Environmentalists hail legislative wins

The 2019 legislative session was a quietly successful one for environmental issues, including those addressing energy and climate change.

In the absence of blockbuster policy revisions that overwhelmed legislators last year, most items made it through in some form or another with minimal drama and in spite of new committee leadership — some of it first-time legislators — who faced significant learning curves on technical and difficult subjects.

“Finally we are getting some of the bigger renewable energy options we’re going to need after last year’s goals,” said Leah Lopez Schmalz, chief program officer of Connecticut Fund for the Environment.

Katie Dykes, commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, agreed.

“There’s a lot to celebrate,” she said. “What the Legislature has put into our hands are some of the most powerful tools for reducing carbon emissions we’ve had yet.”

The two most celebrated were bills to increase the state’s commitment to offshore wind and correct problems with solar policy approved last year.

The offshore wind measure was designed to help the state better compete with neighboring states for offshore wind and the economic development that comes with it. It passed overwhelmingly in the House and unanimously in the Senate.

The effort to correct last year’s clean energy bill began almost as soon as the measure passed. The problem involved determining how solar power customers are compensated for the excess power their panels produce during certain times of the day when the sun is strongest.

A plan to change the compensation method was widely opposed by environmental activists and many legislators, including some who voted for initial passage. It became must-pass legislation because the utilities said even with approval, they couldn’t implement it in time and because several popular solar programs would have expired without replacements.

That measure ultimately linked to a Connecticut version of the national Green New Deal. Here it was called the Green New Economy and was envisioned to be a jobs and economic driver with a set of ambitious goals. But that piece of the legislation was watered down considerably, to the disappointment of many.

Advocates vow to come back next year with a more robust package. In the meantime, they consider the changes to the solar program a major win.

“Legislators couldn’t escape the reality of bad policy,” said Amy McLean Salls, Connecticut director and senior policy advocate of Acadia Center, who has fought for the revisions for more than a year. “It’s not incidental. It has to be deliberate. It has to be well done. They have to understand their policy could dictate the demise of the solar industry in this state.”

Sliding through almost unnoticed as part of the budget was what had been a separate measure to shore up electric vehicle adoption in the state. Its key components establish levels of zero-emission vehicle adoption for state fleets — 50 percent of the new purchases of cars and light-duty trucks by 2030 and 30 percent of buses.

It also dedicates an annual $3 million funding stream to provide rebates under the Connecticut Hydrogen and Electric Automobile Purchase Rebate program and maintains the program through 2025.

Environmental advocates breathed a collective sigh of relief that the two-year budget did not include funding sweeps from the Connecticut Green Bank or the energy efficiency fund, as did the last two-year budget.

Dykes attributed that to Gov. Ned Lamont’s commitment to fostering predictability for business in the state. That includes energy efficiency.

But advocates were disappointed that their effort to return some or all of the second year of those sweeps, failed. Legislation that would have expanded the Green Bank’s mission to include programs and financing for a host of other environmental infrastructure projects made it through the Senate but ran out of time in the House.

Among other high profile measures — a ban on singleuse plastic grocery bags was passed as part of the budget. But it was not the comprehensive version worked out by a coalition of stakeholders.