Customers of Puget Sound Energy in Washington state are beginning to see a new detail on their bills this week, one that spells out exactly how much they are paying toward the state's Climate Commitment Act. The change affects a large share of the region, covering more than 1.26 million customers of the utility.
Under the new format, the bill shows the amount each customer is being charged under the Climate Commitment Act, displayed as its own clearly marked line. It also reflects any rebates tied to the program, such as credits for households that have installed solar panels on their homes, giving ratepayers a breakdown of both costs and offsets.
The disclosure did not appear on its own. According to Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center, the change came only after a sustained push to make the figures transparent for ratepayers, who he argued had a right to know how much of their bill was tied to the state climate program.
Myers pointed to a decision made in 2023, when the State Utilities Commission barred Puget Sound Energy from showing its own customers how much the Climate Commitment Act was costing them. He described that ruling as a clear attempt to keep the price of the program out of view from both customers and voters.
In Myers' words, it was obvious that the goal had been to hide the cost of what he characterized as taxes from the people paying them. He framed the lack of disclosure as a transparency problem, arguing that ratepayers were left without a clear picture of how state climate policy was affecting their monthly energy costs.
The Washington Policy Center appealed the 2023 decision, and that challenge is the reason the totals are now appearing on bills. Beginning this week, customers can see the climate program figures laid out directly, rather than having those amounts folded into the rest of their charges without explanation.
Myers said that those on the other side of the dispute had resisted the change by arguing that the information would be too confusing for ratepayers to understand. He rejected that reasoning, presenting the new line on the bill as a straightforward step toward letting customers judge the cost of the policy for themselves.