benefits tab, saying it would merely move around costs without achieving savings. “Ratepayers and taxpayers are the same people,” Lamont said. “What you’ve really got to do is generate more electricity that will reduce the great spikes … that’s what really drives the cost.” Rep. Josh Elliott addressing the Democratic state convention while a candidate for secretary of the state in Hartford on May 7, 2022. Credit: Joe Amon / Connecticut Public Lamont is also facing a primary challenge from state Rep. Josh Elliott, D-Hamden, a self-described progressive who has said he wants to push Democrats to adopt more left-wing stances. “The governor wants to be seen as progressive, so he wants the top line to be ‘historic investment in renewable energy,’ and then at his very next breath, he says ‘historic investment in natural gas,'” Elliott said. If elected, Elliott said that he would seek to finance the cost of building solar and other renewable energy projects through state bonds that are paid back by taxpayers instead of being tacked onto customers’ electric bills. He also said he would take a tougher approach toward the development of data centers than either Lamont or Fazio — both of whom said they would support such projects if the developers agreed to pay their share of the cost to build the electric infrastructure needed to run them. Elliott said any power plants built for data centers should have to run off of renewable electricity, not natural gas or petroleum. He also questioned the economic benefit of large data centers, noting that they tend to employ relatively few people outside of the construction workers it takes to build them. “What looks like a boon to our economy ends up being something that, over the long run, is a really bad decision,” Elliott said. Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, criticized both Lamont and Republicans for embracing natural gas, which she pointed out is subject to volatile price spikes that can increase the cost of energy, particularly in the winter. “In Connecticut, the narrative is just being driven as if clean energy is the reason for all the woes in in electric bills,” Brown said. “That’s just such a false narrative.” Additionally, Brown and other environmental advocates argue that investing in clean energy helps avoid other long-term costs associated with climate change, such as damage from storms and health care costs for people with respiratory illnesses. Both CTLCV and the Connecticut chapter of the Sierra Club endorsed Lamont during each of his previous two runs for governor. The split over the issue of gas pipeline expansions, however, could push those groups to withhold their endorsements or consider backing Elliott in the primary. Steve Lewis, the chair of the Connecticut Sierra Club’s political committee, said the group has yet to meet to discuss endorsements but said the pipeline issue is “something we need to consider very seriously.” In response, Lamont pointed to his administration’s support for solar and wind projects, as well as efforts to improve energy efficiency. He added that any projects to expand pipeline capacity would be subject to the “highest environmental standards,” and compared against other energy resources to determine which have the lowest costs. “You’re not serious about affordability if you’re not serious about an all-the-above strategy,” Lamont said. A generator and its blades are prepared to head to the open ocean for the South Fork Wind farm from State Pier in New London, CT., Dec. 4, 2023. In October, the Trump administration ordered a sudden halt to work on a massive offshore wind farm, Revolution Wind, off the coast of Rhode Island. At the time, the project was nearly 80% completed and employed more than 100 workers at the State Pier in New London. Credit: Seth Wenig / AP Photo Federal impact In addition to their Connecticut-specific pitches, each of the the candidates for governor must also navigate the seismic — and at times unpredictable — shifts in federal energy policy being introduced by the Trump administration. In October, the Trump administration ordered a sudden halt to work on a massive offshore wind farm, Revolution Wind, off the coast of Rhode Island. At the time, the project was nearly 80% completed and employed more than 100 workers at the State Pier in New London. The move drew swift criticism from Lamont and other proponents of offshore wind, who predicted that the loss of Revolution Wind would increase the risk of blackouts while pushing additional supply costs onto electric customers. Eventually, a lawsuit by the project’s developer succeeded in getting work to resume. Then, three days before Christmas, the Trump administration again ordered a pause for Revolution Wind and four other offshore wind projects under development. Even Republicans such as Fazio and Stewart expressed some unease over Trump’s intervention in Revolution Wind, despite their criticisms of wind power. “To be that far along in the process and then just pull a plug on something just to prove a point was pretty, pretty foolish,” Stewart said in an interview with CT Mirror in December, prior to the administration’s second effort to halt the project. Fazio has criticized the cost of the power purchase agreement Connecticut entered into with Revolution Wind’s developers, which he said is likely to result in additional charges on customers’ monthly electric bills. “On the other end, you know, the project is down the path,” Fazio said. “There’s a tradeoff there and I hope that the concerns that the federal government has, that the state and feds can communicate about [them] and work [them] out.” Trump has also complicated ongoing efforts in Connecticut to utilize federal money to spur investments in climate-friendly programs. As part of a wide-ranging tax and spending bill passed last year, the federal government began phasing out tax incentives and other subsidies for electric vehicles, solar panels and energy efficiency upgrades that had been a centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s energy policy. “It’s huge,” said Kaufman, the Columbia professor. “The whole premise of [Biden’s] Inflation Reduction Act and the subsidies for clean energy within that law was that the federal government was going to pick up the tab for a lot of investments in clean energy, or energy efficiency, or conservation actions.” While the Trump administration and Congress have continued to support some investments in low- and zero-emission technologies, particularly nuclear, Kaufman said the changes in federal policy will generally force state officials to choose between picking up the cost of clean energy programs or discontinuing them. “To keep moving forward, that means more of those costs are going to going to have to be incurred by Connecticut ratepayers and residents,” he added. “That’s a big deal… we’re just in a very different situation here than we were a few years ago.” In Connecticut, Kaufman said officials could also look to trim some of the costs of clean energy programs — such as subsidies for rooftop solar or tradable credits for renewable energy — without imperiling the broader public push to adopt those technologies. Last February, Trump announced new tariffs on Canadian energy imports, sparking confusion as to whether they would apply to electricity crossing the U.S.-Canadian border on transmission lines. New England imports about 11% of its electricity from Canada. A spokesperson for the regional grid operator, ISO New England, said in an email that the federal government has yet to levy tariffs on those imports, and that the additional duties announced by the administration are not believed to apply to electricity. Meanwhile, the president’s promises to lower electricity costs by keeping open aging coal power plants is unlikely to have much of an impact in New England, where the only operating coal plant shut down in September. CT Mirror reporter Mark Pazniokas contributed to this story. ...read more read less