Connecticut lawmakers voted Wednesday to advance a bill that would direct the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to create rules for implementing the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P), a legislative priority for Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont.

The General Assembly’s Environment Committee voted along party lines to send the TCI-P bill to the Senate, with Democrats hailing the cap-and-trade program’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 26% from 2022 to 2032.

The bill also outlines plans for how to invest Connecticut’s proceeds from the auction of emissions allowances. TCI-P is projected to raise up to $89 million starting in 2023, increasing to up to $117 million by 2032. The bill would direct at least 50% of this money to communities overburdened by air pollution or underserved by the transportation system. It also would establish an equity and environmental justice advisory board to counsel DEEP and the  Department of Transportation on TCI-P to ensure equitable outcomes.

Sen. Will Haskell (D) said the decline of carbon emissions to historic lows is one of the few silver linings of the COVID-19 pandemic and that “it would be a real shame if we decided to just return to the old normal.”

“Let’s not put kids back on those diesel buses that pump exhaust into their lungs,” Haskell said. “Let’s not just accept as fact that urban communities are going to see higher asthma rates, which by the way is not just a moral injustice, but it’s an economic cost for all of us.”

Republicans decried TCI-P as a Trojan horse for another gas tax in the form of potential pass-down costs from fuel suppliers to consumers. DEEP analysis shows TCI-P participation could boost gas prices by 5 cents/gallon beginning in 2023, assuming fuel suppliers choose to pass down 100% of allowance costs to consumers. Multiple consumer protection safeguards, including a cost-containment reserve, would kick in at 9 cents/gallon. One Republican said the 5- to 9-cent increase applies to the first year of TCI-P alone, with prices potentially rising by as much as 26 cents.

“I know there’s a lot of schematics to how this bill operates in terms of how the additional revenue comes into the state, but at the end of the day, no matter how we examine it, this is going to be a tax on the consumers,” said Rep. Stephen Harding (R). He conceded that elements of the bill are “critically important” but said increasing gas prices “is not good policy.”

Rep. Patrick Callahan (R) said that Connecticut has the “highest gas tax in New England” and that electric vehicles are cost-prohibitive for many people.

“I have numerous concerns trying to legislate people to behave a certain way,” Callahan said. “What’s next? Are we going to legislate people and tell them not to eat red meat? I just don’t think this is what we should be doing.

Sen. Christine Cohen (D), co-chair of the Environment Committee, said the bill is not intended “to change behavior.” She compared TCI-P to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which she said has been “incredibly successful and a model that we can look to.” After dozens of RGGI auctions, the cost-containment reserve has been triggered only twice, she said.

“That’s really important to recognize: We have the protections in place if they are needed for consumer protection,” Cohen said.

Noting that her rural Litchfield County district includes “a lot of small towns,” Rep. Maria Horn (D) said constituents have no access to robust public transportation and must drive nearly everywhere they go, so they would feel the pinch of rising gas prices. But she expressed hope that the auction’s proceeds will be invested in increased transportation options and have a positive environmental impact.

Reaction

Christian Herb, president of the Connecticut Energy Marketers Association, opposed the bill but was not surprised that it was voted out of committee.

Herb said that with 50% of the allowance proceeds ticketed for the state’s most vulnerable communities, rural districts like Horn’s would be fighting for a smaller pool of funding.

“I think about Rep. Horn, who’s saying up in Litchfield County that she thinks she’s going to get money to build an infrastructure for handicapped people to be able to get on electric buses and that she thinks this is going to increase transportation. I would say that half the money is going to the cities, so you have no access to that,” Herb told NetZero Insider. “I don’t think that helps those rural districts that may be interested in trying to see some money come to their areas to build infrastructure. It seems to me that this has been set up for failure.”

Connecticut Director of the Acadia Center Amy McLean said the clean energy advocacy organization “couldn’t be happier” that the bill advanced, but that there is still plenty of “heavy lifting to do.” McLean said the coalition developed to support the bill needs further nurturing ahead of additional votes. McLean said that moderate Democrats might not support the bill and that environmental justice communities need to be in the mix.

“If they can’t have their own voice in this [process], then we’re not doing it right,” McLean said.

McLean said that the Sierra Club does not support TCI-P because the emissions reductions are too “weak” in addition to issues with equity and environmental justice.

“Sierra Club was true to what they said, and they are not going to be supporting anything that doesn’t have the blessing of environmental justice communities,” she said. “So for us to not have all of those voices at the table makes us a much less effective body.”