CT House approves climate change bill after failing on mandate on electric cars

Unable to pass mandates for electric cars, the state House of Representatives approved substitute steps Wednesday night in a high-priority bill on climate change that provides incentives for alternative energy like solar power and electric heat pumps.

After more than 4 1/2 hours of debate, the House voted 94-56 shortly before 9 p.m. for the measure.

Democrats hailed the multi-faceted bill for taking steps like expanding solar canopies in parking lots and creating a task force to study electric transmission that would include off-shore wind. The 23-page bill offers incentives like tax credits and business fee waivers, among others.

“I think in terms of acknowledging that we are in a climate crisis, which is going to be one of the controversial parts of this bill, is foundational to what we’re doing,” said Rep. Christine Palm, the vice chairwoman of the environment committee who is not seeking re-election. “Because at this point, to deny that’s true is just preposterous.”

But the political debate continues across the country among national politicians over the extent and solutions for climate change, even though others say that the science is clear.

“I think the most important takeaway is that this bill manages to satisfy environmentalists,” Palm told reporters. “And I want to put particular emphasis on young people, 70% of whom in Connecticut are very worried about the future, and the business community, 84% of whom acknowledged that going green or sustainable practice helps attract and retain talent. So these two groups are often thought of as anathema to one another, but this bill just proves that and I’m excited to run it.”

The debate in the state House of Representatives started at 4:06 p.m. and continued into Wednesday night on an issue that some legislators had predicted could last six to eight hours.

Known as House Bill 5004, the measure is a high priority of the House Democratic caucus, which holds the majority in the chamber.

But Rep. Patrick Callahan of New Fairfield, the ranking House Republican on the environment committee, raised questions.

“There’s a lot of incentives for people to switch to green. Who’s going to pay for them?” Callahan asked. “You’re going to give a lot of subsidies for people for expensive [electric] heat pumps, and then the ratepayers are going to pay for those incentives. … They’re an incredible draw on the grid. One of the biggest expenses is you’re going to have an upgrade to the grid. … A lot of this is putting the cart before the horse.”

Callahan added, “Eleven years ago, the big push was for natural gas, and that didn’t succeed” after falling short of the stated goals.

House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said Republicans are concerned about the costs for the average consumer in Connecticut in an issue with international implications.

“The state of Connecticut has very little market share in any of this stuff,” Candelora said. “I’m not sure that we will have any impact, and we should be looking globally. When we see places in China and India, building as many coal plants as the [United States] is closing, we are merely chasing our tail and moving the chairs around on the Titanic. I think this issue is much bigger than the state of Connecticut.”

Electric cars 

House Speaker Matt Ritter, a Hartford Democrat, acknowledged that it was difficult to pass a controversial bill that would have mandated that Connecticut adopt the California emissions standards and mandate that all new car sales in Connecticut starting in 2035 would be all-electric or plug-in hybrid. Republicans raised multiple questions earlier this year, saying that Democrats were moving too quickly without enough public input and no legislative hearings at the time.

“We faced a real tough time in our caucus trying to pass a bill that was a mandate, right?” Ritter said to reporters Wednesday at the state Capitol in Hartford. “We saw that that was a tough debate internally, right? And we’ve got two choices, right? You can go down the same path and hope it gets a different result. But I think it shows there’s gotta be some flexibility and adjustments. I think this bill is the most important environmental bill or one of the two most environmental bills in the session.”

On the electric cars, Ritter added, “I’m disappointed we couldn’t get that done. I’m disappointed the President [Joe Biden] felt we couldn’t get it done in the same timeline. But it shows the country has work to do. And so instead of us trying to force that bill through, which would’ve been ugly, let’s make the investments necessary so that when we bring that bill back, people say, “Yeah, I see charging stations in my neighborhood now. I see how it’s gonna work. I see rebates, real offers or tax incentives for me to buy these vehicles.’ People don’t see it right now.”

Debate

During Wednesday’s lengthy debate, Palm noted that the bill fosters training in green jobs, helps municipalities, encourages water and air healthy, and supports energy-saving grid enhancements. She was questioned in detail by Callahan, who said the bill would cost about $750,000.

“How did you arrive at the term climate crisis and what is the definition of climate crisis?” Callahan asked. “The definition I did not see in the bill. … What percentage of the climate crisis is attributable to man?”

Palm responded that there is consensus in the scientific community about the increase in greenhouse gases.

“Net-zero does not mean zero emissions,” Palm said. “It is offset.”

Installing a projected 300,000 electric heat pumps in the future, Callahan said, would use the same amount of electricity as powering 40 small towns.

“It would put us at risk for rolling blackouts in Connecticut,” Callahan said on the House floor. “We’re pulling the rug out from all those people years ago that we tried to convince to go to natural gas. … It seems we’re chasing another fad that is a heavy draw on the grid. I just don’t see the overall win there.”

Callahan asked about the need for nuclear power, but Democrats said that nuclear energy was not addressed in the bill.

“This bill was very carefully written to avoid ratepayer impact,” Palm said. “There is nothing in this bill that says that people cannot have gas heat, cannot have fossil fuels. We are all experiencing double digit rates at the gas pump last week, for example. … This bill does not mandate that anybody stop using gas or oil.”

Lori Brown, a longtime lobbyist as executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said, “This legislation has been a long time in the making with the dedicated leadership of Representative Christine Palm and will help put our state back on the path toward our climate goals.”

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com