Environmental advocates are warning state legislators that without proper action in this session, the state won’t meet its long-term emissions goals.
Save the Sound’s report, a nonprofit environmental organization, and the Yale Center on Climate Change and Health, released last week, warns that the state isn’t doing enough “to meet its greenhouse gas reduction mandates.”
“Which means not only have we not taken enough strides on climate in the last 15 years, but we will need to play catch up with bolder initiatives in this year, and the years to come,” adds the report.
While the Governor’s Council on Climate Change (GC3) has issued recommendations for meeting these targets, and Gov. Ned Lamont has issued several executive orders to promote action, the most recent Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory report indicates the state is not on track to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, and that emissions in some sectors continue to grow — outpacing even 1990 levels, according to the report.
Save the Sound’s Climate and Energy Attorney, Charles Rothenberger of Mystic, said the organization doesn’t put out reports of this kind every year.
“We’re hoping this will provide some valuable information and perhaps some insights into Connecticut’s current policies and where the state needs to go,” he said.
The 2008 legislation requires that the state reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 45% below 2001 levels in 2030 and 80% below 2001 levels in 2050.
“Unfortunately, Connecticut is already falling behind in its efforts to meet those climate goals. Compounding that reality is the fact that science now demonstrates that these existing targets are too low — at those reduction levels Connecticut is not doing its fair share,” the report reads. “As we backslide, very real climate impacts continue to hammer our residents: more extreme heat days and accompanying respiratory issues, more frequent and severe storms, rising sea level and increased flood events.”
Rothenberger and Save the Sound are pushing several bills in particular that align with last week’s report during this short legislative session, which ends May 4. Senate Bill 10 would codify Gov. Ned Lamont’s executive order requiring 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2040.
“The state shall reduce the level of emissions of greenhouse gas … not later than January 1, 2040, to a level of zero per cent from electricity supplied to electric customers in the state,” the bill reads.
The bill faced little opposition in the Energy and Technology Committee and was supported by state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Katie Dykes, who pointed out “that this bill will further the development of the clean energy sector, which contributed $6.6 billion and 41,000 jobs to the state’s economy in 2020,” according to the joint favorable report.
Senate Bill 176 would expand annual caps for two of the state’s solar programs.
“Right now there are restrictions on building … solar through these state programs, so it can’t be larger than either your current electricity load or your anticipated load,” Rothenberger said. “This would allow full roof space to be maximized for solar.” Rothenberger added that this would make more robust state programs “focused on providing benefits of clean renewable energy to low- and moderate-income households.”
House Bill 5039 aims to limit pollution from the state’s biggest vehicle polluters, such as buses and diesel trucks. These vehicles, which account for only 6% of Connecticut’s on-road vehicles, emit 53% of harmful pollutants, according to Save the Sound.
The bill would establish stricter emission rules by adopting California standards. Advocates such as Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, and doctors such as Seth Lotterman, president of the Connecticut College of Emergency Physicians, have noted this pollution’s adverse effects on human health.
Due to cost concerns, the bill was opposed by business interests such as the National Waste and Recycling Association, Connecticut Farm Bureau, Motor Transport Association of Connecticut and Connecticut Business and Industry Association.
“Medium- and heavy-duty trucks are used in a wide variety of applications with a diverse set of equipment specifications and performance requirements,” the American Petroleum Institute wrote in its testimony. “A policy centered on a ‘one-technology-fits-all approach’ could result in stranded investments and lost opportunities to reduce emissions on a faster timeline.”
The Motor Transport Association of Connecticut said California’s emissions requirements would result in an overwhelming cost for trucking companies.
Rothenberger said another popular argument made by some Republican legislators is that adhering to California’s standards essentially cedes the state’s authority to California.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “The opposite is true.”
“As standards are developed, any state that is adopting California standards has a seat at the table with the California Air Resources Board, it’s not as though states are just passive recipients of these standards, our air bureau is engaged on a continuous basis with regulators in California to make sure that whatever regulations are passed will make sense and work in other jurisdictions that want to adopt them.”
Rothenberger also mentioned Senate Bill 4, calling it a “sort-of omnibus transportation bill.” It is also focused on air quality.
According to the bill’s joint favorable report, it’s meant to “continue the development of Connecticut’s drive for clean air through three actions: setting dates at which Connecticut’s fleet of cars and light duty trucks must be made up of 50%, 75%, and 100% battery electric vehicles, the creation of a rebate program for electric bicycles, and the creation of a fund, under the supervision of the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, for improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions.”
DEEP, as well as the state departments of Transportation and Administrative Services, expressed concerns with the bill because it wouldn’t be in line with the governor’s proposed budget. The Propane Gas Association of New England also opposed the bill, “stating that it excludes other clean fuels that could assist Connecticut in meeting its climate goals” and hoping for an amendment to include propane-powered vehicles, according to the joint favorable report.
Save the Sound’s report emphasizes the importance of accountability for state agencies when it comes to meeting climate targets.
“State agencies need to evaluate the impact on climate that the actions they take day in and day out are having, not just how they operate, but the permits they’re issuing, the policies they’re adopting, that should be across the board,” Rothenberger said. “SB 4 does address that with the Department of Transportation and establishes a carbon budget. That’s a start.”
