Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Low Carbon Concrete topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concrete industry and manufacturers back bill to incentivize low‑carbon concrete use
Summary
Producers, material developers and the state’s largest concrete supplier told the Commerce Committee that grants or tax credits to fund storage silos and retrofits are needed to broaden adoption of low‑embodied‑carbon concrete across public and private projects.
Multiple industry witnesses testified in support of House Bill 67 84, a bill to establish incentives for contractors and subcontractors to use low‑embodied‑carbon concrete. The hearing featured concrete producers, material manufacturers and state contractors who said policy incentives would accelerate industry adoption.
Christopher Sidwa of Urban Mining Connecticut LLC described a locally manufactured supplementary cementitious material—positive ground glass pozzolan—made from recycled glass. He said replacing ordinary Portland cement with his material can cut embedded emissions and extend service life, but concrete producers need silo storage and changes to mix designs. “The main issue we’re facing is our customers, the concrete producers, they lack the incentive because there's a lack of demand signal or they lack the finances to construct the infrastructure they need to receive our material,” Sidwa said.
Connor Cooper, chief commercial officer at CarbonBuilt (which purchased Jolly Concrete and Block in Danielson), told the committee his firm plans to bring low‑carbon masonry manufacturing to Connecticut and asked for incentives to offset retrofit costs such as silos, conveyors and batching upgrades. Christopher Cotullio, materials sustainability specialist at O&G Industries, represented Connecticut’s largest concrete producer and said O&G has already adopted recycled glass materials at its plants but that most producers lack silo space and 'proper incentives' to adopt low‑carbon mixes at scale.
Committee members asked about barriers—cost, storage infrastructure and supply chains—and witnesses suggested potential solutions including capital grants, tax credits or Green Bank financing to help producers install silos and retrofit plants. Witnesses estimated a magnitude of incentive that could create adoption momentum (one witness estimated up to $50 per ton as a state incentive could change economics, a figure described as a broad estimate), and noted DOT and DAS have already included preference language and performance bonuses that can reward lower‑carbon mixes when they are available.
No committee action was taken. Witnesses offered to provide more detailed cost estimates and to work with the Green Bank and other state agencies on potential incentive mechanisms.
