Winter Defends Enviro Bills, Public Benefits Charge

As this year’s state legislative session nears its finish line, first-term New Haven/Hamden lawmaker Steve Winter is speaking up in support of a handful of environmental efforts — including waiving bus fares for high schoolers, prohibiting the use of some pesticides on Connecticut lawns, and protecting the energy-efficiency-supporting ​“public benefits charge” on utility bills.

State Rep. Winter emphasized those clean energy programs and proposals Friday during a Legislative Town Hall, hosted along with six other state lawmakers, at the Miller Memorial Library in Hamden, as well as during an interview with the Independent earlier this week.

Elected in November 2024, Winter is the newest member of New Haven’s state legislative delegation. (He also represents a portion of Hamden.) He campaigned on a climate-focused platform and continues to prioritize environmental issues as state representative. In the last few months, in his role as New Haven city government’s executive director of climate and sustainability, he’s worked on initiatives to expand compost, e‑scooters, and public parks.

This year’s Connecticut General Assembly regular session began on Jan. 8 and is slated to adjourn on June 4.

Volunteers from Third Act — a movement of elders dedicated to climate and democracy-related issues — attended Friday’s town hall. Fred Morrison spoke on behalf of the group, highlighting House Bill 5004 and Senate Bill 9.

H.B. 5004 sets a 2050 goal for net zero carbon emissions in Connecticut. S.B. 9 partially bans the use of rat poisons and certain pesticides on Connecticut lawns. 

Morrison asked the representatives to confirm whether or not the bills are likely to pass. New Haven State Sen. and President Pro Tem Martin Looney said he is confident both bills will pass this year. 

Winter directed the Third Act members to also pay attention to Senate Bill 4, which seeks to reduce costs for electricity ratepayers by way of clean energy installation. ​“I think that everybody understands that electric rates in Connecticut are very high,” said Winter. ​“At the same time, we have really strong energy efficiency in solar programs that can help reduce bills in the long run.”

While Winter supports H.B. 5004, he noted that some strategies to achieve net zero listed in the original piece of legislation have since been removed. “​Those pieces got taken out of 5004 but could potentially live on in the energy bill that’s Senate Bill 4,” said Winter. 

In a follow-up interview with the Independent, Winter said he’s also working to help pass Senate Bill 1243, which would establish a program through the state Department of Transportation (DOT) for free or reduced bus fares for high school students.

“It would have a more limited impact” than when the state made bus fares free for everyone for a year during the pandemic, ​“but I think it sends an important message about trying to improve access to public transit and also connect youth to services and education.” 

Winter also said that S.B. 9 includes some good provisions to improve resiliency around mitigating storm and flood risk. ​“It allows municipalities to create resilience improvement districts,” he said. ​“It could go in conjunction with receiving resiliency improvement funding from the state through bonding.”

A viewer watching Friday’s meeting online asked when the state legislators plan to remove the public benefits charge — a fee added to electric bills to fund public energy programs. Critics have decried the public benefits charge as unduly driving up Connecticut residents’ utility bills. 

Winter said that some big one-time costs of the public benefits charge, like for storms, could switch over to bonding. But programs like energy efficiency audits should remain in the public benefits charge, according to Winter. ​“That kind of recurring cost would be really disruptive to bond for because every couple years those bonding decisions are subject to the decisions of the legislature.”

He added that if energy efficiency programs move from an electric bill charge to bonding, ​“it could really hamper in the long run our ability to invest in energy efficiency and in addressing our climate goals.”

Winter later told the Independent he sees one-time big costs as natural candidates for bonding, such as unpaid bills from Covid’s shutoff moratorium or costs from Hurricane Isaias. He thinks the public benefits charge is necessary for energy efficiency programs. But if bonding was used for those programs he would want to make sure that the funding for the programs wasn’t consequently jeopardized.

“What happens if you bond for five years’ worth of programs, let’s say, or two years worth of programs, what happens when that bonding ends? How do we make sure that those programs and all the values that they deliver in terms of energy savings and bill saving, as well as reducing air pollution and carbon pollution, how do we make sure that they can continue?”

He also said that the programs supported by the public benefits charge will reduce people’s bills in the long run. He said in 2024 the ​“lifetime savings” is estimated at $408 million and that there’s approximately $3 in lifetime savings for every $1 invested.

“The results are really incredible if you look at the amount of money that’s saved per dollar invested in energy efficiency,” Winter said. ​“We really don’t want to jeopardize the jobs and the energy saving and bill saving improvements that come with the program.”