In order to maintain our quality of life and meet our statutory goal of preserving 21% of our land by 2030, Connecticut must be able to protect open space and provide adequate stewardship for parcels that have already been acquired. Unfortunately, the cost of doing so often falls to local city and town governments, most of which have designated other funding priorities for their strained budgets. HB 5254 would allow—but not require—municipalities to collect revenue for the dedicated purpose of bolstering open space acquisition and maintenance, thereby improving quality of life and preserving their community’s treasured resources.
The “local option” is a conveyance or buyer’s fee—limited to 1% of the purchase—on the transfer of real property or the purchase of residential real estate. The revenue generated by this fee would provide dedicated local funding for land conservation, including water resources, farmland, forests, and open space, as well as land stewardship in both rural and urban communities.
In other states, municipalities and counties that have authorized similar conveyance fees for land preservation have found that local real estate land values are enhanced by these programs. Moreover, such programs tend to generate significant matching grants that double or triple the land protection funding in their communities.
Open space helps generate more than $502 million in state and local revenue. Towns and communities must be allowed to protect and maintain these parks, farms, historical sites, and open spaces in order to protect their local economies, keep and attract residents, and preserve their local character.
It should be noted that the legislation being considereddoes NOT require municipalities to adopt the local option. Instead, it authorizes a conveyance fee pilot program in Bolton, Bozrah, Bloomfield, Bethany, Coventry, Hartford, Lyme, New London, Norfolk, North Stonington and Warren, as well as any other interested municipalities. Any city or town that opts to establish the fee must first pass an ordinance in compliance with their local governmental procedures.
It is also important to understand that the legislation, as currently proposed, includes protections for first-time home buyers and low-income individuals by exempting purchases of $150,000 or less from the new fee.
Municipalities do not currently have the right to impose the needed conveyance fee without State approval. The Connecticut General Assembly must pass legislation to give cities and towns permission to adopt such an option through their local ordinances.
We ask that you support this legislation and empower the local authorities of Connecticut’s extremely diverse towns and cities with the ability to actively pursue preservation of open space if they agree that it is a priority for their community.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate on HB 5254.
To: Honorable Chairs Senator Cohen and Representative Demicco and Distinguished Members of the Environment Committee
From: Lori Brown, Executive Director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 232, An Act Concerning the Allowable Percentage of Leakage from Gas Pipelines.
Gas leakage from our current pipeline infrastructure in Connecticut is costly to ratepayers and causes considerable damage to our environment and our climate. SB 232 calls for stricter repair action for leaking fracked gas pipelines and prohibits gas companies from charging customers for gas lost from leakage.
gas from pipelines is primarily methane, which traps at least thirty times more heat in our atmosphere than carbon dioxide and is the second largest contributor to climate change. Methane leaks can destroy vegetation, disrupt local ecosystems, and increase the risk of explosions, like the deadly incident in Eastern Massachusetts last year.
Gas leaks are also a major obstacle to reducing our state’s greenhouse gas emissions to at least 45% below the level emitted in 2001 by 2030, and to at least 80% below the level emitted in 2001 by 2050. With our federal government in denial about the reality and impact of climate change, states like Connecticut must do everything in our power right now to reduce emissions.
Most of our state’s pipelines are made of leak-prone iron or metal instead of more durable plastics. According to the EPA, plastic pipelines leak almost 20 times less than their iron or metal counterparts. Enacting a hard cap on the percentage of allowable gas leakage will push pipeline owners to make needed upgrades. The proposed bill caps leakages at 1%, down from 3% currently allowed. Without this tighter cap, pipeline owners have little motivation to revamp their aging infrastructure.
Consumers should not foot the bill for leakages. Charging consumers for leaked gas which was never available to them in the first place is not acceptable. Big businesses should not be allowed to pass the cost of their maintenance failures onto consumers. Passage of SB 232 will remedy this injustice.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate SB 232.
Fracking waste contains dozens of chemicals — such as mercury, arsenic and lead — strongly linked to developmental or reproductive health problems. In addition, fracking waste contains radioactive materials, such as Radium-226 and Radium-228, and carcinogens such as benzene. Groundwater and water sources adjacent to fracking wastewater storage facilities are in danger of becoming contaminated by these toxic materials.
While Connecticut does not conduct fracking activities, Connecticut is located near Pennsylvania, a central hub of the fracking boom. We cannot allow Pennsylvania — or other states — to dispose of their hazardous fracking waste in Connecticut. A statewide ban on fracking waste would also prohibit the de-icing of roads with fracking waste, which poses additional threats to our communities and environment. A ban would also ensure that fracking waste could not be transported through our state, avoiding accidental spills of toxic waste should a serious accident occur during transport.
In recent years, dozens of Connecticut municipalities have passed local ordinances that ban fracking waste. Connecticut residents understand the threat of fracking waste in their communities. Permanently banning fracking waste is a move to protect Connecticut residents. On behalf of the CT League of Conservation Voters, thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate a permanent ban on fracking waste in our state.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, is the process of pumping fluid into ground to create fractures in rock for the production of natural gas and oil. The entire drilling and extraction process creates huge amounts of liquid and solid hazardous wastes. While fracking itself is not happening in Connecticut, ourstate could become a dumping ground for the unwanted waste produced from fracking in other states.
This concern prompted our State legislature to adopt a temporary moratorium on certain activities associated with fracking waste from gas drilling in Connecticut under Public Act 14-200.
Why prohibit fracking waste in Connecticut?
The drilling and extraction process of even a single shale well can produce over a million gallons of toxic radioactive wastewater and hundreds of tons of potentially radioactive solid waste. Oil and gas drilling wastes are a toxic soup of carcinogens (naphthalene, benzene, acrylamide and radium - causing breast, bone, liver and other cancers) environmental toxins (toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene - causing nervous system, kidney or liver harm) and contaminants (arsenic, lead, hexavalent chromium and radioactive radium-226 which has a half-life of 1600 yrs.) Yet, waste byproducts and brine from wells are used in some states for de-icing roads, as construction fill and brownfield capping, a concern prompting many Connecticut towns to move ahead of DEEP by adopting local ordinances banning fracking waste, with additional towns currently working toward such bans.
Bringing this dangerous waste to Connecticut for disposal via thousands of additional tanker trucks on our roadways poses the risk of accidents, spills, and contamination of private and public lands, drinking and surface waters, and costly repairs to road and publicly-owned treatment systems. Connecticut is one of the smallest and most densely populated states in the nation, and this activity would threaten resident health and risk land and water resources and property values forever. We know that waste from over10,000 fracked wells in Pennsylvania (one of the most radioactive shale deposits in the nation) is currently being shipped to at least 8 states, and Connecticut is targeted to be one of the recipients.
What needs to be done now?
Citizens want the State to take action to permanently prohibit the disposal, treatment, storage, handling, de-icing applications and other uses of fracking waste and by-products anywhere in Connecticut. Like our neighboring state of Vermont, we need to take final steps to protect all 169 of our Connecticut towns and cities. CTLCV urges you to support SB 753 to make the ban on fracking waste permanent.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT of HB 7003, An Act Concerning a Moratorium on the Use of Recycled Tire Rubber at Municipal and Public School Playgrounds.
We cannot ignore the threat rubber mulch poses to our children. A growing body of research indicates the presence of carcinogens and harmful toxins in this recycled rubber mulch. According to the EPA, it contains benzene, mercury, arsenic, heavy metals, and carcinogens like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Children can come into contact with these toxins through ingestion, prolonged touch, and even inhalation, as studies have found many of the chemicals become airborne at of 77ºF. According to the EPA, breathing air contaminated with PAHs may increase the risks of cancer, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that PAHs may also increase the chances of birth defects.
Because of these potential health risks, the EPA in collaboration with the CDC, has commissioned an in-depth study on the effects of rubber mulch. In lieu of the report, Connecticut must take steps to preemptively protect its children, who could be vulnerable to contamination from rubber mulch playgrounds. This bill, which proposes a moratorium on new rubber mulch playgrounds until the report is released, is the smart, safe choice.
The municipalities of Westport and Hartford have banned artificial turf, which utilizes crumb rubber, a material closely linked to rubber mulch. They understood the potential risks — and took steps to protect their residents. All of Connecticut should follow suit.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate on HB 7003.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT of HB 5828, An Act Establishing a Green Jobs Career Ladder.
Connecticut’s clean energy sector is ready to boom. According to a 2017 report authored by the National Association of State Energy Officials, the renewable energy industry in Connecticut already employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry despite its significantly lower penetration in the market. As utilities conform to the Connecticut Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)—which mandates that 40% of energy produced by 2030 comes from renewable sources—job growth in this sector is expected to grow exponentially.
As the renewable energy sector grows, it is imperative that Connecticut encourage and prepare young people to enter into the industry. The Green Jobs Career Ladder demonstrates, in a clear manner, what positions and salaries workers can expect to attain based on their education level. This tool will allow students—as well as other residents and workers interested in clean energy jobs—to more effectively plan for their careers in the rapidly developing clean energy sector.
Prospective workers will be attracted by the good wages and significant opportunity for career advancement that the clean energy sector offers. Private sector, renewable energy companies will also benefit from the implementation of this policy, as their job offerings will be centralized and easy to find.
The Green Jobs Career Ladder will increase the penetration of renewable energies in the Connecticut energy mix. Increased use of renewables will dramatically lower energy costs for consumers and businesses, reduce air pollution and associated public health problems, and factor heavily into meeting Connecticut’s emissions targets.
The Green Jobs Career Ladder is a simple policy mechanism which will have an outsize impact. On behalf of the CT League of Conservation Voters, I urge you to VOTE YES ON HB 5828.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate HB 5828.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT of HB 5910, An Act Limiting the Use of Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals in Certain Products.
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAs) are strongly linked to testicular and kidney cancer, liver damage, hormone disruption, increases in cholesterol, thyroid disruption, asthma, reproductive disorders including infertility, low birth weight, and decreased response to vaccines. Despite these dangers, PFAs continue to be used in firefighting foam, nonstick cookware; water-repellent clothing; stain resistant fabrics and carpets; some cosmetics; products that resist grease; water, and oil; food packaging; and food service ware.
There are more than 4,000 PFAs in use today, and their prevalence has caused pollution in over 94 sites. PFAs have been found in the tap water of millions of homes across the United States. Furthermore, the United States Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) found that PFAs were more harmful than previously thought and that supposed “safe levels” were 10 times less than previously thought.
Additionally, PFAs do not break down easily and remain in the environment or the human body for years. PFAs can leak out of landfills or industrial sites, endangering entire populations. It is time for Connecticut to step up and ban PFAs. On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, I urge you to VOTE YES ON HB 5910.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate on HB 5910.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT OF SB 771, An Act Adding Requirements for Electric Vehicle Charging Parking Spaces to the State Building Code.
At the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, we are deeply committed to our “Clean Energy For All” campaign, which garnered support from thousands of residents and over one hundred lawmakers in 2018. In order to achieve the initiative’s stated goal of 100% clean energy by 2050, Connecticut must begin rapidly adopting measures to encourage the efficient electrification of public and private vehicles.
Transportation accounts for roughly 38% of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas emissions, and is a significant contributor to air pollution. Electric vehicles (EVs) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 75% compared to traditional gasoline engines, and are therefore a critical component to reducing our emissions and improving our air quality.
Low-income communities are often disproportionately impacted by air pollution, making electric vehicles even more important for improving public health for the most vulnerable among us. The American Lung Association estimates that shifting to EVs and other zero emission vehicles will save Connecticut $1.3 billion in health and climate saving and reduce premature deaths and heart attacks.
In order to meet Connecticut’s mandated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 45% of 2001 levels by 2030, we would have to put roughly 500,000 zero emission vehicles on the road. This requires planning and forethought now.
Most EV drivers “charge where they park,” with approximately 90% of EV charging taking place at home and work. The remaining 10% occurs at a variety of commercial locations. Connecticut needs a cost-effective way to meet the charging needs of EV drivers and prepare for the greater numbers of EVs to come.
Constructing buildings with the requisite electrical infrastructure is significantly less expensive than retrofitting buildings after the fact. A cost-model for the city of San Francisco, which has adopted similar building codes, found the price of retrofitting EV parking spaces was two to six times more expensive than installing the infrastructure during initial construction. Between 2020 and 2025, California will save up to $310 million due to similar building codes.
Buildings being constructed today will last several decades at least. During their lifespan, it is highly likely that EVs will become the dominant mode of personal travel. Instead of waiting for this eventuality—thus incurring the higher costs of retrofitting—buildings should be required to preemptively adapt. In this sense, SB 771 is a cost-saving measure.
The presence of EV related infrastructure will also help assuage potential EV owner’s concerns about access to charging. This will in turn spur greater investment in EVs, decreasing Connecticut’s overall emissions and helping us maintain better air quality and fight climate change. It is truly a win-win that will make it easier to drive and ride electric in Connecticut.
Connecticut already has an EV ready building code for residential garages, but it is too broad and has not been enforced effectively. Adding requirements for residential and multi-family dwellings is critical to achieving maximum EV deployment.
Over fifty state and local governments have adopted similar legislation, including California, Oregon, Washington, Atlanta, Denver, New York, Oakland, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City and San Francisco. Connecticut should join these governments and further cement our status as a clean energy leader. On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, I urge you to VOTE YES on SB 771.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate on SB 771.
Elephant and rhinoceros poaching is a brutal practice in which tusks and horns are harvested off the faces of sometimes still-living animals. Poachers have also killed over one thousand park rangers across the globe in their relentless pursuit of illicit ivory.
The international ivory trade has been linked to both organized crime and terrorist organizations. President Obama recognized wildlife trafficking, of which the ivory trade is a part, as an escalating global crisis in 2013. In 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order to strengthen law enforcement efforts in combating wildlife trafficking and other transnational crimes.
Despite federal laws restricting wildlife trafficking, ivory and other illicit products continue to be smuggled into local and state markets. Therefore, we must have state laws to compliment federal laws and close loopholes.
In 2016, federal authorities inspected more than 183,000 shipments of wildlife products. Despite these efforts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services believe a significant amount of elephant ivory continues to be illegally imported. They also noted that federal law does not regulate commercial activities that occur entirely within a state. HB 5394 would close intrastate loopholes and make law enforcement’s job easier by complimenting federal action.
New York and New Jersey have passed laws to this effect, and Connecticut must join them in passing a state ban to stop ivory traffickers. As neighboring states take measures to combat wildlife trafficking, products like ivory inevitably move to states with weaker laws and regulations.
It is important to note that HB 5394 would NOT criminalize possession of ivory currently owned by Connecticut residents nor prohibit inheritance or noncommercial gifts. It would also not restrict the sale of genuine antiques or musical instruments that meet specific requirements. It would simply make it harder for criminals to move illicit ivory through our state, and therefore we urge you to vote YES on HB 5394.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate on HB 5394.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT of HB 5251, An Act Prohibiting the Possession and Trade of Shark Fins.
The practice of shark finning is brutal, wasteful, and extraordinarily disruptive to our ocean ecosystems. Shark fins are removed while the animal is still alive. They are then thrown back into the ocean and left to die painful deaths from shock, blood loss, and starvation, results in the deaths of tens of millions of sharks each year.
Harvested fins are used to make shark fin soup, a delicacy in many parts of the world—and a dish served off-menu or on “secret menus” at some Connecticut establishments.
Sharks are a stabilizing predator in a variety of ocean ecosystems, but because of shark finning, numerous species have been pushed to the brink of extinction. Without them, other populations of fish can expand exponentially, disrupting natural processes and threatening commercial fishing resources.
The practice of shark finning is banned nationwide, but the trade of shark fins has been allowed to continue in most states, including Connecticut. By allowing the trade and use of shark fins, Connecticut implicitly supports the global shark fin trade.
A 2017 letter from over one hundred marine scientists demanded a ban on the trade or possession of shark fins for ecological and moral reasons. In addition, eleven states have banned the trade or possession of shark fins, including our neighbors, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York. It is time for Connecticut to do the same.
By instituting this ban on shark fin possession and trade, Connecticut will do its part to stabilize our ocean ecosystems and stop the horrific practice of finning.
In conjunction with the Humane Society of Connecticut, the Connecticut League of Conservation voters supports the following amendment to HB 5251:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. Title 26 of the general statutes entitled “FISHERIES AND GAME,” Chapter 490 (“Fisheries and Game”), is amended by adding thereto the following new part:
PART X – TRADE IN SHARK FINS 26-186b. Definitions. As used in this part:
“Shark” means any species of the subclass Elasmobranchii; and
“Shark fin” means the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached fin, or the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached tail, of a shark.
26-186c. Prohibition.
Except as provided in this part no person shall possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin.
A person who holds a license or permit to take or land sharks may separate a shark fin from a lawfully landed shark during the ordinary course of preparing the body of the shark for consumption, sale, trade, or distribution; provided, however, that a shark fin so separated from the shark shall be immediately destroyed unless used by the person for the purposes of taxidermy and subsequent display.
The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection may issue a permit for the possession of a shark fin to a person conducting noncommercial, scientific research.
A shark fin seized by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection through the enforcement of this section shall be destroyed.
26-186d. Penalty. Any person who violates any provision of this part shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Each shark fin possessed, sold, offered for sale, traded, or distributed in violation of this part shall constitute a separate offense.
Section 2. This Act shall take effect six (6) months after the date on which it is enacted.
Section 3. The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other laws protecting imperiled species. This chapter may not be construed to limit any other state laws protecting imperiled species or to prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing more stringent laws to protect imperiled species.
Section 4. If any provision or clause of this Act or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate on HB 5251.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT OF SB 20, An Act Prohibiting the Import, Sale, and Possession of African Elephants, Lions, Leopards, Black Rhinoceros, White Rhinoceros, and Giraffes.
Poaching has decimated the population of African elephants, lions, leopards, black rhinoceros, white rhinoceros, and giraffes. These animals are critical to maintaining the ecological biodiversity of their regions. Additionally, elephants, lions, leopards, rhinoceros and giraffes are important cogs in local tourist economies.
Illegal poaching is a major source of funding for criminal organizations and terrorist groups. Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group closely linked to ISIL, is responsible for an estimated 25,000 elephant deaths over the past ten years. The Lord’s Resistance Army, led by infamous murderer Joseph Kony, has poached hundreds of elephants in order to fund their operations. In 2013, President Obama recognized wildlife trafficking as an escalating global crisis.
Many trophy hunters claim the money they spend goes towards local conservation efforts, therefore offsetting their actions. But the evidence contradicts their claim. A study found that only 3% of trophy hunting revenue is used for conservation related activities. Additionally, trophy hunting enables illegal poaching by creating a legal market for poachers to sell their goods. Since South Africa began allowing trophy hunting in 2004, poaching has increased by over 5000%.
The majority of lions killed for sport can be attributed to American tourists. From 2005-2015, Connecticut residents killed thirty-nine lions and one giraffe, then proceeded to import their trophies. Additional permits were obtained by Connecticut residents to hunt and kill African elephants in Botswana, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.
The United States currently has no protections in place for giraffes and insufficient protection in place for African elephants, lions, leopards and rhinoceros. Connecticut must step up and do its part to protect delicate ecosystems, thwart illegal poachers, stabilize local economies, and cut off funding to terrorist and criminal groups.
On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voter, I urge you to VOTE YES ON SB 20, and pass a statewide ban on the import, sale and possession of the “big five” species.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on SB 20.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in OPPOSITION to HB 5185, An Act Concerning Consent Orders Entered into by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
Consent orders are an important tool that allows the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to work out an agreement with violators of environmental laws so long as they adhere to conditions of the agreement. Consent orders are a valuable incentive for offenders to remedy their actions and reduce their financial liability to the state.
In the past, CTLCV has strongly opposed similar efforts to eliminate consent orders. Most recently, in 2018, a similar bill would have eliminated consent orders retroactively—allowing a particular bad actor to escape punishment after it entered a consent order, failed to act on the agreement, and lied about its effort to remedy its offense. Eliminating the DEEP Commissioner’s ability to revoke consent orders would have allowed that polluter to escape punishment for serious wrongdoing. Fortunately, this bill died when lawmakers realized the damage it would do to DEEP’s ability to enforce environmental protections and hold violators accountable.
Eliminating consent orders would make it harder to protect our air, water, and natural resources from pollution. DEEP’s ability to monitor and enforce existing laws is already hampered by significant reductions to its budget and staff. Consent orders allow DEEP to work with violators on solutions to their offenses, operating more efficiently and to the benefit of all parties involved.
Consent orders are NOT contracts, but rather agreements between violators and DEEP. They are to the benefit of offenders, and their elimination would result in violators simply being slapped with heavy fines and other punishments.
HB 5185 would undermine DEEP’s authority and likely lead to more legal battles in our already backlogged judiciary branch. It is a deeply misguided bill, and we at CTLCV urge you to VOTE NO on HB 5185.
We appreciate your effort to cast your votes with the protection of our environment in mind.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on HB 5185.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT OF HB 5002, An Act Concerning the Development of a Green New Deal.
Climate change is THE issue facing our generation, and its impacts are already being felt. From raging wildfires and vicious hurricanes to torrential rains and unprecedented droughts, extreme weather is only going to get worse across the globe and right here in Connecticut. We risk billions of dollars in damage to our shoreline, infrastructure, public health, agriculture, and more if we do not take bold action.
While climate change affects us all, it does not affect us all equally. The most vulnerable among us in low-income households and communities of color already grapple with some of the worst pollution and public health crises. Climate change magnifies these injustices and exposes working families to new threats from severe storms, record-shattering temperatures, flooding, and more. Any attempt to address climate change must also address its disproportionate impact on low-income households and communities of color.
The Green New Deal can offer a vision for a brighter, healthier future for ALL of us by adhering to a few critical guiding principles:
Community Inclusion: Any policies developed on climate change, such as implementing climate resiliency adaptations must take into account the needs of ALL the communities directly impacted.
Lower Emissions: Connecticut approved ambitious reduction in its carbon footprint and must act decisively now to meet those goals, and transition to 100% fossil-free clean energy by date certain.
Green Collar Jobs: Smart investment in green initiatives can create public and private job growth as well as generate cost savings that lead to economic stimulus.
A Just Transition: The right green policies can level the playing field in Connecticut. Displaced workers must be given access to training and new opportunities in the green economy, and policies like energy efficiency standards should impact small businesses and big corporations equally—and enable everyone to thrive.
For the sake of our future, we must transition away from fossil fuels and to 100% clean, renewable energy. This will require a Green New Deal which not only outlines a clear vision for the future, but also contains concrete policies concerning energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainability, and resiliency.
The Green New Deal should be a blueprint to stimulate the economy, tackle climate change, and promote racial and social equality at the same time.
These are some of the broad topics which could include a myriad of programs and policies, including but not limited to:
Strict energy efficiency standards for buildings to reduce emissions and save costs;
A “Green Jobs Ladder” or similar workforce development plan with an emphasis on training low-income and working-class residents;
Creating a Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (R-PACE) program to help low-income households finance energy efficient improvements;
Protecting energy efficiency funds from diversion;
A mandate that every action Connecticut’s regulatory agencies take should work to reduce the state’s carbon footprint;
Increasing the urgency of Connecticut’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS);
A significantly higher offshore wind procurement target;
An increased community solar allowance;
Equitable net-metering to incentivize Connecticut residents and businesses to install solar panels;
Electrified mass transit;
Bans on new natural gas, coal, oil or other fossil fuel or oil infrastructure development;
An emphasis on land conservation in order to sequester carbon;
Increased access to compost to reduce methane leakage from landfills;
Emphasis on the role of mini-grids and smart grids in an increasingly decentralized power distribution structure;
Education on sustainable farming practices, like crop rotation and soil management;
Upgraded coastal infrastructure to survive sea level rise and large storms;
Mandated community and stakeholder involvement in the planning and implementation of resiliency measures;
Monitoring and holding accountable state agencies and programs to ensure implementation of goals to “lead by example.”
Because it is not enough to simply set a goal, CTLCV also asks any Green New Deal include a mechanism, such as a Green New Deal Advisory Committee, to track, report, and advise on the bill’s progress. This Committee could be composed of a diverse group of stakeholders, including, but not limited to local and statewide legislators, climate scientists, economists, labor representatives, and business leaders. It could be empowered to report and advise on the programs implemented through the Green New Deal. In this manner, the legislature will be armed with the knowledge it needs to expand successful programs and modify those that fail to meet expectations.
Connecticut cannot afford half-measures when it comes to climate change. CTLCV applauds the Green New Deal as serious effort to address the overarching crisis of our time.
In the absence of action in Washington, it is up to us to protect our resources and our future. The legislature has a golden opportunity to establish Connecticut as a leader in the fight against climate change, but only if we take bold action.
Thank you for your time and consideration as you deliberate on HB 5002.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT OF HB 6242, An Act Prohibiting Surcharges from Being Levied on Utility Customers to Subsidize Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity.
Natural gas has been on the decline in both Connecticut and New England, making new natural gas pipelines wildly unnecessary. Because of ambitious clean energy and emissions goals set by Connecticut and our neighboring states, the use of natural gas in New England must fall by 27% by 2023. Furthermore, a 2017 study by Synapse Energy Economics found that New England’s natural gas intake would decrease by 41% by 2030.
As natural gas continues to be replaced by zero- and low-emission forms of energy, it is unconscionable to ask ratepayers to foot the bill for an unnecessary pipeline. Under the Pipeline Tax, Connecticut homeowners, ratepayers, and small businesses would be forced to pick up the tab for big energy companies at a total cost of over $6.6 billion. The Pipeline Tax is essentially consumer-subsidized corporate welfare for a project that ultimately benefits nobody but gas companies.
This type of pipeline tax has been overruled by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and rejected by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. In Connecticut, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) cancelled its natural gas request for proposals, referencing the unfair burden to our state’s ratepayers if other states did not participate in paying for the new pipeline infrastructure.
However, the law allowing ratepayers to foot the bill for any future natural gas expansion project is still on the books. The passage of HB 6242 will protect utility customers from being forced to subsidize the cost of a needless pipeline.
Only pipeline developers stand to benefit from building this infrastructure. They will get a high, guaranteed rate of return for 20 years, funded by ratepayers, whether the pipelines are used or not. That is why they are pushing so hard for the pipeline to be built, but it would be inequitable to place corporate interests over the economic health and well-being of Connecticut families and small businesses. It is also worth noting that fracked natural gas is highly polluting and poses a public health threat to local communities. These types of pipelines are prone to methane leaks, which are roughly thirty times more potent than carbon dioxide. There are over 700 known leaks in Hartford alone—which amounts to enough gas to power 215 homes a year. Leaks also increase the risk of deadly explosions, like the incident in Northeastern Massachusetts last year.
We are at a pivotal moment for energy policy. Connecticut must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels—not lock our state into a costly, needless gas pipeline. Connecticut can reaffirm our position as a clean energy leader, by investing in renewable technologies of the future—not dirty technologies of the past.
HB 6242 will put a stop to the onerous, ill-conceived and unnecessary Pipeline Tax. On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, I urge you to VOTE YES ON HB 6242.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on HB 6242.
On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (CTLCV), thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony IN SUPPORT of HB 7142, An Act Concerning the Licensing of New and Used Car Dealers. We at CTLCV have continually supported similar legislation in previous sessions because we believe it is necessary to remove outdated obstacles for consumers who want to purchase electric vehicles.
Our neighbors in New York and Massachusetts already allow electric vehicles to be sold directly to consumers, driving business—and revenue—away from Connecticut. Given our state’s need for additional revenue as well as the growing appetite for electric vehicles, allowing direct sales is a clear win for both our environment and our economy.
According to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), emissions from transportation account for 38% of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas emissions. Connecticut passed ambitious greenhouse gas emissions goals last session, and in order to meet those targets, we must take steps to reduce pollution from transportation—and that means replacing traditional combustion cars with electric vehicles.
Unfortunately, a study by Sierra Club and a New York Times report have both shown that traditional car dealers lack enthusiasm or motivation when it comes to selling electric vehicles. Because these cars often require less maintenance than traditional combustion vehicles, dealers often place sales of traditional cars ahead of electric vehicles. As a result, the public is not getting the full information on the benefits of electric vehicles.
Electric vehicles are beneficial to all Connecticut residents — not just electric vehicle owners. Replacing traditional internal combustion engine cars with electric vehicles decreases air pollution, which causes asthma and other respiratory diseases. Members of marginalized communities which suffer from disproportionate rates of respiratory diseases have much to gain through widespread adoption of electric vehicles. In addition, the expanded use of electric vehicles will increase the net revenue of utilities companies, which will be partially distributed back to residents. In short, electric vehicles reduce electricity bills for all Connecticut residents.
Electric vehicles are also significantly more fuel efficient than traditional cars powered by internal combustion engines. One average, electric vehicles produce less than half the carbon emissions that non-electric vehicles produce. The adoption of electric vehicles will also lead to reductions in future public health and climate-associated costs.
Direct sales of vehicles like Tesla electric cars and traditional dealer franchises coexist throughout the country. To date, there is no evidence of job loss in states where Tesla sells directly to consumers.
From an environmental, clean energy, and economic perspective, anything that makes it easier for consumers to drive, purchase, and maintain an electric vehicle is good for Connecticut. HB 7142 would promote consumer choice, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved public health. CTLCV urges you to VOTE YES on HB 7142.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on HB 7142.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in OPPOSITION to HB 7128, An Act Concerning the Modification or Revocation of a Consent Order Entered into by the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection.
Consent orders are an important tool that allows the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to work out an agreement with violators of environmental laws so long as they adhere to conditions of the agreement. Consent orders are a valuable incentive for offenders to remedy their actions and reduce their financial liability to the state.
In the past, CTLCV has strongly opposed similar efforts to eliminate consent orders. Most recently, in 2018, a similar bill would have eliminated consent orders retroactively—allowing a particular bad actor to escape punishment after it entered a consent order, failed to act on the agreement, and lied about its effort to remedy its offense. Eliminating the DEEP Commissioner’s ability to revoke consent orders would have allowed that polluter to escape punishment for serious wrongdoing. Fortunately, this bill died when lawmakers realized the damage it would do to DEEP’s ability to enforce environmental protections and hold violators accountable.
Eliminating consent orders would make it harder to protect our air, water, and natural resources from pollution. DEEP’s ability to monitor and enforce existing laws is already hampered by significant reductions to its budget and staff. Consent orders allow DEEP to work with violators on solutions to their offenses, operating more efficiently and to the benefit of all parties involved.
Consent orders are NOT contracts, but rather agreements between violators and DEEP. They are to the benefit of offenders, and their elimination would result in violators simply being slapped with heavy fines and other punishments.
HB 7128 would undermine DEEP’s authority and likely lead to more legal battles in our already backlogged judiciary branch. It is a deeply misguided bill, and we at CTLCV urge you to VOTE NO on HB 7128.
We appreciate your effort to cast your votes with the protection of our environment in mind.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on HB 7128.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in SUPPORT of HB 6516, An Act Concerning the Use of Flame Retardant Chemicals in Children’s Products and Upholstered Residential Furniture.
Toxic flame retardant chemicals represent a significant risk to public health and have proven ineffective at improving fire safety. These chemicals have been linked to neurological impairments, endocrine disruption, interference with thyroid hormone action, immune disorders, and even cancer. Studies have also found that they pose a disproportionate risk to the development of fetuses, infants, and young children. Because of the increased threat these toxic flame retardants pose to children, they should not have any place in products aimed at youths.
These toxic chemicals are also widespread, migrating out of household consumer products and into the home environment. Toxic flame retardants can migrate out of furniture and bond with household dust, leading to significant risk of exposure. A 2004 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 97% of people living in the United States have measurable quantities of chemical flame retardants in their blood.
Flame retardants are also highly persistent in the environment. They collect in the fatty tissue of humans, fish, and wildlife, and are considered to be one of the most common contaminants in our streams and rivers by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Toxic flame retardants have been found in virtually every treated wastewater discharge in the nation.
A growing body of research also calls into question the efficacy of these flame retardants. Household fires have become more toxic as more flame retardants are used in home furnishings. When these chemicals burn, they produce large quantities of smoke, soot, and chlorine gas. These chemicals put firefighters and first responders at greater risk of certain cancers because of their exposure to these toxic fumes.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found higher rates of several types of cancer—including mesothelioma, esophageal cancer, and cancers of the mouth, kidneys, breasts, intestines, stomach, and lungs—in a study of 30,000 career firefighters. Our first responders put their lives on the line, and we owe it to them to protect their health and safety as best we can. The smoke and soot generated by these toxic chemicals can also make it harder for firefighters to locate victims in household fires. While flame retardants may have been created with fire safety in mind, it is clear they actually increase the risk of serious harm. Furthermore, there is no data to suggest that flame retardants actually prevent fire-related deaths. States that do not require furniture to be treated with flame retardants do not have a statistically higher incidence of fire deaths than the State of California, which imposed flammability standards in 1975 leading to the use of chemical flame retardants in nearly all household furniture. In 2013, because of health concerns and lack of evidence about improved safety, California actually repealed its flammability standards.
Overwhelming evidence suggest flame retardants pose significant threat to our public health while offering no tangible benefit. To protect the health of our children and first responders, CTLCV urges you to VOTE YES on HB 6516.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on HB 6516.
On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (CTLCV), thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony IN SUPPORT of HB 7205, An Act Concerning the Accessibility of Electric Vehicles. We at CTLCV are committed to promoting equity for low-income and minority communities who are disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change, and HB 7205 would greatly benefit the most vulnerable among us.
Converting Connecticut’s public fleet to electric vehicles (EVs) would be a significant step towards reducing air pollution. In 2018, the American Lung Association gave seven of Connecticut’s eight counties an F for air quality, and the remaining county received a D. It is clear that we must take action to protect the air we breathe from pollution.
Transportation is one of the leading causes of poor air quality, and any attempt to fight pollution must include electrification of our vehicles—especially our public buses, trucks, and light fleet.
By investing in clean buses, Connecticut would also be investing in cleaner air and healthier communities. While zero-emission buses may cost more initially, they cost much less to maintain than their diesel counterparts. Each diesel bus replaced with a zero-emission bus is equivalent to taking twenty-seven cars off the road, and it can save the state upwards of $11,000 per year in fuel and maintenance costs. Given our continual budget strains as well as our aggressive emissions goals, it is imperative we invest in clean buses.
Connecticut also has an opportunity to include school buses in its electrification efforts. Every day, over 450,000 students are forced to breathe toxic fumes from diesel school buses. These fumes are proven to cause asthma, bronchitis, and even lung cancer. Asthma is the leading cause of absenteeism for elementary school students in Connecticut, and the Connecticut Department of Public Health estimates that one in eight students in low-income neighborhoods suffers from asthma. We cannot ignore the impact these dirty diesel buses have on our children.
Exposure to pollution from diesel fumes at a young age will have life-long health consequences for Connecticut children, especially in low0income communities. We cannot afford to wait any longer to address this issue. Connecticut lives depend on it.
We urge the committee to not only VOTE YES on HB 7205, but to also include the electrification of our school buses in this initiative.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on HB 7205.
CTLCV strongly opposes opening Litchfield County to bear hunting. Connecticut’s black bears are a critical to our ecosystem. Their numbers are small and they are slow to reproduce, making them particularly vulnerable should Connecticut authorize hunting. We have seen horrific consequences of bear hunting in other states, such as New Jersey—where the hunting was reckless, brutal, and indiscriminate—and Florida—where the hunt had to be stopped when too many bears were slaughtered in the first year. These incidents should raise serious concerns about implementing this legislation.
Overhunting black bears is extremely damaging to our local ecosystems. Black bears regulate insect populations and help disperse seeds. With insect-born illnesses like West Nile and Lyme on the rise, we cannot afford to remove their natural predators.
At least ten scientific studies have demonstrated that recreational hunting does nothing to resolve human-bear conflicts. According to a 2011 study in the Journal of Wildlife and Management, there is little correlation between black bear population and black bear attacks. Additionally, the study found that at least 38% of attacks were directly linked to poor food management practices by humans.
Proponents of hunting often cite “problem” bears that damage or destroy crops and property or threaten human lives. However, Connecticut already has existing laws that would allow these problem bears to be destroyed. Opening up our small bear population to a sustained hunt is a needless, kneejerk response to a problem that already had a solution.
Rather than resorting to inhumane and ecologically devastating hunts, Connecticut should adopt an education-based public safety strategy. We can humanely reduce conflicts between humans and bears by educating residents on removing attractants like spilled garbage or bird feeders, supervising and leashing small animals when outside, and wearing whistles while hiking to keep nearby wildlife at bay. In 2014, for instance, Yosemite Park reported a 92% decrease in human-black bear conflicts due to education programs.
CTLCV support efforts to investigate nonlethal bear management strategies, like the proposed SB 894. These studies should focus on rigorous public education.
Hunting is not the solution to reducing conflicts between bears and humans—it would only leave us vulnerable to potentially devastating ecological consequences. SB 586 does not serve the best interests of the public or the environment. On behalf of CTLCV, I urge you to VOTE NO on SB 586 in order to protect our bears from a hunting frenzy, and preserve our wildlife for future generations.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on SB 586.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORTof HB 7294, An Act Concerning Bottle Redemption in the State.
Connecticut’s refundable container deposit (or landmark “Bottle Bill”) is a tried and tested method of incentivizing recycling and keeping our communities and open spaces clean from litter. Since it was first implemented in 1980, the program has succeeded in recycling millions of tons of bottles, while simultaneously creating millions in cost-savings for taxpayers who would otherwise have to pay for littering and municipal clean-ups.
The Bottle Bill works by imposing a small deposit on a container at the time of purchase, which the consumer fully recovers if they recycle the container. The beverage distributor pays a handling fee to the retail store or redemption center for processing the returned containers. If the container is not recycled, the unredeemed deposit is instead paid to the State. Connecticut collected an average of $29.2 million per year from 2010 to 2016 due to the Bottle Bill.
Despite its success, the Bottle Bill must be improved. Redemption centers, where bottles are brought to be recycled, have not seen an increase in pay per bottle in over 35 years, despite inflation, minimum wage increases, and increased overhead. Redemption centers and retailers in Connecticut are paid just 1.5 cents for every beer and malt liquor container, while soda and water containers are worth just 2 cents.
Redemption centers face rising costs just to keep their doors open, and the low fees they receive for containers can no longer cover the storage and processing of bottles they collect. As a result, many redemption centers from across the state have been forced to close. Four years ago, there were twenty-one redemption centers in Connecticut. Now there are only sixteen. More will continue to shutter and close if we do not act, leaving residents without a convenient place to return their bottles, and likely resulting in more plastics in landfills and waterways.
All other Northeastern states have higher handling fees. As a result, they also enjoy higher recycling rates.
Additionally, our current deposit law is limited to beer, carbonated soft drinks (including mineral waters and soda waters), and non-carbonated beverages (including plain, flavored and enhanced water.) But changes in products and consumer preferences show the need to expand the bottle depositto juices, teas, sports drinks, and energy drinks.
HB 7294 promises to remedy these issues and improve the bottle deposit program by increasing the handling fee for redemption centers to 3.5 cents for beer and malt beverages and to 4.5 cents for all others beverages. The redemption fee for consumers would also increase from 5 cents to 10 cents, while the types of beverages eligible for redemption would expand to include juices, tea, sports drinks and energy drinks.
When Connecticut passed the Bottle Bill, we established ourselves as a leader in the fight for sustainability. Expanding and improving it today will once again put our state on a cleaner, brighter path. We at CTLCV urge you to VOTE YES on HB 7294.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on this important matter.
On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (CTLCV), thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony IN SUPPORT of amending HB 5019 and SB 1003, both of which seek to reduce our state’s reliance on single-use plastic bags.
Connecticut residents use approximately 400 million plastic bags annually. Unfortunately, studies show only 5-10% of these plastic bags are properly recycled nationwide. Many of the remaining plastic bags enter our waterways, end up slowly degrading in landfills, or contribute to toxic emissions at waste-to-energy facilities. Single-use plastic bags clog gutters and sewers, get caught in trees, and pose a serious threat to our wildlife.
The average plastic bag is used for about 12 minutes, but can damage our environment for over a thousand years. Reducing the use of single-use bags will ease the burden on our waste management system, cut down on pollution, and protect our waterways and wildlife.
While it is clear that Connecticut must act to reduce the use of single-use plastic bags. A ban on plastic bags is the only way to ensure a proper phase out.
The environmental community proposes phasing in a ban on single-use plastic bags over the next two years. At the same time, we propose phasing in a 10-cent tax on paper bags to encourage shoppers to switch to reusable bags rather than single-use paper. This approach has won the support of our state’s grocers. Retailers like Big Y are already moving away from single-use plastic bags.
We urge the committee to SUPPORT and AMEND HB 5019 and SB 1003. Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on these bills.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORTof HB 5385, An Act Requiring the Elimination of Single-Use Plastic Straws.
The time has come to eliminate single-use plastic straws. Like other single-use plastic products, straws are typically used for a matter of minutes, but they can damage our environment for thousands of years. These plastics are not typically recycled, and too often pollute our waterways, clog our sewers, and threaten our wildlife when ingested. Even in landfills, they degrade over hundreds of years, and can contribute to toxic fumes at waste-to-energy plants.
Unlike some soft plastics, plastic straws are rejected from recycling plants due to their tendency to get stuck in machinery. Therefore, discarded plastic straws at best end up in our landfills, and at worse pollute our communities, waterways, and environment.
There are biodegradable and sustainable alternatives to plastic straws. As we move away from single-use plastics and increase the demand for these alternatives, production costs for these environmentally friendly options will fall.
New York, California, and New Jersey, along with the cities of Seattle, Oakland and San Francisco, have implemented some form of a single-use plastic straw ban. Internationally, England, the European Union, Taiwan, and Vancouver—as well as an increasing number of private companies like Starbucks and McDonald’s—have banned single-use plastic straws. Connecticut should build on this growing momentum to “stop the suck” and end plastic pollution. On behalf of the CT League of Conservation Voters, I strongly urge you to VOTE YES ON HB 5385.
Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on this bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORTof HB 5384 and SB 229, which would eliminate the use of polystyrene containers and trays.
Single-use expanded polystyrene containers fill up our landfills, endanger our wildlife and are easily replaced by biodegradable alternatives. Polystyrene waste accounts for approximately 30% of landfill space in the US. Once thrown away, these containers sit in landfills for hundreds of years. Polystyrene that does not end up in landfills often litter and pollute our waterways, urban areas and parks.
Polystyrene has proven to be a headache for recycling centers. Unlike plastic bottles that are generally clean when disposed of, polystyrene is often contaminated with food waste, and in many cases cannot be reused or recycled. Due to these challenges, there is not a single recycling center which accepts polystyrene trays and containers of any kind in Connecticut. This means new polystyrene containers must be continually manufactured. Furthermore, polystyrene is made from petroleum—a dirty fossil fuel—and production involves significant greenhouse gas emissions.
As polystyrene eventually degrades, it often breaks into small pieces, posing a hazard to wildlife. Animals that ingest polystyrene can suffer significant internal damage, and may even starve if they swallow a large enough amount, as the material cannot be digested.
Styrene and benzene, chemicals found in polystyrene trays and containers, have been identified as possible carcinogens by the Department of Health and Human Services. These chemicals can leak from trays when exposed to heat, potentially harming children. Even a small degree of risk is unwarranted, particularly when safer alternatives exist.
There are numerous biodegradable alternatives to polystyrene. Outside of reusable containers and reduced consumption, a litany of ecologically friendly options exist to replace polystyrene containers and tray. Starch, bamboo, and other biodegradable materials can fill the void left by banning harmful polystyrene materials.
In recent years, large companies like IKEA and Dell have transitioned from polystyrene packaging to more sustainable, biodegradable options. In addition, dozens of cities across the country have successfully adopted bans on polystyrene. In San Francisco, independent studies observed a 41% decrease in polystyrene litter in the first three years of the ban. Here in Connecticut, school districts such as Hamden and Guilford have adopted bans on polystyrene trays, citing many of the concerns raised above
It is important to note that cities that have implemented polystyrene container bans have not suffered negative economic impacts. A study of Seattle’s ban found that no store or vendor went out of business due to the ban. Additionally, HB 5384 provides DEEP with the opportunity to create a hardship waiver, which would temporarily exempt certain businesses with a “demonstrated financial hardship” from the ban until they are able to transition away from polystyrene containers. Other municipalities, like Portland, Oregon, implemented this type of hardship waiver to great success.
It is time for Connecticut to join the growing wave of cities and communities saying no to polystyrene. On behalf of CTLCV, I urge you to VOTE YES ON HB 5384 and SB 229.
Scientific consensus and disasters around the world offer increasing evidence that climate change is the greatest threat to our generation. In the absence of strong leadership from Washington, it is up to states like Connecticut to take bold action to ward off catastrophes. Many economists and policy experts agree: the fastest, most cost-effective and predictable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a to put a price on carbon.
Carbon pricing would incentivize consumers and businesses to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. Currently, Connecticut residents are forced to pay for the damage major polluters cause to our climate, our atmosphere, and our public health. A carbon price would require every industry—including big polluters—to pay for the carbon they produce.
Numerous industry leaders support carbon pricing, including 39 Fortune 500 companies and even conservative business groups like the Partnership for Responsible Growth and the Niskanen Center. Over 1,300 companies already impose an internal carbon price on operations. Additionally, some forty countries and more than twenty cities, states, and provinces already use carbon pricing mechanisms, with more seeking to implement them in the future. Together carbon pricing arrangements now in place cover about half their emissions, which translates to about 13% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.
It is imperative that any carbon pricing initiative recognize the potential impacts on our most vulnerable communities, as well as the competitive position of Connecticut firms. Discussions and negotiations regarding specific program implementations—such as revenue neutral versus revenue positive, cost containment provisions, potential recipients of proceeds generated, and potential carve outs—will provide an opportunity to craft the most effective program.
On behalf of the CT League of Conservation Voters, I urge you to SUPPPORT SB 1064. Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on this bill.
In 2018, the Trump administration authorized offshore drilling and seismic surveys on the Atlantic seaboard--apractice that has repeatedly come under fire for its damaging effects to our ocean ecosystems. A threat to our marine life is also a threat to our fishing and tourism industries, and offshore drilling also poses considerable risks to public health.
Oil spills are a significant risk in any drilling operation, and they pose a huge threat to Connecticut’s coastal communities. Access to clean water and healthy beaches are critical to coastal businesses, but oil spills can contaminate our water and kill marine life. Oil exposure has also been linked to neurological, respiratory, and developmental issues, especially in children.
Offshore drilling also requires seismic surveys—firing blasts of compressed air into the sea, which then bounce back to them, revealing the location of oil and gas deposits. The sounds emitted by these surveys confuse animals who communicate through similar methods, and can lead to permanent hearing damage for others. These effects lead to changes in fish migration patterns, which can both destabilize the ecosystem and negatively affect the fishing industry.
Governors of Atlantic seaboard states have expressed strong opposition to offshore drilling. From Florida to Maryland to Connecticut, there is strong consensus that offshore drilling poses more risks than benefits to both our environment and our economy.
On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, I urge you to SUPPORT SB 588. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT OF HB 7352, An Act Concerning Minor Revisions and Additions to the Education Statutes.
In 2015, Connecticut adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which include climate change as a core element of science education, beginning in middle-school. By including language from HB 5011 that broadens the mandate to include elementary school students, HB 7372 will ensure that our youngest students can be equipped with an understanding of what is at stake and the role they can play in preserving their planet.
Climate change must be dealt with head on if we wish to save our planet and preserve it for future generations. However, according to a survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, only 58% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activities. Nearly 30% of Americans don’t believe in climate change at all. This knowledge gap stands in sharp contrast to the broad scientific consensus which has called for immediate action to remedy more than a century of environmental degradation. Climate change education can help close this knowledge gap—and equip future generations with the tools to solve complex climate issues.
Some Connecticut towns are already demonstrating the impact climate change education can have on young children. Through the Reforest the Tropics (RTT) initiative, and after a series of classes on climate change, sixth grade students at Clark Lane Middle School in Waterford voted to plant trees in Costa Rica to offset their school’s carbon dioxide emissions. Other groups of students in New London and Groton have voted to enact the same change. Overall, the RTT program has translated children’s passion for environmental stewardship into 4,000 metric tons of carbon sequestration annually. Thoughtful students like these will be front-line leaders in the fight against climate change, and we must prepare them adequately.
Climate change education will equip future generations with the knowledge and skills they will need to tackle climate change and the associated impacts on humans and our environment. Taking this step is an investment in the future. With this in mind, I urge you to amend the language of legislation before the Education Committee to mandate climate change education in Connecticut’s statewide curriculum.
On behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, I urge you to SUPPORT SB 7352. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on two bills relating to the Community Investment Act. CTLCV OPPOSES Sections 6 and 7 of SB 872, An Act Implementing the Governor’s Budget Recommendations for General Government, and we SUPPORT SB 1118, An Act Concerning the Community Investment Act.
Enacted in 2005 by the General Assembly, the Community Investment Act (CIA) provides a dedicated and consistent source of funding for the preservation of open space, farmland, and historic sites. These funds can also be used to develop affordable housing and make important municipal improvements.
The CIA is funded through a $40 surcharge on municipal recording fees, and it has benefited almost every town in Connecticut—providing funds for nearly 1,400 projects statewide, with over $153 million reinvested in Connecticut.
Sections 6 and 7 of SB 872 would essentially eliminate the Community Investment Act as we know it. Funds would be moved from an off-budget account into the General Fund, where they could have to compete with other line items or be put to other purposes. Our towns rely on the CIA funds to preserve their heritage, protect their resources, and enhance the quality of life that draws residents to Connecticut in the first place.
Environmental programs are already some of the first items targeted for diversion when it comes time to fill a budget hole. Moving the CIA account to the General Fund will make it easier to divert these funds from the specific purposes for which they are collected—essentially making the surcharge on recording fees just one more general tax.
Rather than moving the CIA to the General Fund, we at CTLCV support the concept of SB 1118, which would require the Office of Policy and Management to review and report on expenditures from the CIA account. This would satisfy the desire for increased transparency and accountability without jeopardizing the funds themselves. We also suggest SB 1118 be amended to require that its report on expenditures include a breakdown of funds that have been awarded to CIA projects but not yet allocated. This would allow a more accurate analysis of the CIA’s funds and balance.
The CIA is working! Please vote NO on any proposal to move the CIA to the General Fund. Thank you for your consideration as you deliberate on SB 872 and SB 1118.
