Legislative Session
Many bills, 3607 of them, were submitted at the start of the legislative session in January. Most don’t go anywhere. At this point in the session, the landscape begins to come into focus as some bills have been raised and referred to staff for drafting or scheduled for a public hearing.
There are several EV related bills submitted, most of them anti-EV in that they would remove purchase or charging incentives, tax EVs, or slow the expansion of charging infrastructure. There is also a mix of other environmentally-related bills, some positive, some not. Below are notes on the EV bills and a few environmental bills. All of the bills noted below have made it as far as having a public hearing. The EV Club has submitted testimony on 6 items thus far. As you read through the bill summaries, you will notice that items overlap in different bills. There are different ways to get a bite of the apple.
With respect to EV headwinds, the state legislation is in addition to what is happening at the federal level where the IRA incentive is endangered and where there is a proposed registration tax of $1000, sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) and Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), and backed by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation, among others. Pending tariffs will drive up the cost of a vehicle by as much as $9000, reported by Bloomberg. The tariffs, of course, affect all vehicles.
One of the items noted in the bill summary is the count by political party of the sponsors of each bill. The source for this is Legiscan.com. Sometimes there is some minor conflict about sponsorship between sources.
There is still quite a ways to go. The bills still have to be voted on in committee. Those that pass will then go before each chamber.
S.B. 647
“An Act Concerning Protections For Consumer Access To Affordable Electricity.”
This bill is a guided missile targeting a range of pro-environmental incentives. It eliminates funding for the CT Green Bank, EV charging incentives, CHEAPR EV purchase incentives, heat pump incentives, and funding for home energy efficiency measures. It would move items currently in the System Benefits Charge (SBC) into the general budget process where they will be subject to annual funding challenges and the budget cap.
The parts of the Combined Public Benefits Charge that support energy efficiency and green tech are small. For example, the EV charging incentives are responsible for $.0037 (less than 4 tenths of a cent per kWh). The Millstone nuclear power deal was responsible for 77% of the CPBC increase that generated a lot of anger. (The state entered into the controversial Millstone contract and it has to be paid, but even if this bill goes nowhere, that extra charge will disappear after this coming April.) Much of the remainder of the increase was due to a pandemic era expansion of the program that prevented the utilities from turning off electricity for non-payment. Some of that is being repaid and credited back to ratepayers.
Committee of Cognizance: Energy and Technology Committee
Public hearing scheduled March 6. Press conference to be held at 10AM that morning in the Legislative Office Building.
Partisanship: Sponsored by 21 Republican legislators
EV Club opposes this bill.
S.B. 1353
“An Act Concerning Subsidies For New Electricity Demand.”
This is a brief excerpt of the language that targets EV charging requirements and incentives.
“…shall not establish any program that requires, or provides incentives for, the installation of any electric vehicle charging station.”
Committee of Cognizance: Energy and Technology Committee
Public hearing held on Feb. 27.
Partisanship: Sponsorship is listed as “committee.”
EV Club opposes
H.B. 5544
“An Act Establishing A Fee And Tax Related To Electric Vehicles.”
This vehicle proposes a registration fee for EVs as well as a tax imposed on electricity consumption at public chargers. The text of the bill has no details proposing how this would be done, the level of the fees, or any analysis that might have informed this approach.
Committee of Cognizance: Joint Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee
Public hearing held on Feb. 26
Partisanship: 12 Republicans and 1 Democrat
EV Club opposes and argues for a more thoughtful approach. The arguments made thus far appear to us as disingenuous. A blog post from last year discussed this issue.
Non-EV bills
Renomination of Marissa Gillett
This is not a specific bill, but the renomination of Chair Gillett to another 4-year term heading up the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) will come before the legislature.
When EVs become a significant portion of the fleet, they will use a lot of electricity. The program from PURA that incentivizes EV owners to shift their charging to off-peak periods will minimize stress on the grid as EV adoption grows.
The EV Club supports this nomination and applauds her forward-thinking approach to grid modernization and proposed move to performance-based regulation.
Committee of Cognizance: Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee
H.B. 6780
Energy Data Bill of Rights
“To allow public access to the data needed to set informed climate targets and accurately monitor progress against such targets.”
It also provides insights for municipalities into their efforts to decarbonize. The EV Club has used the transportation data for years. It is not always easy to get. The scope of the bill includes a much broader data set on energy consumption and generation. Taxpayers have paid for this information and should have an easier way to get it.
Committee of Cognizance: Energy and Technology Committee
Public hearing held on Feb. 4
Partisanship: 2 Democrats
EV Club supports.
H.B. 6928
“An Act Concerning Municipal Electric Aggregation Programs”
The point of doing this is to lower energy supply costs while increasing the percentage of renewables in the energy mix and potentially investing some of the profit in resiliency measures. This has been used successfully in other states including nearby New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Enabling legislation is required before municipalities can begin the process in CT.
Committee of Cognizance: Energy and Technology Committee
Public hearing held on 2/18
Partisanship: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican
EV Club supports
S.B. 1352
To (1) amend certain energy and water efficiency standards, (2) require a study of certain energy and water efficiency standards, (3) require the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to initiate a docket to examine the future of natural gas in the state, (4) establish programs to incentivize the development of thermal energy networks, (5) increase electric and gas grid reliability and reduce electric and gas demand, and (6) incentivize the adoption of heat pumps and solar canopies.
Committee of Cognizance: Energy and Technology Committee
Public hearing held on 2/27
Partisanship: 2 Democrats
EV Club supports
S.B. 22
Increase schedule frequency on the Shoreline East railroad to pre-pandemic levels.
Rail ridership on all the CT lines is steadily recovering from the pandemic trough. We should support it to reduce traffic and pollution, provide options for people lacking personal transportation, and support tourism.
Committee of Cognizance: Committee on Appropriations
Partisanship: 2 Republicans
EV Club supports
H.B. 5004
To protect the state’s environment while providing for the development of renewable energy sources and related job sectors in a manner that reduces costs connected with such protections and development.
This is an expansive bill and a brief summary doesn’t really cover it.
Committee of Cognizance: Environment Committee
Public hearing on 3/3.
Partisanship: 26 Democrats
EV Club supports