Connect with us

Connecticut

Connecticut Republicans Rally Against Potential EV Mandate as Democrats Renew Push

Published

on

Connecticut Republicans Rally Against Potential EV Mandate as Democrats Renew Push


HARTFORD — Connecticut Democrats are once again working to pass a mandate for electric vehicles, even as Republicans in the State Senate say they will do everything in their power to oppose the measure.

The renewed push comes after Gov. Ned Lamont late last year paused similar efforts to ensure that Connecticut will follow California’s latest emissions standards banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

State Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, told CT Examiner this week that he was prepared to rally the public in opposition.

“If this legislation begins to gain further traction, I believe then that we need to inform our constituents — we have an obligation to inform our constituents — of this policy going forward,” said Harding, a ranking member of the Environment Committee, which would have influence over legislation tied to EVs. “And I think ultimately if having a rally raises awareness … then I’m not saying no to that right now at all.”

Advertisement

Harding said his caucus was strongly in favor of incentives like tax credits to offset the cost of buying EVs, but he said that what he’s heard about the transition from the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection doesn’t make sense.

“The problem I have with this government policy is that we’ve received zero answers on how we are going to get there,” he said. “How is our grid going to take this on? How is there going to be enough supply? How are our families going to be able to budget buying a brand new electric vehicle when one of their cars breaks down? [DEEP says] 10 years is a long time from now and anything can happen. That’s not an answer.”

DEEP representatives were not available for comment. 

In a statement on Friday to CT Examiner, Julia Bergman, a spokesperson for the governor, said the transition to electric vehicles had already begun, but they were hopeful they could satisfy some of the Republican objections.

“The shift to hybrid and electric vehicles has been underway for several years now, not only in our state but in states all across the nation,” said Bergman. “The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the utilities, and the Legislature have worked to put in place policies and plans to help families, businesses, and the grid transition to that future …. The Legislature is continuing to work on this, and we are hopeful that there will be a proposal that addresses some of Senator Harding’s concerns.” 

Advertisement

Harding said he believes the 2035 EV mandate could fail this legislative session, despite a Democratic majority in both the state House and Senate. 

“I’m optimistic in that I believe there are enough Democrats that understand their constituency,” he said. “I would say that no matter where you go in Connecticut, when this issue comes up, the residents ultimately resoundingly reject this policy because it doesn’t make logical sense. … It is unwarranted. It is unfair. And, frankly, it’s unnecessary.”

But State Rep. Christine Palm, D-Chester, vice chair of the Environment Committee, pushed back on criticism from Harding and others about the lack of a charging infrastructure.

“I am a big, big proponent of Yankee ingenuity,” Palm said. “I don’t think that we in Connecticut, especially those of us who grew up here, can possibly, with a straight face, say that we can’t figure out this mechanical technical problem, yet we figured out airplane engines. We invented the bicycle. We did everything in Connecticut and now we are saying we do not have enough EV stations; we don’t have enough grid and we can’t figure out how to transition .… I think we absolutely can.” 

The debate has also been taken up by a number of nonprofits and policy groups, particularly the left-leaning Connecticut League of Conservation Voters and the right-leaning Yankee Institute for Public Policy.

Advertisement

David Bingham, a founder and co-chair of the CTLCV, told CT Examiner that the issue was personal for him.

“As a physician, I can say that one of the main causes of high medical bills has to do with lung disease that’s caused by air pollution,” Bingham said. “Burning fossil fuels has been significantly impacting our poorest communities because there is more likely to be heavier traffic in those areas. Just from a medical standpoint, there would be a substantial reduction in future costs [by driving EVs].”

Bingham called Lamont “one of the better governors in the nation on this issue.” But Bingham, who owns a 2017 Toyota Prius Prime hybrid, acknowledged the frustration of charging stations.

“I was recently at the Capitol listening to the testimony on some environmental bills and it was nice that there’s a charging station in the parking lot, but that’s not always the case,” he said. “There’s a transition time with people wanting more charging stations. Because of the infrastructure bill signed by Congress, there will be a lot more money coming into the state for that kind of thing.”

But according to the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the state is poised to receive $52 million over several years to subsidize the construction, ownership, maintenance and operation of electric car chargers.  

Advertisement

Currently, only about 36,000 of the more than 3 million vehicles registered in Connecticut as of July 2023 were electric.

Meanwhile, Bryce Chinault, director of external affairs for the Yankee Institute of Public Policy, opposed the mandate in a Jan. 5 op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal.

If “electric vehicles are the future … why are we mandating these regulations instead of letting the market work?” he asked.

In a call this week to CT Examiner, Chinault warned that Connecticut residents already pay some of the highest rates in the country, and those bills “will go through the roof” given the demands of electric vehicles.

Asked about mandating electric vehicles, Eric Jackson, executive director of Connecticut Transportation Institute at the UConn School of Engineering, was of two minds.

Advertisement

“In my view, electric vehicles help with the climate crisis in terms of you no longer having particular matter coming out of vehicles,” he said. “Air quality is improved because there are no tailpipe pollutants coming out of it. If … the power industry as a whole moves more to sustainable sources like wind or solar, then you’d be able to actually reduce the carbon footprint even further.”

But Jackson was hesitant to embrace the idea of a mandate.

“I’m kind of torn in the middle,” he said. “I am not a huge fan of mandates, but things like a seat belt law are there to protect people. I am much more of a free market person in terms of it would be great for people to see the benefits of these vehicles. But to force them and say you can only purchase an electric vehicle after such and such a date is challenging for me to accept. I’d rather people do it on their own.”





Source link

Advertisement

Connecticut

Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’

Published

on

Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’




Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’ – NBC Connecticut



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Connecticut moves to crack down on bottle redemption fraud

Published

on

Connecticut moves to crack down on bottle redemption fraud


It’s a scheme made famous by a nearly 30-year-old episode of the sitcom Seinfeld.

Hoping to earn a quick buck, two characters load a mail truck full of soda bottles and beer cans purchased with a redeemable 5-cent deposit in New York, before traveling to Michigan, where they can be recycled for 10 cents apiece. With few thousand cans, they calculate, the trip will earn a decent profit. In the end, the plan fell apart.

But after Connecticut raised the value of its own bottle deposits to 10 cents in 2024, officials say, they were caught off guard by a flood of such fraudulent returns coming in from out of state. Redemption rates have reached 97%, and some beverage distributors have reported millions of dollars in losses as a result of having to pay out for excess returns of their products.

On Thursday, state lawmakers passed an emergency bill to crack down on illegal returns by increasing fines, requiring redemption centers to keep track of bulk drop-offs and allowing local police to go after out-of-state violators.

Advertisement

“I’m heartbroken,” said House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, who supported the effort to increase deposits to 10 cents and expand the number of items eligible for redemption. “I spent a lot of political capital to get the bottle bill passed in 2021, and never in a million years did I think that New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island residents would return so many bottles.”

The legislation, Senate Bill 299, would increase fines for violating the bottle bill law from $50 to $500 on a first offense. For third and subsequent offenses, the penalty would increase from $250 to $2,000 and misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison.

In addition, it requires redemption centers to be licensed by the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (previously, those businesses were only required to register with DEEP). As a condition of their license, redemption centers must keep records of anyone seeking to redeem more than 1,000 bottles and cans in a single day.

Anyone not affiliated with a qualified nonprofit would be prohibited from redeeming more than 4,000 bottles a day, down from the previous limit of 5,000.

The bill also seeks to pressure some larger redemption centers into adopting automated scanning technologies, such as reverse vending machines, by temporarily lowering the handling fee that is paid on each beverage container processed by those centers.

Advertisement

The bill easily passed the Senate on Wednesday and the House on Thursday on its way to Gov. Ned Lamont.

While the bill drew bipartisan support, Republicans described it as a temporary fix to a growing problem.

House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, called the switch to 10-cent deposits an “unmitigated disaster” and said he believed out-of-state redemption centers were offloading much of their inventory within Connecticut.

“The sheer quantity that is being redeemed in the state of Connecticut, this isn’t two people putting cans into a post office truck,” Candelora said. “This is far more organized than that.”

The impact of those excess returns is felt mostly by the state’s wholesale beverage distributors, who initiate the redemption process by collecting an additional 10 cents on every eligible bottle and can they sell to supermarkets, liquor stores and other retailers within Connecticut. The distributors are required to pay that money back — plus a handling fee — once the containers are returned to the store or a redemption center.

Advertisement

According to the state’s Department of Revenue Services, nearly 12% of wholesalers reported having to pay out more redemptions than they collected in deposits in 2025. Those losses totaled $11.3 million.

Peter Gallo, the vice president of Star Distributors in West Haven, said his company’s losses alone have totaled more than $2 million since the increase on deposits went into effect two years ago. As time goes on, he said, the deficit has only grown.

“We’re hoping we can get something fixed here, because it’s a tough pill to be holding on to debt that we should get paid for,” Gallo said.

Still, officials say they have no way of tracking precisely how many of the roughly 2 billion containers that were redeemed in the state last year were illegally brought in from other states. That’s because most products lack any kind of identifiable marking indicating where they were sold.

“There’s no way to tell right now. That’s one of the core issues here,” said state Rep. John-Michael Parker, D-Madison, who co-chairs the legislature’s Environment Committee.

Advertisement

Parker said the issue could be solved if product labels were printed with a specific barcode or other feature that would be unique to Connecticut. Such a solution, for now, has faced technological challenges and pushback from the beverage industry, he said.

Not everyone involved in the handling, sorting and redemption of bottles is happy about the upcoming changes — or the process by which they were approved.

Francis Bartolomeo, the owner of a Fran’s Cans and Bart’s Bottles in Watertown, said he was only made aware of the legislation on Monday from a fellow redemption center owner. Since then, he said, he’s been contacting his legislators to oppose the bill and was frustrated by the lack of a public hearing.

“I know other people are as flabbergasted as I am because they don’t know where it comes out of,” Bartolomeo said “It’s a one sided affair, really.”

Bartolomeo said one of his biggest concerns with the bill is the $2,500 annual licensing fee that it would place on redemption centers. While he agreed that out-of-state redemptions are a problem, he said it should be up to the state to improve enforcement.

Advertisement

“We’re cleaning up the mess, and we’re going to end up being penalized,” Bartolomeo said. “Get rid of it and go back to 5 cents if it’s that big of a hindrance, but don’t penalize the redemption centers for what you imposed.”

Lynn Little of New Milford Redemption Center supports the increased penalties but believes the solution ultimately lies with better labeling by the distributors. She is also frustrated by the volume caps after the state initially gave grants to residents looking to open their own bottle redemption businesses.

“They’re taking a volume business, because any business where you make 3 cents per unit (the average handling fee) is a volume business, and limiting the volume we can take in, you’re crushing small businesses,” Little said.

Ritter said that he opposed a move back to the 5-cent deposit, which he noted was increased to encourage recycling. However, he said the current situation has become politically untenable and puts the state at risk of a lawsuit from distributors.

“We’re getting to a point where we’re going to lose the bottle bill,” Ritter said. “If we got sued in court, I think we’d lose.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

Stanley Black & Decker To Shutter New Britain Manufacturing Facility

Published

on

Stanley Black & Decker To Shutter New Britain Manufacturing Facility


NEW BRITAIN, CT — Stanley Black & Decker on Thursday said it has decided to close its manufacturing facility in New Britain.

Debora Raymond, vice president of external communications for the manufacturer, said the decision is a result of a “structural decline in demand for single-sided tape measures.”

The New Britain facility predominantly makes these products, according to Raymond.

“These products are quickly becoming obsolete in the markets we serve,” Raymond said, via an emailed statement Thursday.

Advertisement

The decision is expected to impact approximately 300 employees, according to Raymond.

“We are focused on supporting impacted employees through this transition, including providing options for employment at other facilities, severance, and job placement support services for both salaried and hourly employees,” Raymond said.

As of Thursday at 4:30 p.m., no Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act notice had been filed with the state Department of Labor.

The company’s corporate headquarters remains at 1000 Stanley Dr., New Britain.

Gov. Ned Lamont released the following statement on the decision:

Advertisement

“Although Stanley has made the decision to discontinue operations for manufacturing outdated products, a change in workforce opportunities is difficult for employees, their families, and any community.,” Lamont said. “However, I am hopeful that these skilled workers will be repurposed with the help of Stanley Black & Decker, a company that will still proudly be headquartered here in Connecticut. My administration is working closely with local and state leaders to support affected workers and to reimagine the factory site so it can continue to create opportunity and strengthen New Britain’s economic future.”

New Britain Mayor Bobby Sanchez said he is “deeply disappointed” the company will be closing its Myrtle Street operations.

“For generations, Stanley Works has been part of the fabric of our city, providing good-paying jobs, supporting families, and helping build New Britain’s proud reputation as the ‘Hardware City,’” Sanchez said.

According to the mayor, his office’s immediate focus is on helping affected workers and their families. The mayor has been in contact with Lamont’s office, and they will be working closely to make sure employees have access to job placement services, retraining opportunities and support, Sanchez said.

“We will continue aggressively pursuing economic development opportunities and attracting businesses that are looking for a true community partner, a city ready to collaborate, innovate and grow alongside them,” Sanchez said. “New Britain has reinvented itself before, and we will do so again.”

Advertisement

Stanley Black & Decker, founded in 1843, operates manufacturing facilities worldwide, according to its website. It reports having 43,500 employees globally, and makes an array of products, such as power tools and equipment, hand tools, and fasteners.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending