On Monday (April 22), the Appropriations Committee scaled back the 21-section climate change omnibus bill — dubbed the “Green Monster” — to just nine sections essentially deleting anything that had a fiscal impact on the state. The bill was voted out of committee across party lines.
However, according to an April 23 article in the CT Mirror, Rep. Christine Palm (D-Chester), the bill’s architect, said, “The plan is to attempt to re-insert those components once the bill gets to the floor.” While Rep. Palm did not specify which sections she intends to restore there are many possibilities from which to choose as the legislation has been in the works even before the 2024 legislative session started.
One of the most controversial proposals was a change to existing laws that allow the state, individuals and businesses to face legal actions to protect the public’s right to clean air, water and essential natural resources from unreasonable pollution, impairment, or destruction.
The proposed change would expand this legal framework, allowing for these entities to also be held accountable through lawsuits for not achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set by the Connecticut Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA).
The targets defined in GWSA are to reduce levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy-wide to 45% below 2001 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2001 levels by 2050. The bill, however, added a new goal of achieving at least 65% below the level emitted in 2001 by 2040 and changing the 2050 levels to net zero.
It also added similar requirements on state agencies mandating them to reduce GHG emissions by 45% from 2001 levels by 2030, 75% from 2016 levels by 2040, and achieve net zero by 2050. However, the legal provision enforcing these requirements was subsequently removed.
Furthermore, these benchmarks were also eliminated after the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), the nonpartisan fiscal research and analysis arm of the Connecticut General Assembly, indicated that meeting these targets would increase costs for both the state and all ratepayers.
Initially, the bill had a lofty goal of imposing an all-electric mandate on new construction and major renovations. In other words, natural gas, propane and oil would have been prohibited. This mandate was then changed to only be applied to state agencies where they had a goal of only utilizing zero-carbon generating electricity by 2030. This section was also deleted.
Additionally, the “Green Monster” legislation required the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to hire a consultant to prepare a report on GHG emissions, which is projected to cost $600,000. This report outlines strategies to meet GHG and/or sector-specific emission reduction targets while evaluating the sufficiency of the state’s renewable portfolio standards, (which are requirements for electricity providers to get part of their power from renewable sources). This too was removed.
The bill retains an official declaration of a climate crisis, supported by environmentalists who view it as a signal of the government’s commitment to implement meaningful climate legislation. The declaration explicitly prohibits the governor from using it to govern by executive order.
Moreover, the legislation mandates that the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) initiate a docket by January 1, 2025, to evaluate the future of natural gas use in the state. PURA is required to report its findings and recommend legislative changes to the Energy and Environmental Technology committees.
Additional provisions include incentives for eco-friendly businesses, a directive for DEEP) to plan the installation of at least 310,000 heat pumps, and the establishment of an environmentally sustainable purchasing model policy.
The next step to deliberate the bill remains uncertain. It may logically be referred to the Energy and Technology Committee due to the PURA reporting requirement, although this is not mandatory. Alternatively, it might bypass this step and proceed directly to the House for a vote. However, with the legislative session ending on May 8th, any amendments, particularly those increasing costs, could provoke extensive debate and detract from other critical legislation.
