2025 CT Legislative Session Begins With Numerous Bill Proposals
Many don’t get a hearing, let alone a vote. These are some of what we’re watching. Of the bills noted below, the only one we are aware of with a scheduled hearing is the CT Energy Data Bill of Rights.
Direct Sales
H.B. No. 5645 – ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE DIRECT SALES OF MOTOR VEHICLES’, to promote free market competition in motor vehicle sales. Transportation Committee.
Yes, there is a direct sales bill. The last time there was one was 2022. This was something of a surprise since the polarizing behavior of Elon Musk has slowed momentum for this. It is still relevant, however, especially with the announcement that 2 new auto brands backed by major legacy manufacturers plan to sell direct. These are Scout, backed by Volkswagen, and Afeela, a joint venture of Honda and Sony. Of course, two existing, smaller EV pure plays, Rivian and Lucid, also sell direct. We still support direct sales as a pro-consumer measure that polls north of 80% favorable. We agree with the bill concept that it is a more free-market approach, and we think it will induce, if not force, the dealerships to up their EV game.
CT Energy Data Bill of Rights
H.B. No. 6780 – ‘An Act Concerning A Connecticut Energy Data Access Bill of Rights’ Energy and Technology Committee.
We feel this is such a no-brainer and have advocated for this bill which has been introduced unsuccessfully in the past two legislative sessions. We track detailed data on EV adoption in the state and often struggle to get it. This would make life much easier. The bill goes way beyond EVs and includes data for buildings, renewables, storage, all available via a public web portal. We work with our partner organization, PACE, on updating their energy model, so the breadth of data is invaluable. There is also a provision for greater transparency on a consumer’s own energy usage.
Whenever we get data, we post it to the website. It is consistently among the most widely consumed content we publish.
Prohibiting CT from Following California Emissions Standards
H.B. 5672 – ‘AN ACT CONCERNING EMISSION STANDARDS FOR VEHICLES SOLD IN THE STATE’ Environment Committee.
To quote the Firesign Theater, this bill belongs in the ‘Department of Redundancy Department.’ It proposes to ban CT from following the CA emission standards. Keep in mind that phase 1 of the CA standards expires after this year and authorization for phase 2 did not pass the legislature. Governor Lamont stated that he has
no plans to reintroduce it. If a state is not following the CA standards, it defaults to the federal standards.
This feels like a political messaging bill to us. The Trump Administration has ordered the EPA to gut the federal standards that had been strengthened by the Biden Administration. It is also trying to kill the CA waiver, even though there is no provision in law for them to do that. Although it does not appear likely, the state theoretically has the ability to rejoin the CA standard, though given how it is structured, it becomes increasingly difficult to do so the longer one waits.
CT passed a bill obligating it to follow the CA emission standards in 2004, so perhaps that is what the sponsors are after, even if it is basically moot. We oppose this bill.
Banning EV Sales Under The Guise of Preventing Child Labor
‘AN ACT RESTRICTING THE SALE OF CERTAIN PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN THE STATE’ Transportation Committee.
“to prevent the sale of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle if the components of any battery in such electric vehicle are procured from sources that engage in slave or child labor practices.” This is a strange bill indeed. Nobody supports slave or child labor. OEMs are trying to avoid it and the Inflation Reduction Act, by aggressively pushing the sourcing of minerals to be either domestic or from free-trade partners, is very much designed to address this. And why plug-in hybrids but not BEVs? This, too, feels like a messaging bill. Also, this feels like it could violate the CA waiver. This bill isn’t about fuel efficiency but it would set CT apart. The limiting of exceptions to the federal rule to CA (and states that follow it) was because the industry could not cope with numerous states having different rules.
A Registration Tax for Electric Vehicles
‘AN ACT ESTABLISHING A FEE AND TAX RELATED TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES’ Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee.
Based on the logic that EVs do not pay gas taxes, a number of states have enacted EV registration fees, mostly red states. Unlike many of these states, this proposed bill includes plug-in hybrids, which do use gas. In these states the fees tend to be far higher than what a comparable ICE vehicle would pay in gas taxes and the bills seem intended to be deliberately punitive and to slow EV adoption. Transportation funds are experiencing current or projected shortfalls. Most of the reason is that fuel-efficiency has improved in gasoline cars and the state and federal gas taxes are not indexed for inflation. At approximately 2% of the fleet, the impact of EVs is de minimis, though at some point, they will matter. The bill proposal language doesn’t contain any specifics. This is a
blog post that zooms out to take a holistic look at the subject.
