Democratic lawmakers held a press conference earlier today to promote HB 5004, an ambitious environmental bill that calls for an economy-wide net zero emissions goal by 2050, and accelerates state agencies’ net-zero emissions timelines. Democrats attempted to pass a bill containing many of the same provisions last session, but it died on the Senate floor, leaving many environmental advocates disappointed.
“As many remember, we did 5004 last year, and we got it out of here [the House], but time ran out,” said Speaker of the House Matt Ritter (D-Hartford). “There was a lot of finger pointing and blame and conspiracy theories, and I like nothing more than to prove people wrong. It makes me wake up in the morning happy.”
Ritter was joined by House Majority Leader, Jason Rojas (D- East Hartford) and State Rep. John-Michael Parker (D-Madison), Co-Chair of the Environment Committee.
While the bill contains over 20 sections in total, its headline section would mandate state agencies to achieve a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2001 levels by 2030, a 70% reduction from 2016 emissions levels by 2040, and a net-zero emissions level, as well as an economy wide net-zero level, by 2050.
“The bill sets out the right agencies, on the right timelines” said Parker. “The bill is very thoughtful about making sure we’re moving forward at the right time, the right pace.”
The progress of state agencies would be tracked in yearly reports issued by DEEP, with more in-depth reports being issued every three years to provide suggestions moving forward and assess similar efforts in other states and countries.
Parker summarized the bill as looking to achieve three goals. The first goal would be setting future emissions targets and creating “thorough, responsible, cohesive planning processes” to achieve them. The second goal, he said, was to find ways to increase state infrastructure energy efficiency, and the third was to provide a framework for the transition of the state’s economy into green sectors.
In pursuit of this third goal, the bill would codify a Clean Economy Council, the creation of which was already called for by Gov. Lamont in an Executive Order that he issued in 2021. That council would be tasked with developing a plan that would transition workers away from fossil-fuel-related jobs to those in the clean energy sector.
“We have the codification of the Clean Economy Council, which is all about workforce development, job training, making sure that Connecticut businesses and Connecticut employees are building the jobs of the future,” said Parker.
Parker said that lawmakers were “very mindful” of affordability when crafting the bill, and said that it is why the bill focuses a lot on energy efficiency efforts.
“We believe many of these policies that are on the table in the near future and long term future as well, actually save us money,” said Parker. “It’s a lot of what we think about with efficiency.”
Perhaps the biggest efficiency measure included in the bill would be the creation of a Solar Canopy Strategic Plan by PURA. PURA would be tasked with identifying properties across the state that would be eligible for solar paneling and providing policy and regulatory recommendations to achieve their construction. PURA would have to submit this plan to the Energy and Technology Committee by 2027.
Rojas pointed to the recent completion of several solar projects at the state’s correctional facilities as an example of successfully implementing a solar canopy plan. The Governor’s Office and State Green Bank claimed last week that the panels are projected to save the Department of Corrections $11 million over the next 25 years.
“So it is being done,” said Rojas. “I think we need more analysis to really identify the opportunities that we know are there that we can leverage state owned land in particular to increase our capacity around solar.”
Additional efficiency measures include the creation of sustainable purchasing guidelines for municipalities and of processes towards retrofitting existing state buildings with energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, as well as the addition of heat pumps to the list of school projects eligible for state grants.
Parker believed the bill would pass this session as a result of thorough collaboration with stakeholders, and as a result of narrowing the bill’s scope to ensure maximum affordability.
“I’d say some of the provisions from last year ended up going away,” said Parker. “I also think the changes this year are process as much as policy at the end of the day, in terms of our approach to really try to be collaborative with the Senate, with the Republicans and with the agencies, because we need all those voices at the table who want to build compromise legislation.”
Parker acknowledged that four sections were removed from the original bill. These sections would have called on PURA and gas utilities to make significant effort towards transitioning natural gas sourcing towards geothermal sources, as well as provide various incentives and studies to incentivize geothermal sourcing.
“These are sections that really we think probably fit better in an E&T [Energy and Technology Committee] bill,” said Parker. “I think it was, again, a process of working with our agencies, working with folks at DEEP, conversations with folks at PURA, about what’s what’s possible and most helpful, and again, getting feedback from our Republican colleagues.”
The bill is currently on today’s House Calendar. If passed, it would then have to pass the Senate, before being signed by the Governor.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Aiming for net zero emissions through reliance on renewable energy ends up leaving us suseptible to massive system-wide blackouts like the one recently in Spain and Portugal. I’m glad I installed my whole house generator.
I agree with PaulD. ISO is having a hard time finding experts on inverter based solar and wind systems–I question if they exist.
Thermal loops:
The legislature is ignoring our affordability concerns with SB004 which has the requirement for 2 thermal Loops pilot projects likely the Hartford Capitol Loop and one in New Haven. The governor recently correctly approved upgrading the Hartford loop with gas boilers as the capital expense was 1/5 (97.7M$ vs 20M$) the cost of a ground source heat pump loop. The operating cost for gas is 2/3 that of the heat pumps.
There were also technical concerns that would increase the heat pump costs further (due to the low temp of heat pump systems and the need to drill 400-800 1500 ft hole in a small parking lot)
The $24M thermal loop pilot project in Framingham, MA is even more damning. My share of the capital for a 2600 Sq ft house would be $400,000 or 40 times the 10,000 cost I actually spent on a boiler replacement. The electric cost would be $4000 per year compared to $1500 for gas. And the electric price will double as winter electricity costs are being subsidized by other months.
The governor made the right decision for gas on the Hartford loop. There is a movement underway to change the decision and SB004, if passed, will drive an expensive monument to government ignoring the affordability concerns of the citizens.
Eversource, Dykes, Coleman and the E/T Committee have mud on their faces for never mentioning the extremely high 40 times cost of the Framingham loop when testifying on ground source loops in SB 1352. Pass the law then tell us how much it costs. Eversource to its credit promptly provided the cost spreadsheet link in the MA DPU docket several hours after my request. It was available March 2024, over a year ago.
37% of us heat with natural gas. This is part of the war on gas. They want to increase gas prices by taking away the large attractive customers and by creating a gas public benefits charge to subsidize the cost.
Solar Canopies:
The solar canopies are another net metering scam which costs 6 times the cost of utility scale solar. The customer gets free transmission, distribution, public benefits amounting to 31c/kWh which presently adds over 5% to our bill ($250M per year or $5B over the 20 year contract) and is growing rapidly.
Is any body going to fight it? This deserves a full court press. Above is some ammo.
Solar panels go down in efficiency over time. Average service life of 25 years. Then you have removal, recycle & replacements costs that must be funded. Inverters also need replacement. There needs to be transparency and full disclosure on long term costs and service life of equiptment.
Solar panels go down in efficiency over time. Average service life of 25 years. Then you have removal, recycle & replacements costs that must be funded. Inverters also need replacement. There needs to be transparency and full disclosure on long term costs and service life of equiptment.