Panel advances ‘act promoting energy efficiency’ after divided committee debate and roll call

The Connecticut General Assembly Energy and Technology Committee approved, on a roll call vote, concept number 7 — described as "an act promoting energy efficiency" — after a contentious debate in which members disagreed about the effect of climate and efficiency policies on consumer energy bills.

Representative Ryan Piscopo (Representative Piscopo) argued against raising the concept, saying, "I think our our climate policy is at the root of of high rates. This is this is the reason why our rates are are so high." Piscopo said he would vote no to raise the concept for a hearing.

In response, Senator Needleman argued for energy-efficiency investment, saying the priority should be reducing consumption: "the most bang for the buck that we can get in terms of lowering usage, which lowers everybody's bills, is through investments in energy efficiency." Representative Mushinsky added that efficiency programs deliver low-cost savings, saying energy-efficiency investments "are actually cheaper per kilowatt hour than any other production of energy." Representative Buckbe raised concerns about renters: "there's so many people, especially on the on the renters area of the spectrum, these people are are renting, they don't have the opportunity to to invest in a in a heat pump or whatever it might be for their home, and they're all paying for it already." The transcript records these exchanges as part of the committee's deliberations before the roll call.

The roll call recorded the following votes as stated on the record: Senator Needleman — yes; State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg — yes; Senator Fazio — no; Representative Mara — yes; Representative Sanchez — yes; Senator Marr — yes; Representative Ali Brennan — yes; Representative D'Amico — yes; Representative Gresco — yes; Representative Mushinsky — yes; Representative Piscopo — no; Representative Yaccarino — no; Representative Bucksbaum — no; Representative Baumgartner — yes; Representative Constantine — yes; Representative Buckby — no; Representative Canino — no; Representative Winter — yes; Representative Gauthier — yes; Representative Hughes — yes. The committee clerk announced the vote sequentially; members joining remotely registered their votes before the 2:30 p.m. deadline. (The roll call was recorded in the committee transcript.)

The action approved raising the concept for further committee consideration and public hearing; it did not adopt statutory language or create new obligations. Committee members said the hearing will be an opportunity to explore program design that could target energy-efficiency help to low-income households and renters.

Because the committee approved only a concept at this stage, no program funding levels, statutory text or implementation schedule was adopted during the meeting. The committee kept the raised items and roll-call votes in the record for follow-up when hearings and bill language are developed.