Republicans and Democrats staged a dress rehearsal Wednesday for debates expected on the state House floor next month and in campaigns this fall over how aggressively Connecticut should push zero-emission vehicles to mitigate air pollution and climate change.
The venue was a public hearing on House Bill 5485, which would create a 40-member Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Coordinating Council to assess the readiness of the auto market, electric grid and charging infrastructure for a shift to electric vehicles, while not mandating any targets or deadlines.
The Republican minority leaders, Rep. Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford and Sen. Stephen Harding of Brookfield, opposed the bill in live testimony before the Transportation Committee as a step towards something the measure does not authorize — an eventual ban on gas-powered vehicles.
“I believe this study is a clear path towards an electric vehicle mandate. And this legislation provides a, quote, ‘roadmap’ for those in the majority to launch a full pursuit towards this EV mandate after Election Day,” Harding said.
The administration of Gov. Ned Lamont, who called the bill a “nothing-burger” in a Connecticut Mirror interview last week, complained in written testimony that not only does the bill represent a retreat from a previously proposed deadline for phasing out new gas-vehicle sales, but it shies from even aspirational targets.
“These targets must be both flexible and realistic, and based on what works for Connecticut,” the administration said. “While these state targets would not be legally binding, they would provide much needed structure for this work.”
The transportation sector is Connecticut’s largest source of emissions, contributing 38% of the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions, the administration said.
The bill is a compromise drafted to address questions raised last fall about the practicality of regulations that would have required Connecticut to follow updated California clean air standards that call for the phase-out of sales of most new gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
Lamont withdrew the regulations once it became clear that the 14-member bipartisan Regulation Review Committee had insufficient votes for passage, with all seven Republicans and two Democrats opposed.
More recently, Democratic legislative leaders concluded they did not have the votes for a proposal that would have created the coordinating council but also kept 2035 as a goal. To keep Connecticut under the California rules, the proposal would have required an affirmative vote by the legislature in three years.
Instead, they reduced the bill to a measure creating the council.
The Democratic co-chairs of the Transportation Committee, Rep. Roland Lemar of New Haven and Sen. Christine Cohen of Guilford, said the council would address the questions and objections raised by Republicans and some Democrats, including the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, about the 2035 goal.
“So I am a little bit perplexed by saying you’re not in favor of the legislation,” Cohen told Harding and Candelora.
Essentially, Cohen and Lemar conceded the opponents had raised valid concerns about the price of electric vehicles and the likelihood Connecticut would have sufficient infrastructure for a giant step towards an auto market dominated by EVs, though not exclusively.
(Under the California standards, used gas-powered vehicles would remain on the road, and the sales of new plug-in hybrids, which have electric motors and gas engines, also would be allowed.)
Under federal law passed during the administration of President Richard Nixon, states have two options for clean air standards: Federal rules promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, or more stringent standards that a California Air Resources Board created when Ronald Reagan was governor.
“There’s a reality here that I think people are failing to recognize — and that is our state isn’t ready today to meet those targets,” either federal or California, Lemar said. “And it will take a concerted effort to get us there.”
Both the California and federal standards have evolved over the past 50 years, moving from promoting low-emission to zero-emission vehicles.
Last year, the Biden administration proposed new EPA standards that it said would result in electric vehicles accounting for 67% of new car sales and 46% of new truck sales by the 2032 model year. The EPA standards are expected to be finalized in coming weeks.
Polling has found a sharp divide over electric vehicles based on age, education and party affiliation. Last summer, Pew Research found 64% of Democrats were in favor of phasing out production of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, but 84% of Republicans were opposed.
The Biden administration reportedly is set to keep the 2032 goal but slow down the pace in getting there in deference to election-year politics and the desires of automakers and unions.
On Wednesday, the Republicans in Connecticut objected to the makeup of the proposed council, saying it does not offer a necessary diversity of perspectives. Candelora, whose caucus supports the EPA standards, said the panel seems stacked towards recommending that Connecticut get back into compliance with California.
The council would include 12 lawmakers, six state agency heads, the chair of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, the consumer counsel and a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives of municipalities, electric utilities and manufacturers of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.
Harding and Candelora complained that the bill, as written, would require the Lamont administration to deliver a “Zero-Emission Vehicle Roadmap” by Nov. 15, a week after the election.
“One of the positions that our caucus took early on is that we believe that we should be weighing the merits of shifting to the EPA standard versus the California standard for the electric vehicle mandate,” Candelora said. “And I think that this commission doesn’t allow for that potential opportunity.”
Cohen said nothing in the bill favors neither standard.
“I’ll just reiterate that the bill is silent on that,” Cohen said. “I do not believe it puts the thumb on the scale one way or another.”
Due to the failure to adopt regulations implementing the updated California standards, Connecticut has effectively defaulted to the EPA rules. But Candelora said the bill should explicitly commit the state to the federal standard.
The exchanges between the Republican leaders and Democratic co-chairs were cordial, a far cry from the tone set outside the hearing room.
On Tuesday, the Republicans accused the Democrats of bad faith, and the Democrats responded in kind.
“The interesting thing about this working group is it’s entitled ‘a roadmap.’ What roadmap in the world has ever been created in which you don’t know what the destination is?” Harding asked at their press conference. “So that is the biggest problem with this, is that they’ve essentially determined what this study is going to say.”
Cohen said the Republicans were trying to recover a wedge issue lost when the California regulations did not go forward. There is nothing nefarious about a reference to a road map, a phrase the state has used since 2020 in the context of EVs, she said.
“I really feel as though they’re gaslighting and conducting a disinformation campaign,” she said.
Lemar said he rejected GOP suggestions that the bill goes too far and the governor’s complaint that it does nothing.
“I heard last week that the governor thought the bill was a gigantic nothing-burger. And today,” he said Tuesday after the Republican news conference, “I hear from House Republicans that they think it’s the most transformative piece of transportation policy they’ve ever seen. The reality is neither.”