The General Assembly may be summoned for a “lame duck” special session to address at least two environmental bills — that failed to pass last session — before the November election, as revealed in the Joint Connecticut Green Bank and Energy Efficiency Board Committee meeting on July 22.
CT Green Bank General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer Brian Farnen noted as much, telling others there was “some possibility that there will be a lame duck session this November to address SB 11 and the Green Monster [bill].”
SB11, Governor Ned Lamont’s ill-fated climate bill, threatened to drive up the cost of residential construction, clashing with the state’s goal of making housing more accessible and affordable. Among other things, it mandated the state adopt the newest Energy Star and Fortified Building Standards with every new code revision, disregarding the fiscal impact on construction costs and the number of Connecticut families who could be priced out of the market.
In a CT Mirror op-ed, Jim Perras, CEO of the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Connecticut, criticized the arbitrary adoption of codes without proper analysis, calling it ‘intellectually lazy and a disservice to Connecticut residents who are just trying to make ends meet.'”
Perras added, “Policymakers must first acknowledge that not all code reforms are justifiable, even the environmental ones. Deference must be given to the fact that costs associated with proposed code changes have real-world consequences.”
According to a 2023 study by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) in the state of Connecticut, for every $1,000 increase in the median cost of a home 914 residents are “priced out” of the dream of owning a new home.
Burdensome and costly regulations are a key factor in the constrained housing supply, particularly in the entry-level market where more inventory is desperately needed. A 2021 NAHB study revealed that fees, standards, and other requirements imposed during development and construction add an average of $93,870, or 23.8%, to the price of a single-family home.
Additionally, a provision in SB 11 would have allowed the governor to declare a civil preparedness emergency under the pretext of addressing climate change. Despite support from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), this contentious language was ultimately removed from the bill.
The “Green Monster” omnibus climate bill, as dubbed by the Yankee Institute, has undergone numerous iterations throughout the 2024 legislative session. While it managed to pass in the House, it was never brought to a vote in the Senate.
This 23-section bill included a few environmentally friendly business incentives, rebates, and even the possibility of waiving Department of Revenue Services (DRS) fees. However, these positive changes were overshadowed by significant financial concerns.
The Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), the nonpartisan fiscal research arm of the Connecticut General Assembly, issued a report highlighting the economic impact of the bill. The report stated, “The bill creates and adopts additional Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets and results in a cost to ratepayers.” This cost is attributed to “the development and upgrade of the grid that will be required by electric distribution companies to achieve the targets in the bill.”
It’s important to note that municipalities, as ratepayers, would also be affected by any policies that increase electric rates, with these costs likely passed on to taxpayers. This raises substantial concerns about the financial burden on local governments and residents.
Early versions of the “Green Monster” bill mandated electrification for all new construction and remodels in the private sector, a significant shift aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Additionally, the bill would have amended current laws to allow the state, individuals, and businesses to face legal action to ensure the public’s right to clean air, water, and the protection of essential natural resources against unreasonable pollution and impairment.
Another controversial provision would have had the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) open a docket exploring how the state can phase out natural gas usage.
Rep. Christine Palm (D-Chester), the architect of the bill who is not seeking reelection, considered it to be her “Swan Song.” Despite her deep involvement in crafting the legislation, it is unknown if she supports the push for a special session to address it. However, Palm has recently expressed her reservations about introducing omnibus bills during such sessions.
In a June 28 email explaining her opposition to a large omnibus bill voted on during a two-day special session in June, Palm noted that these sessions are typically convened to address emergencies or statutorily required issues. The special session in question, initially called to change automobile assessments and prevent a property tax increase on commercial vehicles, saw its agenda expanded to include several other issues.
Palm further elaborated on the complications arising from such omnibus bills, stating, “When several disparate issues are lumped together in an ‘omnibus’ bill (known in Special Session as an ‘Emergency Certification’ bill), we legislators are sometimes forced to vote against things we believe in, or for things we oppose.” Her comments underscore the challenges and ethical dilemmas faced by lawmakers when confronted with expansive pieces of legislation.
As the prospect of a special session looms, it remains unclear which version — or versions — of the climate bills will be brought forth. However, the urgency to vote on these bills is questionable. The General Assembly is set to reconvene in January, making any immediate action unnecessary.
Special sessions are intended for urgent and essential matters, not for lawmakers who are not seeking reelection to bolster their legacies with controversial bills. This special session wouldn’t be about addressing urgent needs — it’s a blatant attempt to pass legislation with little oversight, banking on the public not paying attention during a lame-duck period.
Connecticut deserves better than such transparent stunts. Constituents expect their representatives to engage in thoughtful debate and transparent governance, not to sidestep the normal processes in a rush to pass controversial policies.
Yankee Institute stands firmly against policies that impose excessive costs on residents without delivering meaningful environmental benefits. We advocate for balanced, sustainable solutions that ensure economic stability and practical progress. For those who wish to support our mission and stay informed about critical policy developments, visit our website at Yankee Institute.
