After years of frustrations, climate advocates give tepid praise to CT lawmakers
Shahrzad Rasekh / CT Mirror
Christine Palm, a former state representative from Chester and founder of the Active Voice, a group dedicated to training young environmental activists, poses for a portrait at the Capitol on June 4, 2025.
For the last two years, environmental advocates in Connecticut have made no secret about their frustrations with lawmakers in Hartford over a lack of major progress on climate legislation.
So the passage of two priority bills over the final weeks of this year’s legislative session — one promising to set Connecticut on a path to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, the other contemplating how to deal with the unavoidable aspects of climate change — was welcomed by advocates with a sigh of relief.
“Compared to recent sessions, it’s actual legislation that has passed,” said Christopher Phelps, the executive director of Environment Connecticut. “So that is forward progress.”
Christine Palm, a former state representative — and teacher — who championed many environmental bills during her tenure, graded her former colleagues C+ in their action on climate change this session. Since retiring from politics last year, Palm has founded The Active Voice, which is dedicated to training young environmental activists.
“We could do a whole lot better, way better, but it’s better than nothing,” Palm said Wednesday. “There were years when they did nothing… I think what the history is, we do great bills about plants, animals, preservation of land, but addressing climate change, the big umbrella of climate change, very little has been done.”
While lukewarm, the reviews from advocates at the end of this year’s legislative session were an improvement over the criticisms heaped upon Democrats following the demise of past efforts to adopt stricter timelines for reducing carbon emissions, roll out electric vehicles or join with other states to purchase offshore wind power.
Several advocates — including Palm — specifically directed praise toward the new House chair of the Environment Committee, state Rep. John-Michael Parker, D-Madison, who took the lead in drafting several priority bills with his co-chair, state Sen. Rick Lopes, D-New Britain.
“I think it speaks to the ability of our committee to stay true to our priorities and also work with Republicans and the senate,” Parker said. “We put some good plans in place, and everyone stuck to their word and followed through. I feel good about it.”
Net-Zero Emissions
The final victory for advocates came with just a few hours to spare before Wednesday’s midnight deadline to pass legislation. At around 2 p.m., the Senate voted to pass House Bill 5004, the net-zero emissions legislation that also included a hodgepodge of incentives for solar canopies, energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, green jobs and sustainability-focused businesses.
The bill was a priority of House Democrats, who passed it out of the lower chamber on May 1 — only to watch in linger in the Senate for weeks.
For supporters, the wait was reminiscent of what happened last year when a similar bill, led by Palm, stalled and ultimately died in the Senate on the final day of the legislative session.
“It’s just really concerning, that the most pressing environmental issue that we face is, for the third year in a row, kind of at this level of uncertainty,” Sierra Club Connecticut Executive Director Samantha Dynowski said as she waited for senators to take up the bill Tuesday evening.
Opponents had dubbed last year’s effort the “Green Monster.” But a series of compromises, and agreements to study the most controversial components and their effects on businesses, largely blunted criticism of the bill this year.
“Is it achievable? I question all of it, but in the end of the day, that’s not something that we would spend our time opposing,” said Chris Herb, the president of the Connecticut Energy Marketers Association.
Lopes called the bill “aspirational” due to its lack of any enforcement mechanisms for lowering emissions.
“They are goals, they are not mandates,” Lopes said. “They are setting the tone and direction for the industry in the state of Connecticut, of where we want to be, where we want to go, and hopefully we hit them. If we don’t hit them, there are not penalties.”
Still, Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, raised concerns that the bill could open to door for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to impose regulations on the private sector if the state struggles to reach its net-zero target.
“I think these goals are important, and I think we should have these goals,” Harding said. “Where I get concerned is ambiguity in legislation. As a lawyer, lawyers make a living on ambiguity.”
One Republican, state Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, broke with his party to vote in favor of the bill, calling it a “smaller and more incremental” compromise compared to last year’s effort.
The Senate’s vote sent H.B. 5004 to Gov. Ned Lamont, who said he intends to sign it.
“Connecticut is proud to be a climate leader and this legislation helps keep our state on track to improve our air quality and meet our climate goals,” Lamont said in a statement. “Notably, it increases the tools available in our state that will attract business growth in the clean energy sector and the associated jobs that they support.”
Resiliency, and Pesticides
While the Senate waited to take action on H.B. 5004, House lawmakers gave final approval to a wide-ranging climate resiliency bill last week that also included provisions cracking down on the use of certain pesticides that can harm wildlife.
The legislation, Senate Bill 9, was the upper chamber’s preeminent environmental measure for the 2025 legislative session. The majority of the bill, nearly 50 pages, focused on preparing for the impacts of climate change with updates to the state’s water plan, requiring towns to consider sea level rise when making zoning changes and mandating flood risk disclosures for home buyers and renters, among other provisions.
But it was two provisions near the end, restricting the use of rat poisons and a group of insecticides known as “neonicotinoids,” that attracted the most debate.
In the Senate, those restrictions were eased somewhat to appease the concerns of the pest control industry, which sought to continue the use of covered pesticides by licensed professionals. As a result, a number of Republicans crossed the aisle to support the bill.
“I didn’t find any real big objection,” said state Rep. Pat Callahan, R-New Fairfield, the ranking member of the Environment Committee, during the House debate last month.
But some Democrats in the House raised their own objections, arguing that restricting the use of rat poisons would make it costlier for homeowners to deal with infestations, especially if they are forced to hire licensed professionals.
“If it’s that bad, no one should be using it,” said state Rep. Juan Candelaria, D-New Haven.
Ultimately, the legislation passed the House by a relatively lopsided 115 to 33 vote.
Charles Rothenberger, a climate and energy attorney for Save the Sound, noted that S.B. 9 gained the support of more than two dozen Republicans in the House despite many having voted against previous climate-related measures.
“These initiatives should be bipartisan, because the impacts affect everybody, equally, across the political spectrum,” Rothenberger said. “So hopefully — maybe naively, but hopefully — what we saw last night, can provide a foundation for more cooperation on both sides of the aisle to address real solutions.”
With the passage of both bills through the House and Senate chambers on Wednesday afternoon, action began to flow in quick succession on a number of other measures dealing with agriculture, Sunday hunting and the management of Connecticut’s growing population of black bears.
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments