HARTFORD, CT – After hours of debate and proposed amendments, the House passed a bill that would create credits and incentives for businesses that prioritize clean energy.
Just a few minutes after 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the 151 members of the house voted 94-56 in favor of House Bill 5004, which would create multiple tax credits and fee waiver incentives for businesses in the state, among other provisions.
Additionally, the bill would also allow for the use of some ARPA funding and the General Fund to pay for clean-energy increases to attempt to reduce the state’s reliance on fossil fuels.
Much of the debate and questioning on the floor was centered around a strike-all amendment brought forward by Rep. Christine Palm, the proponent of the bill.
The amendment significantly altered the fiscal impact of the bill, as well as struck some of the provisions in the original language. However, it preserved the provisions which would institute tax credits and appropriate fee waivers for businesses that commit to moving toward renewable energy.
Palm said that the bill contains different credits and waivers, for which certain types of companies will be eligible. She added that there has been a good amount of positive feedback from those companies as to the more carrot-like provisions in the bill.
“This bill is full of incentives,” Palm said. Those that “pivot” to sustainability, she added, will be eligible.
Palm said Wednesday that one of the main driving points for the bill is attempting to preserve the planet for future generations, and has reiterated that studies have shown that around 70 percent of young people are concerned about the environment and climate change.
The main criticism of the bill, on the part of Republicans, is the increase in expenses on the state’s ratepayers and the expensive energy advancements such as energy-efficient heat pumps – which one Republican says require an energy backup in the colder months of the year.
According to Rep. Pat Callahan, R-Danbury, each heat pump can cost anywhere from $20,000 – 40,000. Those heat pumps, he said Wednesday, represent a significant cost to the tax and ratepayers in Connecticut.
“There’s a lot of incentives for people to switch to green – who’s going to pay for that,” he asked.
Callahan said that about 60% of Connecticut’s energy comes from natural gas, and that he has questions as to how expensive filling that void with clean energy could be for residents in the state.
Heat pumps and other technologies, he said, are a “huge draw” on electric energy. The pumps can be used to move heat from one space to another – often pulling it up from the ground.
Reimbursement for these pumps would be available under bonded funds in the school construction authorization – of which there is currently $421 million available.
Section 16 of the amendment outlines the purchase of these pumps as a potential revenue loss to the state and a potential gain for municipalities.
Language at the end of the amendment acknowledges that attempting to reach a higher emissions and clean energy standard will result in a cost to ratepayers, but it is not yet clear what that increase will look like.
There are several provisions in the bill that pertain to studies on the state’s energy future, most of which would be done by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.
Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, said Wednesday that identifying clean ways forward for Connecticut energy is a focus.
“We have our challenges, but we’re really trying to fire on all cylinders to make sure we’re doing everything we can across the board, particularly as it applies to renewable energy,” he said.
Heat pumps, geothermal energy, and energy storage are all options that will be looked at in those studies, Steinberg said.
The amendment alters many of the fiscal notes in the bill, but some of those remaining – like
the section in the amendment that allows for the purchasing of heat pumps by the DEEP – could be funded by some of the remaining federal American Rescue Plan Act dollars.
Speaker of the House Matt Ritter said Wednesday that the amount of ARPA funding that went into the bill would likely be below $5 million.
“I don’t think the bill costs that much,” Palm added.
Three amendments to the legislation were also proposed by Republicans, but all three were rejected.
The first, proposed by Rep. Jason Perillo, R-Shelton, focused on the use of forced child labor in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo to make the materials that are necessary for some of the clean energy alternatives that are essential to the bill.
Perillo said that because of the importance of reducing oppressive child labor both domestically and abroad – as the House voted Tuesday to pass a resolution in favor of the 100-year old federal Child Labor amendment – he said
Palm said that children in countries like the Congo feel the effects of climate change more strongly than they do the effects of child labor.
The other two amendments, proposed by Reps. Holly Cheeseman, R-East Lyme, and Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, were centered around ideas that had either been through the house before, or had been discussed in the Energy Committee.
Steinberg commended his colleagues for bringing forward some of those concepts, but added that they were “not ready for primetime.”
