ENV Committee Hearing Transcript for 01/28/2005

REPRESENTATIVE ROY: Okay, so much for mike problems, I hope. Please turn off the cell phones so that our speakers are uninterrupted as they're testifying. And first, John Calandrelli.

Speakers are allowed three minutes to testify, and we do have a timer. And in the interest of letting everybody get a chance to speak, please keep your remarks short. Thank you.

JOHN CALANDRELLI: Thank you. Good morning, Senator Stillman and Representative Roy. Members of the Environment Committee, good morning.

My name is John Calandrelli. I'm here representing a little over 12,000 people from the Connecticut Sierra Club. And, of course, we are asking for an endorsement of the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan.

In this time, as you know, of pretty great divisiveness in our country, the four public hearings that we've already had last year on this issue, we got 52 out of 55 recommendations unanimously supported. That's pretty impressive in this day and age.

We've heard some of the other pros and cons of this Action Plan, and it was pointed out that some places like New Delhi or Jakarta or somebody else's is contributing a lot to global warming gasses, and that's true, in some cases.

However, we can't do anything about them. But what we can do is do our share. We do contribute a lot because of our present lifestyle to greenhouse gasses.

This Plan has many recommendations that, some of them we've already started on. For instance, the Clean Cars Bill we passed last year, energy efficiency standards on appliances. All of this is part of the puzzle.

So we are asking the Environment Committee to endorse this Plan. And we also want to point out that Connecticut has always been a leader.

And if we want to continue to be a leader, you have to act like it. This Plan shows the rest of the country and the rest of the New England states that we are the leader we say we are and have been in the past.

So our members of the Sierra Club do wish to endorse this Climate Action Plan, to start working on it in earnest, for this Committee to pass this through.

And it comes down to more than immediate goals, like we can make new jobs in new industries, in cleaner industries. We can make better houses. We can make better cars. We already know how to do all that stuff.

But in addition to that, we're all old enough that I hope the voices of our grandchildren will not keep us awake at night, saying, why didn't you do what you knew you could do when we had the chance?

We have it now, so we are asking the Environment Committee to endorse the draft Climate Change Plan that was voted on last year. Any questions? I don't want to take up too much time.

REP. ROY: Any members of the Committee have questions? John, thank you very much.

JOHN CALANDRELLI: Thank you, Representative.

REP. ROY: Jim McNally.

JAMES MCNALLY, JR: Good morning, Chairpersons Stillman and Roy, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jim McNally. I am Director of Marketing and Sales for Connecticut Natural Gas and Southern Connecticut Gas.

And I want to thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan. We would like to focus on Section 33 of the report, which is the Natural Gas Conservation Fund.

More than ever, we're all concerned with conservation and the importance of it as a component of State energy policy. We believe that little commercial that natural gas plays a key role in meeting the objectives of the environment, and enabling economic growth, and protecting our lifestyle, frankly.

I'd ask you to consider some important policy questions or issues as you consider these key, complex issues. First, in the marketing and sales area, I am very concerned and we are very concerned with price.

And we communicate with our customers every day, and that's their single biggest concern as well. We cannot support a 3% surcharge that only further increases the cost of natural gas or any energy source during the current high-priced, volatile energy markets.

We'd point out this would be especially burdensome to our low-income customers, of whom about 20% of our customer base are low income.

We're also mindful that the proposed surcharge would be imposed on natural gas consumers who are also electric consumers, essentially requiring those customers to pay into the same conservation fund twice.

As partners with the State, our companies have implemented cost-effective conservation in the past.

From our experience, we believe that the LDC's, with the oversight from DPUC, can implement successful programs and provide flexibility when they are internally designed by the LDC's with the Consumer Council and the Office of Policy and Management. We've had very good successes.

We believe we should leverage on those past successes and expertise moving forward. Our third point, our companies cannot endorse any policy that would make natural gas competitively disadvantaged versus alternate fuels, such as oil.

Fourth, if this Plan is being seriously considered, then on that third point, parity with other fuel types should be incorporated and, therefore, a surcharge should be applied to all other alternate fuels, such as oil, propane, and kerosene.

We believe applying a surcharge, if it were enacted just on natural gas, would have the consequence of creating an economic disincentive for this clean, efficient fuel source.

So, in conclusion, on behalf our companies, we want to, again, express appreciation and thanks for your support and your work on these complex issues.

We have been asked to talk with the proponents of this Plan and will do so, actually, next week. We will assist the Legislature and Regulators as necessary. Thank you, and I'd be happy to field any questions.

REP. ROY: Thank you, Sir. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Sir, for being here this morning and sharing some of the percentages, in terms of your low-income customers, your concerns about the 3% surcharge, etc.

When you say you will be meeting with the, are you meeting, did you say the opponents, proponents?

JAMES MCNALLY, JR: I'm sorry, proponents.

SEN. STILLMAN: Proponents, okay. And will you then contact us? Is it your goal to share the outcome of that meeting with this Committee in any way or is it--

JAMES MCNALLY, JR: Haven't had the, I'm sorry?

SEN. STILLMAN: No, I was just wondering, or is it strictly something that you feel you need to do?

JAMES MCNALLY, JR: No, I think we'd be coming back and talking about what common ground we may have come to after those discussions.

SEN. STILLMAN: Very good. I think that would be most important. We do expect to have some bills presented to us that are pertinent to this Committee in relationship to the report, as opposed to, you know, we're not going to handle any transportation issues or energy issues. Those Committees can handle those or Commerce, for that matter.

JAMES MCNALLY, JR: Yes.

SEN. STILLMAN: So that might give you another opportunity, because those bills will have to have a public hearing as well.

JAMES MCNALLY, JR: I see.

SEN. STILLMAN: So, okay. But thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it.

JAMES MCNALLY, JR: You're welcome.

REP. ROY: Any other questions? Thank you very much, Sir.

JAMES MCNALLY, JR: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Eric Brown and Robert Earley. And as you signed up as a single entity, you have three minutes.

ERIC BROWN: I understand, so we'll talk very quickly. Representative Roy, Senator Stillman, good morning. Good morning, Members of the Committee.

My name is Eric Brown, I'm an Associate Counsel with CBIA and Director of our Environmental Policies Council. The subject's very broad today, the time is brief, so I'm going to stick to the question on the table of the day, which is on endorsement.

Last year, as you know, the legislation that was passed creating the goals for the State for 2010 and 2020 wisely included the request, requirement, really, for a report that would explain exactly what needed to be done to reach those goals, who it would impact, and what would it cost.

In this past December, the Governor's Steering Committee put a draft out and requested comments which CBIA responded to.

And consistent with the information that was part of the stakeholder dialogue process of a year ago, at that point, the 55 recommendations were still close to 30% short of the State goals for both 2010 and 2020, and approximately one-third of the specific recommendations had no cost evaluation completed on them.

The current draft that appeared just a few weeks later, the 30% gap that had existed was filled, not with any additional recommendations, but by further analysis, I guess, of some sort that we don't have the expertise to review, but we think ought to have some peer review before we have a lot of confidence in it or complete confidence in it.

And still, one-third of the proposed recommendations have no cost estimates associated with them. So, at this point, we feel that, for this Committee or any other Legislative Body to bestow a formal endorsement on this Plan, would be premature.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Rob Earley, my colleague who covers energy for CBIA.

ROBERT EARLEY: Hi, I'm Rob Earley. I am the Associate Counsel from CBIA that covers energy policy, and I also happen to be the Chair for the State's Energy Conservation Load Management Board. That is the board that is funded by a charge on all consumers' electric bills.

And just to put this in context of cost, right now, what we're hearing from our members is, as we enter this month and they're greeted with double-digit increases in their electric bills, they're also being greeted with double-digit increases from a year ago in the gas commodity, which continues to soar above its historic highs.

These costs are not insignificant. We were among the top ten in energy costs as we approach this year. I would venture to guess now that we're probably in the top three.

And we probably have a strong bet of beating New York for the second place, which would put us only behind Hawaii for the highest energy costs in the country.

One last point that I'd like to make, because I know we only have three minutes, is that the current funding for repairs that go into the funds we currently have, over $200 million to date has been taken from those funds to do things other than energy conservation. And with that, I'll conclude.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you have another thought--

ROBERT EARLEY: I think simply that the point that we're trying to get across is that you can support climate change, without having to support higher taxes or fees that are necessary for some of these proposals that have been put forward.

And especially with regard to the Oil and Natural Gas Fund, which is being held out as one of the ways we can now close this gap, we need to really look at, seriously, whether we can assess all the proposals and what their costs are before we can make an informed decision of how to reach these goals. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Representative Piscopo.

REP. PISCOPO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question, and it deals with Connecticut, its competitiveness. Are you getting any, when someone's looking into coming to Connecticut, is there any mention of this Proposal or Plan brought up? Or is it too premature yet, so--

ERIC BROWN: I'm not sure I've heard anything specific to this Plan. What I do hear, continually, as late as yesterday's visit to the barbershop, is the concern, to put it mildly, about people's energy bills that they're getting in the mail now.

That comes from a small guy like that, and then I also have members at the other end of the scale that are looking to sight facilities to create jobs and really want to stay in Connecticut, and are saying, in all due seriousness, this is a tough one to justify with the front office, because the energy costs in Connecticut are so much higher than so many other places they have the option to go.

So the Plan, I have not heard people talk about too much specifically, but certainly, the cost of doing business is high on their list.

REP. PISCOPO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ERIC BROWN: And I would like to just add to that one thing.

REP. PISCOPO: Sure.

ERIC BROWN: And particularly, as advocates come before you on this, I think it's important to realize that meeting these goals, which your report says that it can now, is dependent upon the relicensing of nuclear power plants in Connecticut and that those get up and running.

That's an implicit assumption in the conclusion that these goals can be met. So to the extent we talk about priorities, and I know people have identified the Gas and Oil Fund as priorities, because the chart may show that they contribute more to reductions than other measures, realize that, again, the underlying assumption is that nukes are relicensed and in place.

If that doesn't happen, you're probably talking 50% short of meeting these goals. So, to the extent we go forward with anything here, we want to make sure it's clear what the priorities are, in terms of getting there, if we decide that those goals continue to have merit. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any other questions? Representative Megna.

REP. MEGNA: Thank you, Chairman. The conservation aspect also could lead to a lower price in energy costs. And we've seen, particularly with the Electric Conservation Fund, that many large businesses have benefited with lower energy costs.

So couldn't that also lead to a more competitive energy market here in the State, the conservation of gas, and oil, and electricity?

ROBERT EARLEY: I think that assumes that we're going to be able to match the fundings here with conservation projects. Our track record to date is, not only do we have $200 million that has gone for purposes other than conservation, but we also have a fund where the money still has not been spent. From year to year, we carry it over.

So I think we just need to look good and hard, before we create additional funds, at how we've done so far with collecting money for these purposes.

But the direct answer to your question is, yes, large businesses have benefited from these funds. And it's one of the reasons they're able to compete, because the cost of energy is so high.

I think one of the things that's worth noting, the existing proposal that's on the table is a 3% surcharge on the commodity costs.

The Electric Fund is a mill rate charge, it's a volumetric charge. So, in essence, you could be penalizing a consumer who's trying to use these programs and be more efficient for the volatility that's in the natural gas and oil markets.

I think that's a big problem or one of the problems among many, the biggest being that I think the costs right now, with regard to natural gas, and oil, and electricity, are so high that it doesn't make sense, at this time, to drive that price up higher for our businesses that are facing these cost pressures from around the globe and here domestically as well.

REP. MEGNA: [inaudible - microphone not on]

REP. ROY: Thank you. Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for your testimony. We certainly appreciate hearing from the business side of things as well, because I know you were involved in, I believe you were one of the organizations involved in putting together this report.

You mentioned the relicensing of the nuclear plants, which happen to be in my District. And, you know, I know that's moving along. We don't know yet what the NRC, the NRC has complete say in that.

It has nothing to do with the State, with the DEP or any Committee here, as you probably know.

But knowing that you are supportive of that, because, I mean, whether we like it or not, and there are lots of environmental issues around nuclear power plants, they are cleaner, in terms of air emissions, but the concern is, obviously, with the nuclear waste that the plants leave behind, quite frankly.

But they do provide about, I think, 45% or so of our electricity here in Connecticut. I would doubt very much we'll see any new nuclear plants licensed here, but certainly keeping Units 2 and 3 going at Millstone are most important to the future of keeping some of our electric rates down.

The other thing is, are you going to be involved at all as the DEP moves forward with their new solid waste management plan? You don't have any input in that--

ERIC BROWN: To the extent we have the opportunity to be a part of it, we'd appreciate the opportunity.

SEN. STILLMAN: Because as that new report will probably show, is that our waste energy plants are reaching their maximum, and we do have quite a few of them around the State.

And so we get back into the issue of recycling, as Representative Megna just talked about. So I do think that there will be opportunities there, as we put a new plan in place for solid waste management, to have it work with the climate change recommendations that I hope we will finally adopt.

On Monday, this Committee will take some action to just endorse, maybe in theory, because let's not forget, this is a draft Plan, it's not a final Plan, and I think it'd be premature for this Committee to adopt a Plan when it's not finalized.

So we will take some action on Monday that says, you know, we like what you did and let's move forward. But recycling on that large customer level, I think, will be helpful, in trying to keep some of those costs down and yet creating a cleaner environment. So, thank you.

ERIC BROWN: I'm aware the Plan is, there's a big push to get the Plan revised. We haven't been a part of the discussion yet, but we certainly look forward to it. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Any other questions? Representative Perone.

REP. PERONE: Thank you, Mr. Roy. Yeah, Mr. Brown, I just had a question. Has there been any discussion regarding the impact on insurance if these recommendations go through?

You know, reduce the effects of bronchitis, asthma, that sort of thing, you know, on projected insurance costs? Has anybody had discussion regarding that?

ERIC BROWN: To my knowledge, I haven't heard any analysis of what impact Connecticut taking action on global climate change, what impact that would have on insurance rates. You may hear from somebody today who has some expertise in that. I'm not sure, I don't [inaudible].

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Gentlemen.

ERIC BROWN: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Derek Murrow. He will be followed by Roger Smith.

DEREK MURROW: Thank you, Representative Roy, Senator Stillman, Members of the Committee. My name is Derek Murrow. I'm Director of Policy Analysis for Environment Northeast.

Environment Northeast is here today to strongly support endorsement of the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan. This is a strong document that presents a framework for cost-effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also to achieve the targets that the State committed to last year.

We were stakeholders in the Governor's Climate Change Dialogue and very active in helping to develop the recommendations that form the bulk of this Climate Action Plan.

We were also the lead advocates, along with Clean Water Action and the Connecticut Climate Coalition, on last year's P.A. 04252, AN ACT CONCERNING CLIMATE CHANGE.

We wanted to remind the Committee that the Climate Change Bill last year had 112 cosponsors. It passed the Senate unanimously, and by 133 to 14 in the House. You really couldn't ask for much stronger support for the development of this Plan.

The Climate Plan lays out a framework and a list of policies that the State should implement in the coming years to achieve its targets.

We thought it would be helpful to highlight a couple of important policies that we believe the Legislature should implement this year.

Our top priority is natural gas and heating oil conservation. This would achieve 43% of the 2010 emissions reduction target. These programs also would save the State over $5 million and generate over 2,000 new jobs by 2020. There are details of this analysis in the Plan, which we encourage folks to look at.

We really view these policies as an economic development, as well as a jobs policy. And I think it's important to remember that cost is made up, both of price and consumption.

So although there may be a slight increase in price, the reduced demand will significantly reduce overall energy cost to consumers.

We also believe that this will be introduced as legislation this year through the Energy Committee, and there'll be an opportunity for more discussion of this proposal.

The next important policy we think the Legislature should consider is reducing emissions from diesel engines, which contribute both to global warming and to the State's tremendous asthma problems.

Legislation is also being introduced this year, we believe, by Senator Williams that will create a comprehensive diesel emissions reduction program, using existing technologies and strategies to dramatically reduce emissions from diesel engines.

Environment Northeast appreciates the efforts of this Committee in reviewing the Climate Plan, and we urge the Committee to endorse the Plan, and make gas and oil conservation, and reducing emissions from diesel engines, the highest priority for implementation this year. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much.

DEREK MURROW: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Roger Smith, to be followed by Tom Malone.

ROGER SMITH: Good morning, Senator Stillman, Representative Roy, and Members of the Committee. My name is Roger Smith, and I'm here representing the Connecticut Climate Coalition, which is a diverse coalition of more than 85 organizations, representing over a half-million Connecticut residents.

And I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before this Committee, and I also want to let you know that I did submit written testimony.

I'm here to speak in support of the draft Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan 2005. In short, this is the Plan we've been waiting for.

This is the Plan we've been waiting for since 2001, when the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers recognized that global warming poses a serious threat to the region and committed our states to doing something about it.

The New England Governors Agreement and the upcoming release of the Plan are moments that make us proud to live in Connecticut and New England.

We're proud that our leaders look to a problem like global warming and don't throw up their hands, but roll up their sleeves. The Connecticut Climate Coalition urges you to endorse the Plan in front of you as a roadmap towards reaching the goals of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, which you embraced in an act concerning climate change last year.

This draft Plan is strong because of the robust public planning process which spanned the last two years. Several organizations in our coalition were stakeholders, who helped suggest and refine the recommendations.

Other groups wrote about this Plan in their newsletters, talked about it in their local meetings, and encouraged their members to take time off from work and from their families to come to public hearings on the Plan.

It's fitting that this transparent public process ends with a public hearing, this time in front of the Environment Committee. We're excited about the Plan because of the real economic and health benefits it'll bring to the State of Connecticut.

As you know, Connecticut has severe air quality problems. And measures in this Plan, like the Clean Car Standard, which was already passed last year, initiatives to clean up diesel pollution, and increased use of clean, renewable energy, will make Connecticut a healthier place and more desirable place to live.

We're also excited about policies to reduce pollution by increasing energy efficiency, which allows us to maintain our standard of living and allows us to spend less of our money on fuels like heating oil and natural gas.

Our only point of concern with the Plan is that it assumes we will continue to rely on nuclear power over the next few decades. We're concerned about the unresolved risk of accident or attack, and the unresolved problem of storage of radioactive waste.

Because of this uncertainty, the agencies should strengthen the existing recommendations and investigate new ones to enable us to reach our climate change goals without relying on nuclear energy.

So I want to thank you for your time. And I urge you to endorse the draft Climate Plan, so that the Governor's Steering Committee on Climate Change can continue to develop it.

In this, you have the full support of our 85 organizations and many thousands of citizens across the State. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions? Senator McKinney.

SEN. MCKINNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your testimony. Just a quick question, if you know.

ROGER SMITH: Sure.

SEN. MCKINNEY: We had a representative from Quebec in, I guess, was it earlier this week or last week, who was coming around, meeting with some of us.

And one of the topics we talked about was the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers' movement on this topic.

Can you tell us what the other New England states, who signed the agreement as well, have done? Where are they, in terms of their action plan? Are we ahead, behind, if you know the answer to that.

ROGER SMITH: Sure, I can speak to that, at least for some of the states that I've been working more closely with.

Massachusetts was actually the first state to release their climate action plan, and they did so several days after we passed an act concerning climate change last year.

I think their plan has 70-something recommendations in it, and right now, they're moving forward with implementation. So Massachusetts is the first, in that regard.

We were actually the second state to commit to the New England Governors' goals, do legislation. And the first state to do that was Maine.

And that really started the process for them, so they actually just completed their own state quota process. They came out with 55 recommendations, and now they're working to finalize their own plan.

I think Rhode Island, they do things a little bit differently in Rhode Island. So they're actually on their fourth stakeholder process.

And the fourth one is concerned with public education and how to get buy in from their communities. And from there, I think they're going to finalize their plan and move to implementation.

I know that Governor Douglas in Vermont, I believe, recently recommitted to the goals of the New England Governors. There's been some turnover in Vermont and New Hampshire, so they're actually a little behind, and they're only starting on the planning process now.

I'm not sure as much about the progress of the Canadian provinces, but we do put out a scorecard every year which compares the states and the provinces on their action towards reaching these goals.

And last year, Connecticut and Massachusetts were tied for first place in that, so you know.

REP. ROY: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Tom Malone. He'll be followed by Janet Heller.

TOM MALONE: Good morning. I am Tom Malone, retired from more than three decades of involvement in this issue with the National Academy of Sciences, the International Council of Science, and the World Meteorological Organization.

I found this report to be very persuasive on two counts. First, the balanced and the professional tone, and the solid science make it a basis for forward-looking legislative action.

And secondly, the extraordinarily diverse group of stakeholders who produced this report. On that basis, I'm very pleased to strongly urge you to endorse this fine report.

I will touch very quickly on four topics. The evolution of science on this issue, during the 1970s, the emphasis was on reducing uncertainties and assessing seriousness.

In the '80s, the attention was on developing a broad, international consensus. That happened in 2001 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with the statement, there is a new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Then, last September, down at Wesleyan University, the smoking gun on this issue was revealed in the study by the nine member government analysis of the overwarming in the Arctic.

And the implications for the Artic and for the world at large were really the smoking gun. It was so strong that we sent a letter to President Bush, which I've attached to my report, outlining that swift action at the federal government is required. We've had no answer yet from that request.

But subsequently, in fact, this week, there was an article in The New York Times on a similar study in the Antarctic. And the results, two of them are very important.

One is the expectation that there'll be a 4 feet rise in sea level globally. And the statement by Dr. Rignot of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and he said, if Antarctica collapses, it will have a major effect on the whole globe.

This tells us sort of the present status of the science. Since I prepared my testimony, the University of Oxford scientist has now harnessed thousands of computers to elaborate on his model, so the science is fastbreaking.

Now it's back to impact on Connecticut, vulnerability, I would cite simply two examples. One is the, imagine the impact on Connecticut's coastline of a four foot rise in the Long Island Sound level.

Or speculate on the impact on the insurance industry of a global climate change that would generate heat waves, more severe and frequent storms, and raising sea level.

Now there's a tendency to look at this as a doomsday scenario. But in our letter to President Bush, we pointed out that approach on this problem is really the first step toward the pursuit of the vision of a local, national, and global society, in which all basic human needs are met and an equitable share of life's amenities are enjoyed by every individual in successive generations, while maintaining a healthy, physically attractive, and biologically productive environment. The report before you is a first step.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on]

TOM MALONE: Yes. Why this initiative in Connecticut? I would commend your attention to the new book, Collapse, by Jared Diamond, who says that working to fix your local environment has another benefit, besides making your own life more pleasant.

It also sets an example to others, both in our country and overseas. I'd be glad to answer questions.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? No. Sir, thank you very much. Janet Heller, to be followed by Dr. Margo Thornberg, Thorning, excuse me.

JANET HELLER: Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Chairperson, Members of the Committee. I'm here to speak in support of the draft Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan 2005.

I speak directly for about a dozen members of our Sustainable Living Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Church in Manchester, and indirectly for its 268 members.

And I speak directly for the board members of the Connecticut Northeast Organic Farming Association, which serves over 500 members in Connecticut.

Our congregation, UUS:East, joins others in seeking to become what we call a Green Sanctuary. Our major focus has been on actions to combat global warming.

In this effort, we join with congregations across the state, which are members of the Interreligious Eco-Justice Network.

In our homes, in our church building, here in our State, we are taking actions to encourage energy conservation, to promote renewable energy, to increase recycling, to protect Connecticut's farmland and forests, and to promote local farming and local organic produce.

We strongly support this Climate Change Action Plan for the sake of our children, whether they live and breathe in our polluted cities or on a hillside in Glastonbury.

And for the sake of our plant and animal communities, and the interdependent web of life that we are all a part of, here in Connecticut and around the world, we must do this work now if we want to have any hope of leaving a livable, breathable, beautiful State and earth for our children and their children.

And we must join regional efforts, and encourage other states and other nations in making similar efforts. I urge you to build on the good work you have begun here in Connecticut.

It is time for us to seriously decrease our dependence on fossil fuels for multiple reasons and on nuclear power for its dangers and lack of safe waste disposal methods.

It is time to strongly and creatively promote an increase in conservation methods and practices, and development of renewal energy technologies and ways to put them into much greater use.

It's time to increase public transportation and other alternatives, reduce greenhouse gases and harmful diesel emissions from school buses and other vehicles.

It's time to promote smart growth in our cities, and to protect all of our remaining forests and farmlands which absorb carbon dioxide, and to increase a local, sustainable food system.

Supporting locally grown produce makes us less dependent on food transported from thousands of miles away, while spewing greenhouse gases all the way across America.

This broad Plan, supported by diverse sectors of Connecticut stakeholders, effectively addresses these issues and many more.

And we strongly support it and hope you will vote to endorse this Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Dr. Thorning, followed by Ellen Castaldini.

MARGO THORNING, PHD: My name is Margo Thorning. I'm the Chief Economist and Senior Vice President with the American Council for Capital Formation. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee to discuss this very important topic.

Before turning to the economic impact on Connecticut of the Climate Action Plan, I'd like to just step back a minute and review some of the economic analyses that have been done for the U.S. economy as a whole.

I think the reason that the Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol is because they had done sufficient modeling with very good macroeconomic models to conclude that the cost to the U.S. would be very high, perhaps 2% to 4% of GDP, if we tried to comply with the Kyoto target in the year 2010, and perhaps the loss of three million jobs.

There's a range of models whose results are presented in my testimony in Figure 1, and I would like my testimony to be included in the record, if I could ask that.

So looking at the Connecticut situation, the Charles River Associates, a very well-respected international energy modeling firm, has tried to measure the cost to Connecticut of complying with the New England Governors Plan, which, as you know, requires reduction to 1990 levels of emissions by 2010, 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, and an 80% reduction in CO2 by the year 2050.

These studies are posted on the ACCF website at www.accf.org for your review, and I summarize them in my testimony.

The bottom line is, all of the studies, one of which is looking at Connecticut going it alone and imposing the New England Governors Plan on the economy, the other study is Connecticut joining with the other eight Northeastern states and adopting the New England Governors Plan.

And then finally, Charles Rivers looked at the impact of just requiring the utility sector in Connecticut and the other Northeastern states to comply with the New England Governors emission targets.

But all these studies show rather significant negative impacts on the Connecticut economy.

For example, under the proposal of Connecticut joining with the eight other Northeastern states to try to meet the New England Governors target, household income is reduced by $2,700 annually by the year 2010.

The poor and the elderly are much harder hit than other income classes, and there are over 9,000 fewer jobs in the State of Connecticut in 2010.

So using a general equilibrium model, as Charles Rivers does, it's fairly clear that these proposals will have very real economic costs.

There is a better path forward, which, I think, stepping back, looking at emissions globally, because climate change is a global issue, the better path forward is to encourage economic growth and economic freedom in the developing countries like China, and India, and Brazil, where the new growth and emissions are going to be coming from, because economic growth pulls through the capital stock more quickly, so that we see declines in emissions intensity.

So the hope for the future, in terms of reducing greenhouse gasses globally, is to encourage developing countries to adopt new technology.

And if economic freedom is encouraged, they will grow faster. They will be able to get access, not only, well, to current technology, which is much better than what they have in place, but hopefully encourage their own economic growth and gradually reduce emissions intensity.

And I think that's the only viable way to go forward, because governments are not willing to impose sufficient pain on their populations to ratchet down emissions in line with the New England Governors target, for example. It just simply won't happen.

It's not happening in Europe. They're not on track to meet their targets, they have no intention of actually forcing their economies down to meet their targets.

And if Connecticut goes in that direction, they will be going down a path that the rest of the world is beginning to step back from. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you, Doctor. Are there any questions? Representative Piscopo.

REP. PISCOPO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming up, Doctor, appreciate it. You mentioned the Charles River Association.

Last year, in deliberation of this Bill, we had them up for a seminar, and I'll be sure to distribute that to the Members of this Committee. And I appreciate that testimony to how this will affect the economy of Connecticut directly.

You also mentioned the European Union, which seemed to be one of the first groups to accept the Kyoto Protocol. Can you just elaborate a little more than you did in your testimony?

MARGO THORNING, PHD: Well, of the original 15 member states in the EU, only one is now on track to actually meet their Kyoto target. And the Italian government, for example, said at the COP 10 meeting in Buenos Aires, which I participated in, that, for the second commitment period, where they're talking about the much stronger cuts in emissions, maybe 50% to 60% below 1990 levels in the post-2010 period, the Italian government is saying that, unless China and India are engaged, they're simply not going to feel like going ahead and adopting the tighter targets, because they understand the competitiveness and job loss impacts of binding their economy to near-term targets and timetables.

So business people in Europe are increasingly asking that policymakers take a look at targets, based on emissions intensity, which is, of course, the Bush Administration's position, that we need to think about reducing emissions intensity per dollar of output, rather than trying to hit near-term targets and timetables, which, as I said, governments do not have the political will to impose on their populations. They wouldn't be re-elected if they did.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any other questions? Representative Megna.

REP. MEGNA: Thank you, Chairman. Doctor, what's your feel about conservation and efficiency or reducing energy demand, and that impact on the economy.

MARGO THORNING, PHD: I think where it's cost-effective, of course, conservation has to be part of the solution, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But where it's not cost-effective, it is going to have a negative impact on competitiveness, and jobs, and so forth. But certainly, it has to be part of the package of approaches to reducing greenhouse gases.

REP. MEGNA: I'm sorry, but in terms of impact to the economy, does it make the economy healthier?

MARGO THORNING, PHD: If you conserve energy and you have to use higher cost inputs because you're changing your production process, it will cost you money. So--

REP. MEGNA: But in the long [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to Tape 1B.]

MARGO THORNING, PHD: --it would not hurt your bottom line. But if you have to change it over the near term, capital stock, much of it, especially in the electricity production, has a very long life.

And if you prematurely retire capital to try to conserve energy, it will raise your cost of doing business, relative to the baseline. That's all I'm saying. But certainly, conservation can be part of the process.

REP. MEGNA: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much.

MARGO THORNING, PHD: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Ellen Castaldini, followed by David Sutherland.

ELLEN CASTALDINI: Good morning, Chairmen Stillman and Roy, and Members of the Environment Committee.

My name is Ellen Castaldini. And I'm speaking this morning as a concerned citizen and as an adult, who really enjoys doing environmental programs for children and adults for about a half a dozen organizations within Connecticut.

I urge you to support the draft Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan for 2005. Global warming is a problem that's faced by all nations of our planet earth.

And Connecticut, as part of the heavily industrialized United States, can play a significant role in supporting actions to lessen the negative impacts of greenhouse gas pollution.

I'm very proud that Connecticut passed an act concerning climate change in 2004. The recommendations of Action Plan 2005, which have been approved by climate stakeholders from industry, utilities, government agencies, academia, and non profits, provides a comprehensive plan for implementing our Climate Change Act.

Reliance on fossil fuels as the primary energy source causes pollution that results in major public health problems, especially in urban areas.

For children to succeed in school, attendance must be regular and children must not suffer from chronic health issues. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 20 years, and asthma is a leading cause of school absenteeism.

I want to highlight my support for the recommendations that will help reduce public health risks and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

I especially support the following actions in the Action Plan, recommendations to reduce diesel pollution from trucks and buses, especially school buses, and to improve public transportation options.

Recommendations to reduce reliance on fossil fuels by promoting energy efficiency and the use of cleaner energy sources. And I want to thank the Members of the Environment Committee who do work to sustain and improve the quality of our environment.

I'm grateful for your hard work. And I did provide written testimony, in addition to my verbal. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. David Sutherland, followed by Steve Guveyan.

DAVID SUTHERLAND: Good morning. My name is David Sutherland. I am here today representing the Nature Conservancy, which is an international organization concerned with protecting biological diversity throughout the planet.

And many of the concerns concerning climate change revolve around the calamitous effects that it will have on our species and on our human communities.

Our organization is primarily concerned with the impact that climate change will have on natural communities, and plant and animal species, and I just want to address that for a minute.

If the temperature and climate changes that are predicted by a majority of climatologists now were to occur over a period of several hundred thousand years, we probably wouldn't see a loss of species diversity, necessarily.

Many species would be able to adapt. We might even have new species that would evolve to fill certain niches. But the changes we're seeing forecast are predicted to occur over a period of only 100 years.

That is an incredibly short time in the development of species. And we're very concerned that we're going to see a drastic reduction in the number of plant and animal species that are able to survive.

Both certainly coral reef systems, which are crucial to our fisheries, they are going to just be directly impacted. Many of them are already suffering, certainly from pollution, but also from the effects of warming.

Many other species, trees, plants, different animal species, are going to suffer indirectly through increased susceptibility to diseases and other types of pathogens that are currently attacking them.

They can withstand those now, but with climate change, they're going to be much more vulnerable to those.

And as we see a drastic reduction in the number of species that are able to survive, the health of our ecological systems is going to decline.

And we think that's bad, just for those species themselves, but it's going to have a very negative impact on our species as well.

Timber production is probably going to suffer. Fisheries are certainly going to suffer. And many other things that we depend on in the natural world are not going to be as available to us, and they're going to be far more expensive.

We feel that Connecticut needs to take a leadership role in this. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and certain parts of Great Britain were the leaders in the Industrial Revolution over the past couple of centuries or two centuries ago.

And there was a lot of consternation in Connecticut and Massachusetts at that time over some of the effects that the Industrial Revolution was having on our economies, on our societies.

But certainly, we've seen untold benefits from that Industrial Revolution. And we're seeing some of the same opportunities and challenges facing us now with this topic.

And we feel that Connecticut should be a leader. We're one of the most affluent political entities in the world, even taking away Fairfield County, so we should be a leader in this. Thank you very much.

REP. ROY: Thank you, David. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Thank you.

DAVID SUTHERLAND: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Steve Guveyan, followed by Donald Strait. Steve, did I get your last name right?

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Very good.

REP. ROY: Thank you.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Senator Stillman, Representative Roy, Members of the Energy Committee, I'm Steve Guveyan from the Connecticut Petroleum Council, testifying on behalf of major oil companies and refineries doing business in the State of Connecticut.

Our comments on the Plan are very, very limited. We're commenting only on Sections RA 32 and RA 33, which assess a 3%, use whatever word you will, tax, fee, surcharge, assessment, on oil and natural gas to start and fund an Oil Conservation Fund and a Natural Gas Conservation Fund.

At current prices, $2.01 a gallon for heating oil, a 3% tax will raise it about $0.06 a gallon, and a similar amount for natural gas.

Our main point on this is that it's a very radical departure from what tax policy has been, both in Connecticut and other states in the Northeast.

Historically, we do not tax things that are classified as necessities of life. Food we buy at the supermarket, prescription drugs, heating oil, natural gas traditionally have not been taxed by either State government, federal government, or local municipalities in states that allow that.

This goes in the other direction. This is saying that, for the first time, we would start a 3% fee, tax, surcharge, and assess it on necessities of life, heating oil, all grades of heating oil, No. 2 oil that goes into your house, and then the heating oils that are heavier grade, 4, 5, and 6 oils that go into places like Hartford Hospital and United Technologies manufacturing plants.

There are no exemptions, the way it's written in the current draft. So it's 3% across the board on all oils, all natural gas. At current prices, that's about $0.06 a gallon.

The analysis in the document says it would raise about $20 million a year on the oil side and about $29 million a year on the natural gas side.

We've run our own sets of numbers, and our feeling is that that substantially underestimates how much will be raised. About 900 million gallons of heating fuels are sold in this State every year.

At $1 a gallon times the 3%, that's $27 million. We all know the price is a lot higher than that. At $2 a gallon, it's about $54 million. The document says $20 million.

So as we look at the numbers, especially on the oil side, we have not run them on the natural gas side, the document very much underestimates how much is going to be raised. A 3% fee is going to raise a lot more than what the document says.

The impact will be most severely felt by low income, then middle income, and then, obviously, at the end of the curve, high income.

Low-income people traditionally don't have the cash. And what the Plan says is, we'll match you on energy conservation funding, dollar for dollar.

So if a heating system costs $4,000 and you put in $2,000, you can access the fund for the remaining $2,000. Well, a low-income resident probably doesn't have the $2,000 in the first place.

There are no income guidelines in here, there are no income qualifications in here. And it does raise the question, as we've gone through the different scenarios, if everybody's assessed the 3%, so the low-income person's paying the 3% as well, what happens if the high-income guy, who does have cash for a new heating system, says, I want to access the fund.

In that case, you have the low-income person subsidizing the high-income person. That's really a matter of tax policy for Legislators to decide.

But we do want to make the point that, as we run the scenarios in different ways, there are a lot of inequities that come out of it. We have some other points, I know I'm out of time, but we have some other points regarding modeling, and we'll leave that at that.

REP. ROY: Thank you very much. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Representative Kalinowski.

REP. KALINOWSKI: Yes, Sir. Could you tell me, if the No. 2 heating oil was carved out of this assessment, what would be the revenue shortfall? Do you have any idea?

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Well, let's see. Of the 900 million gallons a year sold in this State, probably 550 of it are No. 2 home heating oil for residences.

So I guess we'd have to run the other 350 million, do the math and see whether we come out at the $20 million, whether it's a little bit more or a little bit less.

REP. KALINOWSKI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROY: Any other questions? Thank you very much, Sir.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Yeah, I had a question.

REP. ROY: I'm sorry. Wait a minute. Excuse me, I forgot my co-chair. Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you, Sir. Good morning. You didn't get a chance to talk about the REMI modeling, so I will ask you a question about that.

Because I'm very cautious about REMI modeling, because I don't think that the, on other committees that I've served on, I don't think we've gotten accurate REMI modeling outcomes or even outputs, to begin with.

What REMI model did you use? And could you expand on, give us an idea as to how you utilized a REMI model?

STEVEN GUVEYAN: We did not run REMI numbers ourselves.

SEN. STILLMAN: Oh, okay.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: The people who did the Climate Action Plan did the REMI modeling.

SEN. STILLMAN: Right. I thought maybe you did some as well.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Well, we didn't do actual modeling.

SEN. STILLMAN: Okay.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: What we did was looked at the inputs into the model. Our overall experience, and I have not dealt with REMI modeling myself, REMI is Regional Economic Modeling Initiative, have not done the modeling myself.

People who have done it have said the model itself is a very good model. What one has to be careful about, very careful about, are the inputs that go into the model.

It's the assumptions that are made, going into the model, because the assumptions going in are going to dramatically affect the inputs and the answers coming out. And that's what has to be looked at.

So, as we've had some people take a look at the inputs, you know, their analysis has been that this Plan, and the REMI suggests that there's going to be a large amount of home heating oil saved if we go with more energy efficiency equipment.

And if you go to the section of the Plan, I think it's number 32, they actually give you the numbers. They say that they're going to save roughly 10% of the heating oil sold on a yearly basis if we go this way, and then another 10% ten years after that. I think their firm number by 2020 is 22% in change.

We've run the heating oil numbers in this State going back a number of years, and what we have found is consumption in the State of Connecticut for all of the heating fuels has been very consistent.

The real difference, year to year, is the weather. The coldest years, you sell the most heating oil. The years that are a little bit warmer, you don't sell as much. But going back over five or six of the last seven years, what we've sold in heating oil in Connecticut is very, very consistent.

In the old days, going back 20-something years ago, the average homeowner here probably burned 1,400 or 1,500 gallons a year. Today that number is probably around 700 to 800 a year.

So as the housing stock turns over, old buildings come down or people buy houses, sell houses, and heating systems get upgraded, the big conservation impacts have been done. Not to say there can't be more done, there can, especially on the low-income side.

But it's very hard for us to believe the input into the model saying that we're going to save 22% of the gallons between now and the year 2020, when the big group of conservation homes is behind us, and, you know, year to year, people are doing this on their own.

One of the things REMI does not take into account, at least by our look, is the fact that most people who do energy conservation do it on their own.

If you find your oil bill is really high, you call your heating contractor. He comes in, he'll give you some quotes at the end of the winter, because you say, I really burned too many gallons.

He'll say it costs X, $4,000, you decide you're going to do it. And then starting next year, you're saving. REMI doesn't seem to take into account that most people in Connecticut are going to do that on their own and have been doing it on their own.

REMI seems to suggest that everybody that does it is doing it because of the funding coming out of the 3% fee. No fee, no savings. And our experience has been just the opposite of that.

And most people, when the price gets [inaudible], is the first thing they do, after they complain about the price, is to say to the heating oil delivery company or to their natural gas company, how am I going to save?

You've got to come in here and tell me what I can do. And they'll come in, and maybe on the oil side, where you got a bunch of choices, you can get three or four people coming in.

You get quotes, you find out what the options are, and then you sit down and figure out, you know, the numbers yourself, what are you going to do.

So our point is, in all of the modeling stuff, that much of the conservation for the middle class has already been done.

There is more that can be done, but the numbers, in no way, yield the REMI kinds of savings, and that is why we question the outputs at the end of all this, because the inputs going into the modeling just don't seem to mesh with all the numbers in Connecticut show. Sorry if that's a little bit long, but--

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you, Steve. No, no, no, actually, I appreciated your answer. I thought that was a very complete one, that you are pretty much stating my concerns about REMI modeling. In this case, your feeling is that individual consumers' actions are not included in this REMI modeling. Is--

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Well, the--

SEN. STILLMAN: To a degree.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Well, yeah. It seems, as we look forward, looking down the road, which is what this is doing, they seem to be suggesting that all of the savings are going to be due to energy efficiency improvements made from the fund, which is collecting the 3%.

SEN. STILLMAN: Oh, right.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: And our point is, that whether there's a fund or no fund--

SEN. STILLMAN: Yeah, people are going to do it.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: --people are doing it on their own anyway.

SEN. STILLMAN: Right, right. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any other questions? Representative Megna.

REP. MEGNA: Thank you, Chairman. I don't know if you remember it, but we used to have a federal income tax credit many years ago. I don't mean to mention anything about your age, but was that in effect when you were in business and did you notice, was that an effective way of energy conservation?

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Boy, it's probably a little older than I am.

REP. MEGNA: Yeah, okay. Sorry. But--

STEVEN GUVEYAN: I do remember that there was something back then, I just don't remember what the details--

REP. MEGNA: Yeah, it was back in the '70s. I forget when they did away with it, but it was very effective and people doing energy efficiency on their homes.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: [inaudible]

REP. MEGNA: And I'm just wondering if that's a more effective way of going about doing conservation efficiency.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: I think, when it first came, I remember the first Arab oil embargo, when prices really shot up in '73, '74, the second one was '79, '80, '81 with the Iranian Revolution.

Prior to '73, '74, nobody really ever talked about energy conservation. There was no real need to, because oil was not only plentiful, but it was dirt cheap, so nobody really every talked about.

So when that first round was done with the federal credits, all the low-hanging fruit was picked right away, and there was a lot of it.

And then, as the years have gone by, there's less and less, so I don't know that we would get the impacts today that we got back then. But from what people have told me, it was very effective back then.

REP. MEGNA: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you, Sir.

STEVEN GUVEYAN: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Donald Strait, followed by John Hall.

DONALD STRAIT: Good morning, Senator Stillman, Representative Roy, and Members of the Environment Committee. I am Don Strait, Executive Director of Connecticut Fund for the Environment.

At a time when many in our country feel that our federal government is failing to fulfill its basic obligation to protect our environment and our health, I want to begin by thanking you for working so hard to address these problems here in Connecticut.

Thanks to the efforts of Connecticut's elected official and the professionals in our Department of Environmental Protection, our State is becoming a leader in the effort to make Connecticut and our nation healthier, and a safer place to live and raise a family.

Of particular note is the fact that, here in Connecticut, concern for the environment is bipartisan, and leadership has come from both sides of the aisle.

As one of Connecticut's leading environmental organizations, we recognize, for example, that our State would never have been able to adopt the historic Clean Cars Legislation if had not been for the hard work of many Legislators, including Senator Williams and Senator McKinney.

We hope and believe that a clear and strong consensus is developing among Republicans and Democrats that Connecticut can and must have a comprehensive and sophisticated Climate Change Action Plan.

The threat to our health and our environment from global warming pollution, including carbon dioxide and black carbon from diesel, is real.

These pollutants not only create direct health threats, but they warm the atmosphere, creating conditions that make heat-related illness and infectious disease more likely. More hot summer days themselves will mean more smog, which is associated with more asthma attacks and respiratory illness.

Unfortunately, despite the unequivocal scientific consensus that accelerated global warming is a result of human activities, there are still some in Washington and around the country who blithely dismiss the evidence.

They will go so far as to say that global warming is not happening or if it is, we must choose between a strong economy and a clean environment.

Here in Connecticut, we know that they are wrong. We can and are working successfully towards both of these critically important goals.

This historic initiative to reduce the dangerous pollution that causes global warming is a fair, equitable, and commonsense approach to developing real solutions that will have a positive impact on our environment and our health, and we urge the Committee to endorse it.

As the 2005 Session moves forward, this Committee and the entire General Assembly will have a number of opportunities to discuss these proposals in far greater detail.

For example, Connecticut Fund for the Environment, along with our many partners in the Clean Cars Alliance and the nationally respected organization Environmental Defense, have been working with Members of this Committee to take last year's Clean Cars Legislation to the next level and provide Connecticut's citizens with even greater incentives and protections.

As I said, our elected officials should be proud of their accomplishments to date, and we urge you to continue on the important path you have laid out.

We look forward to continuing to work with you in this task. Thank you very much. And I'd be happy to take any questions.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions from Committee Members? Seeing none, thank you very much. John C. Hall, followed by Judi Friedman.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: My name is John Hall. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a constituent of Mr. Kalinowski's District. I've been to many hearings on environmental issues here. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to actually speak.

I'm a minister in Middletown, a United Church of Christ congregation. Our congregation has also set up a non-profit corporation called the Jonah Center, which has a mission to promote the renewable energy use in our State.

Apart from all the obvious issues that pertain to climate change that have been mentioned, I'm here to speak in support of this Plan, but I want to focus on two particular points.

Many people from the business community appear before the Environment Committee and often speak of the damage that will be done to the poor or the elderly if we have environmental regulation. I suggest that there are many ways to help the poor, and if we want to do that, we can.

As far as the costs of this Plan to the economy, and some speakers have spoken to this, the price of additional energy costs, I'd like to say that the fossil fuel economy itself is coming to an end.

Humans have a tendency to use up fuel sources. We used up the wood supply in Connecticut in the 19^th Century. The United States' fossil fuel production peaked in the early 1970s.

Most people believe that Middle East fossil fuel production has already peaked. And most experts believe that fossil fuel production, oil and natural gas in the world will peak in the near future.

The pessimists feel it's already peaked, the greatest optimists feel it may peak in 20 to 25 years. When this happens, all our fossil fuel costs are going to increase. And if we aren't prepared to use renewal energy resources, our economy is going to be in big trouble.

And I really feel very strongly that the provisions in this Bill to fund renewable energy production and conservation are extremely important, just for our economy's sake. So I want to make that point. Many other industrial nations are far ahead of us on this score, as another speaker pointed out.

I want to address, briefly, one other personal concern of mine, and it involves school buses. I often take walks in the afternoon at a local school.

When the buses line up, 25 buses, and sit, idling, for as long as 30 minutes, diesel engines creating a huge cloud of pollution, to which these students walk out into every day.

The tailpipe of one bus is 10 feet from the door of the next bus. I've tried to work through the superintendent of schools, I've tried to work with the bus company, Datco, and I've gone into bus drivers.

I've gone to the buses and asked the drivers if they heard about the regulation to turn the buses off if it's above 30 degrees. They haven't heard about it. They will turn their buses off, and the next day, they'll be back on.

I haven't been able to access this Plan on the part on school buses, but if there's any opportunity to change it and to require school buses to turn their engines off when they're idling and when it's above 30 degrees, I think that would be a very good measure to take for the health of our students in our community. Thank you very much.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any questions? Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you very much for your testimony. A comment about--

REV. JOHN C. HALL: I do have written testimony.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we have it, yeah.

SEN. STILLMAN: Yes, I have it in front of me, thank you. Your comment about the school buses concerns me, because we do have a law. I believe they're only allowed to run for three minutes, and then they're supposed to be shut off.

So I, you know, hearing this concerns me, because we know every community has some battles about that because, you know, they don't want to turn their engines off.

But the reality is they're supposed to. And so I would, and that law should be, you should be able to access that on the Internet, you know, and--

REV. JOHN C. HALL: The link seemed to be broken.

SEN. STILLMAN: --[inaudible] statutes.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: I had the link, but it wouldn't go, sorry.

SEN. STILLMAN: So you would be, I think, perfectly safe--

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Okay.

SEN. STILLMAN: --in approaching your school superintendent and maybe your mayor because, are you from Middletown?

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Middletown, yes.

SEN. STILLMAN: Yes, about your concern that the bus company is violating the law.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: I wasn't aware that there was the law. Do you know when that law was passed?

SEN. STILLMAN: I think a couple of years ago. It's pretty recent.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Okay. I've been working on this for about six years, so I'm glad to know there--

SEN. STILLMAN: It's pretty recent.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Yes.

SEN. STILLMAN: And I know it created a lot of consternation from the bus companies in the towns, etc. Some towns actually had to move buses to other areas, because the fact that, you know, just some people in their communities complained. They actually, some towns took the initiative and actually put buses elsewhere so they weren't so close to the children, and then would slowly move them up as the children came out of school. But 30 minutes truly is--

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Yeah, it's a long time.

SEN. STILLMAN: Yeah.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: It's a very stinky atmosphere, believe me.

SEN. STILLMAN: And it's horrible. And so thank you for mentioning it, and maybe we need to remind the communities, so [inaudible]--

REV. JOHN C. HALL: And thank you for pointing out that there is a law. I wasn't aware of that. I apologize for that omission.

SEN. STILLMAN: [inaudible]

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Yeah, thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Sir? Sir?

SEN. STILLMAN: No, come back.

REP. ROY: Don? Representative Kalinowski.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Yes, one moment.

REP. KALINOWSKI: Just a quick reassurance that your State Representative will take it upon himself to contact the people in that area to see if we can do something.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Okay. I'll work with you on that. I have allies to work with us on that.

REP. KALINOWSKI: Thank you very much.

REV. JOHN C. HALL: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Judi Friedman, followed by Dorothy Lovett Buckley.

JUDI FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much for being here. Thank you for choosing the jobs you've chosen. They're not always easy, and we really appreciate all you do.

My name is Judi Friedman. I'm chair of PACE, People's Action for Clean Energy, and I'm speaking in support of the draft Connecticut Climate Action Plan.

Our organization includes 2,500 constituent households in Connecticut, and our publicity and our renewable energy tours, held since 1975, have reached millions and millions of Connecticut citizens.

There is no doubt in my mind that global warming is a real issue. I am also a member of the National Board of the Humane Society of the United States, and have been privileged to see unique photographs.

One that haunts my mind is of a starving polar bear who cannot hunt seals because the ice floes are melting. There he stands, on his little island of ice, unable to find his food.

Our energy options are also making us sick. As you well know, cancers of many kinds and asthma make our State famous in a very sad way.

In addition, our economic situation is not as healthy as it could be if we had more jobs. Renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency options are healthier and better economic choices.

I can speak personally on the subject of solar hot water, passive solar technologies, and grid-tied photovoltaic power, because my husband and I treasure our 40 panel solar tracking system that supplies almost 80% of the energy we use in our Connecticut home and offices.

PACE members are also deeply concerned about nuclear power and urge that this terrifying energy source not be included in Connecticut's mix.

Terrorism, accidents at aging plants, and routine emissions of radioactive isotopes, and lethal, long-lived radioactive waste preclude this option.

I invite each of you, no, I beg and implore each of you to attend the FOX promotional screening of Meltdown on February 8^th at St. Joseph's College in West Hartford at 7:00 p.m., snow date February 10^th.

A panel discussion, lead by Connecticut anti-nuclear activists, will follow the feature film. This film is real, relevant, timely, and absolutely frightening. Ignoring the issues of terrorism is ignorant.

Lastly, I beg you to look backwards. We must all strive to act in the spirit of the Six Nation Confederacy of the Iroquois Nation.

Let us consider all our decisions as to how they will affect the next seven generations, not selfishly just ours. Thank you very much for your time and work.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions? Okay, thank you very much. Senator McKinney has a statement to make.

SEN. MCKINNEY: I think Representative Kalinowski is [inaudible - microphone not on].

REP. KALINOWSKI: On previous testimony, note, Madam Chairman, that particular pubic act is P.A. 02-56. And so we have some good, quick research done here, and we'll do that bus idling thing as soon as we can.

SEN. STILLMAN: Great, thank you. Now I understand why we bring our computers with us.

SEN. MCKINNEY: And there is an exception in the law when it's below 20 degrees--

SEN. STILLMAN: Right.

SEN. MCKINNEY: --Fahrenheit, where they can keep the bus idling.

SEN. STILLMAN: Yeah, I mean, certainly, in this kind of weather, I would understand that. But still, 30 minutes is a long time, anyway.

SEN. MCKINNEY: Yeah.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you for your quick action for me.

REP. ROY: Okay. Dorothy Lovett Buckley, to be followed by Oliver Nicholas, Nichols, excuse me. Dorothy Buckley? Once, twice, three times. Oliver Nichols.

OLIVER NICHOLS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senators, Representatives. My name is Oliver Nichols, and I am here representing the Episcopal Diocese of the State of Connecticut, Committee on the Environment.

Just by way of background, I am a retired Senior Officer, responsible for investments for one of the local insurance companies, but a national-sized company, involved in a full career with risk analysis and assessment.

So the reason I got involved with the committee that I'm representing this morning is because I know the risks involved with global warming are severe and very real if not remediated.

You have the text of written testimony from the Committee on the Environment of the Episcopal Diocese. The Episcopal Church of Connecticut has approximately 75,000 members.

In 1994, the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut created the Committee on the Environment and charged it with the responsibility to promote an awareness and understanding of the sacredness of the natural environment and the need to restore the right relationship between humankind and all of creation.

In 2002, all 11 Bishops of New England issued a Pastoral Letter on the environment, calling every Episcopalian to act together to honor the goodness and sacredness of God's creation.

In this letter, the Bishops stated that global climate change is, quote, one of the most daunting challenges we face, unquote. From their perspective, global warming is but one stark example of the troubled relationship between humanity and the natural world.

And as Christians, we cannot remain silent. They call us to realize our corporate and individual opportunities to practice environmental stewardship and justice through our participation in public policy.

As Christians, we understand ourselves to be part of the natural order and that we are called by God as caretakers of creation. Some of the ways we know we can fulfill this responsibility are through the careful use of the earth's resources and by the reduction of the use of fossil fuels.

We can also ask our Legislators to develop and adopt sustainable policies that protect the environment and sustain our lives.

The State of Connecticut has a remarkable opportunity to provide a model for the rest of the nation by adopting a Climate Plan that is designed to reduce our air pollution, support clean energy technologies, protect our forests and farmland, and boost recycling rates.

We ask you to approve the Climate Plan and allow the Plan to continue to develop. We think that this new Climate Plan is a great step towards lessening our dependence on fossil fuels and reducing our air pollution problems in Connecticut.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you.

OLIVER NICHOLS: Thank you very much. And my four grandchildren thank you very much.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you, Sir. Anyone have any questions for the gentleman? Thank you. We appreciate your taking the time. Dmitri D'Alessandro, followed by Ken Colburn and Bob Maddox.

DMITRI D'ALESSANDRO: Good morning. Thank you, Senator Stillman, and Members of the Committee.

SEN. STILLMAN: Excuse me.

DMITRI D'ALESSANDRO: My name is Dmitri D'Alessandro. I'm the Director of Public Relations for Friends of the River Global. I'm going to try to make this brief.

This Climate Plan, aside from being critical for the health of our citizenry and environment, will provide something as a result that will have much more important impact for your constituents.

The long-term implementation of this Plan will create market pressure that can initiate a shift in Connecticut's economy towards advanced manufacturing, new infrastructure needs, and over the long term, give our State lower energy costs.

The business industries' representatives whining about high energy costs are not valid when the costs are taken relative to the other factors, such as our high taxes on energy, transportation costs, and the general affluence of our citizenry in this State.

Excuse me. According to a major ten-year research study, funded by the EU and undertaken by researchers from all member states and the United States, externalities, otherwise known as the hidden costs of fossil fuels, such as respiratory disease, deterioration of buildings, and lower agricultural production, effectively double the cost per kilowatt hour of burning petroleum-based fuels.

The costs are not directly apparent to the customer, but are long-term social costs. I strongly urge you to finalize and adopt this draft Plan and to create aggressive regulations to push our State into the forefront of a new market with amazing potential for job creation, energy conservation, and clean air.

Remember that the earth hangs in the balance, and you can start to tip the scales. The costs may be great, for we are at the first step of reversing almost 200 years of irresponsible profit-driven industrialism.

But the costs of inaction are much greater, and the results of maintaining our current lazy, quote, dollar today, ignore tomorrow attitude, will be much more expensive in the long run. Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you for your testimony. Questions, comments from anyone? Thank you, Sir.

DMITRI D'ALESSANDRO: You're welcome.

SEN. STILLMAN: Before we go on to the next speaker, I'd like to ask Committee staff, was there any testimony that could be piling up there that we have not received? If you would start handing it out, please, because I'm either missing some or some has not been--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on].

SEN. STILLMAN: Oh, okay, so none of the speakers that are listed--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on].

SEN. STILLMAN: Okay. Because if there is any testimony, would you please hand it out? Thank you. I appreciate it. Ken Colburn, followed by Bob Maddox, followed by Greg Dana.

KEN COLBURN: Thank you, Senator Stillman, Members of the Committee. My name is Ken Colburn, and I appear today on behalf of The Climate Group. It's a new international organization launched in April in London by Tony Blair.

Its purpose is to distill and then share the knowledge and experience of those that are successfully acting on climate change.

And specifically, I appear to commend to you the draft Climate Change Action Plan and those who prepared it, for its proposed policies would position Connecticut for long-term economic competitive advantage moving forward.

Connecticut's the right place to be undertaking these actions. It's moving in the right economic direction, and it's doing so in the right way.

Connecticut's the right place because you have a long, economically important coastline at risk of climate effects. You have a large property and casualty insurance sector, which will bear the brunt of a lot of the financial results of extreme weather events.

And at the same time, you have an extraordinary high-tech sector that will benefit from moving ahead on climate action. And you certainly have a tradition of environmental leadership.

In terms of the right economic direction, as illustrated in this handout, it's a supplement to the current issue of Environmental Finance magazine, a chart on page ten shows how companies are profiting from emission reductions.

BP has made $650 million, British Telecom has saved almost $1 billion. So they're not simply UK companies. DuPont has saved almost $2 billion, IBM nearly $1 billion.

Put together, you have six companies that have reduced their emissions 60%, far more than contemplated under the New England Governors Eastern Canadian Premiers Plan or the draft Climate Change Action Plan before you today.

And in doing so, they've saved $5.5 billion dollars, billion with a B, and it hasn't taken 20 or 30 years to realize those benefits.

There are local companies as well on that table. You'll see United Technologies, which, for example, its Otis Elevator unit is working on generating electricity as the elevator comes back down, using the force of gravity. That kind of technology is what will penetrate the future.

It's also not just companies. A chart on page 16 lists municipalities that are operating and lists, for example, Minneapolis, which is saving its taxpayers $113 million as a result of steps it's taken.

And then on page 23 is another table of states which includes Connecticut, largely in recognition of the steps that you took last year.

It's also the right way that you're approaching these actions. For example, the Climate Change Action Plan contemplates a Natural Gas Conservation Fund to address demand.

A company in Canada, Enbridge Gas Distribution Company, one of those on the table, undertook something similar, invested about $65 million, $70 million over the last nine or ten years. It's that handout in your packet. And in doing so, they've saved $700 million to their customers.

Likewise, the green sheet is a Resolution passed two weeks ago by the European Parliament, showing that Connecticut is well up on world pace of developments.

Items in that Resolution call for clean cars, much as you have adopted, complements RGGI, the cap-and-trade program that Connecticut's participating in, and proposes that the EU recognize that cap-and-trade program with its own system.

So climate action, Madam Chairman, is largely driven by efficiency. Efficiency is largely driven by productivity, productivity is driven by innovation.

And as you know, in any case like this, the early birds will have the best picking of the innovation worms [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1B to Tape 2A.]--new to this program.

In doing so, Connecticut is creating competitive advantage and long-term economic opportunity in preserving not merely its tradition in environmental leadership, but also its extraordinarily high quality of life.

I also have a bit of experience with modeling in Charles River and was also in Buenos Aires at the UN Discussions. I'd be pleased to answer any questions on these or those topics. Thank you very much.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thank you. And I'm very pleased to see you here today.

KEN COLBURN: Thank you.

REP. MUSHINSKY: I appreciate, especially, your reminding our Legislature that there's great economic advantage to being out there and being at the cutting edge, being innovative. So I'm glad you mentioned that again.

We were an early state on fuel cell technology. And the insurance industry actually helped that happen, and they got it. They got the connection and were out there supporting it. So thanks for reminding us of that. That's important to put that on the record.

And I wanted to ask you about carbon trading. I know that is helping promote the competition for efficiency in Europe, but I'm not sure how it might apply to us or whether it will apply or if there are any participants in Europe that are also players here that might bring it to Connecticut.

KEN COLBURN: Well, there certainly are in the latter category, Swiss Re, for example, one of the world's major reinsurance companies, is actually a founder of The Climate Group.

It has a headquarters in London and a strong presence in New York, and I believe its executives live in Connecticut as well. So there's overlap there.

There's a lot of action that has to be taken before cap-and-trade can operate linked to the EU. But the important thing is that they're willing to consider it.

And in doing so, you'd have a much bigger pool from both buyers and sellers, so it'd be that much stronger and more effective a market.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Thank you very much.

KEN COLBURN: Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Next, Bob Maddox, followed by Greg Dana, followed by Eric Haxthausen. Sorry, when you get up here, you'll tell us how to pronounce your name. Mr. Maddox, a pleasure to see you, Sir.

BOB MADDOX: Thank you, Senator Stillman. It's a pleasure to be here before one of the best Committees in the Legislature. My name is Bob Maddox.

I'm presently the Northeast Regional Manager for Sterling Planet, also President of the Connecticut Green Building Council, and a Certified Organic Farmer.

And I'm really here to briefly speak to you about this Plan. The first suggestion I would like to make, actually, following up with the previous speaker's comments, is that maybe the Plan needs to be renamed.

Instead of saying a Climate Change Action Plan, it really needs to be called a Plan to Implement Cost Savings Through Adoption of Intelligent Policies that Reduce Waste and Inefficiency in State Government Operations, While Helping to Secure Connecticut's Energy Future and Independence.

And in this light, I would just like to share three points with you. I won't go into much detail now about high-performance, energy-efficient green buildings, because I'm hoping to be back before this Committee to discuss some proposed bills, such as Proposed Bill 923, put in by Senator Williams, and a similar Bill put in by Senator McKinney.

So I hope we'll have the opportunity to discuss all the benefits that high-performance, energy-efficient green buildings provide to all of you and, really, the need to move forward with that.

What I am here to talk about briefly is more about renewable energy and the aspects that they provide. We all know of the recent rate shocks that we are experiencing. And I can tell you the bad news is, they ain't over yet.

If it gets very warm this summer, I don't know if the lights are staying in Fairfield County. And we need to start to act now, and we need to start to act for the future.

As we support more and more, and diversify our energy [inaudible] to clean, fossil fuel-free, renewable resources, and they become a larger and larger portion of our mix in the Northeast, we will drive down the cost of energy for the future.

We will also save a lot of pollution, but we will have more closely, home-grown, domestic, renewable resources that we can depend on.

The company that I work for is one of the largest suppliers in the nation to that. We've had clients here in Connecticut, such as Pitney Bowes.

We've had interest from institutions, from Yale. We've had Connecticut College sign up to support clean power. You've had Wesleyan University sign up to support clean power.

And because of actions of this Legislature in April, we've been moving forward with a program where residential individuals will be able to sign up for it.

The future is here, and it's now, and we need to continue to support that. And I think it's one of the stronger aspects. Also, Connecticut is a little bit starting to fall behind the 8 ball.

We talk about what New England states are doing. I'd just briefly like to share with you that New York, the Governor of New York, and California, they seem to be in lockstep and in competition with one another of what they're doing to support clean, renewable power, high-performance, energy-efficient buildings, clean greening standards.

It is just phenomenal what is going on over in New York State. I won't take a lot of the Committee's time, but just to say that these are states that are well ahead of us.

Even New Jersey, which we sometimes like to make fun of, is well ahead of us. Texas is well ahead of us. And not just Austin, Texas, but Dallas, Texas, and Houston, Texas, have taken actions on their own.

Finally, with that is that I think if we go beyond what this means on climate change and look at what it really means in our bottom line, we will all profit. The U.S. Green Building Council has a saying, Build Green, Everyone Profits. And I think that's exactly where we are. Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for Mr. Maddox? No? Thank you.

BOB MADDOX: Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Next, Greg Dana, followed by Eric Haxthausen, if I got it right that time. Was I better on that one? Followed by Ann Berman. Mr. Dana.

GREG DANA: Good morning, Senator Stillman and Members of the Committee. You have my written testimony. I'll make a brief summary of that testimony.

My name is Greg Dana. I'm Vice President of Environmental Affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. There are three issues in the greenhouse gas plan that affect us. One is Low Emission Vehicle Program, which was already adopted by the State of Connecticut.

I spoke before the Legislature and some of you in the past on that issue, so I won't talk more about it right now. Let me talk a little bit about greenhouse gases though.

One of the recommendations in the Bill as to or in the report is to adopt what's called the Pavley Bill or A.B. 1493 out of California. A few points I'd like to make on that.

Such standards, we believe, are firmly preempted by the federal government. In my testimony, you'll see a cite to the section of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which provides that federal preemption.

Secondly, the air resources report in California has said that they claim the costs of this provision will be $1,064. We submitted over 1,000 pages of comments to California, pointing out many of the errors they made in their estimates.

We believe that number is closer to $3,000 per vehicle. That will be a significant hit on consumers in from this State, and it will also limit, to some degree, the vehicles they can choose from.

For the benefit, let me explain a little bit about what we've done as an industry for fuel economy. If you look at EPA's data, since 1975, we've raised the efficiency of vehicles 2% per year, every year.

We now have 7-speed automatic transmissions on the market. We have continuously variable transmissions on the market. We have cylinder deactivation on three cars on the market today. That took us 20 years to develop.

We spend millions, if not billions, of dollars per year on research and development, trying to make cars better, cleaner, more efficient.

Last thing I'll mention is, I put some recommendations into my statement about what things Connecticut could do, some more minor steps to reduce the use of fuel in the State. That's all. Thank you very much.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you, Sir. Any questions, comments? Thank you. Eric Haxthausen, followed by Ann Berman, followed by Chris Herb.

ERIC HAXTHAUSEN: Thank you, Senator, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I submitted written testimony for the record. I'd like to depart from that very briefly, just to address some of the things that have been mentioned earlier today.

My name is Eric Haxthausen. I'm an Economist at Environmental Defense, which is a leading, national non-profit organization representing more than 400,000 members, including 7,500 or more than 7,500 in Connecticut.

And on behalf on Environmental Defense, I'm pleased to offer testimony today in support of the Climate Change Action Plan before you.

As you've heard, it's the result of an extensive effort with a broad array of stakeholders involved, and we believe it represents a strong basis for moving forward to address this important issue.

You have heard and will hear from others that scientists around the world agree the climate is warming. The main cause of rising temperatures has been emissions of greenhouse gases and other human activity.

We prepared a report last year that addresses the effects of that on Connecticut, and we've included an executive summary in my written testimony.

And I will say that, as a national organization, we've watched with interest as states around the country have begun to grapple with this important issue.

A number of other states, such as Massachusetts, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, have begun to step forward with climate change action plans and stakeholder processes.

But among these, Connecticut stands out as an example of leadership, in part because this embodies this Legislature's effort last year to pass two important landmark bills, the first, P.A. 04252, which is the act that set in motion the events that bring us here today, and the other is the Clean Car Act, which sets forth obligations for the State Department of Environmental Protection to bring clean cars to the State.

I'd like to just respond briefly to a couple points raised by the gentleman who testified before me.

The California Air Resources Board, which has developed regulations to bring clean cars, has done an extensive analysis of the benefits of that set of policies for reducing carbon dioxide, which is the principle goal of one of those elements of that policy, and, in addition, has looked at the cost-effectiveness and found that to be a very cost-effective policy.

In conclusion, Connecticut can and should continue to build upon its impressive successes. The Plan before you today is a strong first step down the path to forging a new and vibrant future for Connecticut, with a healthy outlook for its residents, a better quality of life, stewardship of Connecticut's coastal resources and environmental heritage for future generations, and a strong and growing economy.

I'd like briefly to call your attention to those provisions dealing with transportation. The transportation sector is a large contributor and a growing contributor to the State's emissions problem.

This Committee had lead wisely on transportation last year, as I've mentioned, and we hope that Connecticut will continue to lead the way by taking a further step this year to adopt a comprehensive and economically sound package of clean car incentives that will expand on last year's progress by creating market conditions to make the purchase of environmentally sound cars and trucks more effective.

In conclusion, we urge the Committee to endorse the Plan before you today, and we look forward to working with you on these issues in the future. Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you very much. Questions? Yes, Representative.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for appearing before us today. We've heard some testimony today indicating the detrimental effect on our economy, particularly in relationship to surcharges on consumers and businesses. Have you done any studies that indicate that this would not be a problem?

ERIC HAXTHAUSEN: I have not personally done any studies. I'm aware of a number of studies that have looked at this issue. It's obviously an important issue that does have a broad reach across many sectors of the economy, and for that reason, there have been a number of studies done on it.

I think one could point to a number of studies, but, for example, there's a group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that's looked at the effects of bringing a broad, multisectoral approach to addressing climate change to the United States. It's a national plan, not a state-specific plan.

But they found that the costs would be quite modest on a per household basis, I believe measured in the tens of dollars, if I'm not mistaken.

So, I mean, I think that, as with any, you know, study, one has to look at the assumptions that go into it. I will say that one of the things that commenced to us, the stakeholder report before you today, and the Climate Change Action Plan is the extensive work that the various State agencies and members of the stakeholder process have done in support of that.

And, you know, for example, there have been a number of analyses done to show that a number of the policies that are identified in the stakeholder report are very cost-effective. In some cases, some of the conservation policies would, in fact, save consumers money on the balance.

SEN. STILLMAN: Anyone else? Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thank you. I wanted to ask you about transportation further. I know EDF supports the effort to move toward cleaner cars and give people in Connecticut the right to purchase cleaner cars.

But at the same time, the vehicle miles traveled keeps increasing in Connecticut. As fast as we clean up the cars, people drive further from their suburban homes to their other suburban jobs.

And has EDF looked at or endorsed any effort to discourage people from going to work by themselves in their car, even though it's a cleaner car?

ERIC HAXTHAUSEN: Well, that's an interesting question. And I agree with you that the increase in vehicles' miles traveled is a very challenging problem.

It's one that's made the transportation sector, in many places, the fastest growing source of emissions. And it's something that continues to be a problem.

Some of my colleagues at Environmental Defense have devoted a significant effort to looking at policies to address the vehicle miles traveled, VMT growth.

And we've looked at a number of market-based policies. For example, one policy area that we are very interested in is what is called Cents Per Mile Insurance, where the insurance policy of a state could be reconfigured so that, rather than having somebody who drives, say, 1,500 miles a year pay the same insurance rates as somebody who drives 15,000 miles per year, the pricing of the insurance could be reformulated on the basis of the miles traveled, because that's correlated, not only with emissions, but also with congestion, as you're well aware.

So there are policies like that that could be the basis for moving forward, and I believe that the Action Plan actually begins to address some of those.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Is any other state encouraging use of that Cents Per Mile?

ERIC HAXTHAUSEN: There have been a few other states that have looked into it. I believe Texas has looked into it, Massachusetts is doing an experiment, has begun to do a pilot project or they've created an opportunity for a pilot project to occur.

I think, around the country, there have been a few states that have looked into it. And actually companies, in fact, interest in, like General Motors, through their insurance arm and taking advantage of their OnStar technology, has looked at the possibility of doing that.

So it is something that's, you know, starting to be seeded around the country. And I'd be happy to get you some more information on that, if you're interested.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thank you.

ERIC HAXTHAUSEN: Sure.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you, Sir. We appreciate your testimony. Ann Berman, followed by Chris Herb, and then by Thomas Carr.

ANN BERMAN: Good morning. Senator Stillman, thank you for this opportunity. Dick Roy and Paul Davis are in my District. And I have submitted a testimony.

My name is Ann Berman. And as Chair of the Milford Environmental Concerns Coalition, which has 320 members, I am representing them today.

We are a volunteer advocacy group out of Mayor James Richetelli's office. We have very strong support for the global warming issues

On January the 3^rd, 2005, we enabled our Board of Aldermen to pass a Resolution to adopt and support the 20% by 2010 Initiative.

The Mayor will have appointed an energy task force by February, of which their goal and task will be to recommend and help implement measures for conservation of energy.

It is also on the Mayor's agenda to build a green city building, replace city cars with hybrid cars, and, if possible, change diesel fuels.

The Board of Education recently selected a new bus company which will provide new school buses. We, obviously, support the draft to Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan 2005.

Just last week, we had over 50 people come to our EEC meeting on a cold, winter night to hear about the initiative 20% by 2010 and learn about solar energy and how those photovoltaic panels produce electricity.

I believe we also have much support for the clean energy, to sign up, and also for the solar energy, which I am now going to put on my roof. And I think there are several others at that meeting who have already contracted to do the same.

We are not alone in our concerns. The Town of Guilford, realizing the potential threat of our shoreline communities with these climate changes, organized a workshop on climate change this fall.

And out of that, just to address the insurance issue, there was an insurance representative there who said that with all the increased storms, the intensities, that the insurance rates will be going up. And, in fact, on Cape Cod, many of their customers were denied insurance because of the risk of storms.

We, in Milford, recognize the rising sea levels as we have raised shoreline homes, installed early warning systems. However, we can expect that the rising sea levels, severe storms pounding on our shores, can, and eventually will, take our homes and land as the waters spread landward.

There is one fact that naysayers cannot quibble about, and that is the increase in carbon dioxide, which is directly related to the burning of fossil fuels.

Since the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s, the CO2 level was 280 parts per billion. It has been rising one part per generation until 2003, which recorded it to be 373 parts per billion.

However, between the years 2003 and 2004, it rose 3 points, totaling now to be 376. This is an astonishing change that needs to be addressed, and this draft is our address to this problem which can no longer be ignored. And I want to thank you very much.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you. Don't go anywhere yet, Ann, have a seat. Any questions from anyone? Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: Thank you. I just want to make a comment. Ann, again, thank you. You are faithful to your causes as President of the Environmental Concerns Coalition of Milford.

You are here every time we have a hearing. I'm just delighted that you live what you preach. And I appreciate it, and I think all of Milford appreciates it. And the State of Connecticut is benefiting from your coming up here. Thank you.

ANN BERMAN: Thank you very much.

SEN. STILLMAN: Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask you, how did you pull off that wonderful contract in Milford that requires them to buy the upgraded buses?

ANN BERMAN: Well--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on]

ANN BERMAN: Well, I wasn't privy to that, and it wasn't my, that was the Board of Education that decided to change the bus companies. And I was delighted to hear that they did this.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Yeah, there's usually a, you know, there's definitely a cost factor when you buy the new version that has the lesser diesel emissions.

So they were taking a financial hit if they went and made that change, but that's a wonderful thing they did for the children of Milford.

ANN BERMAN: Well, actually, I believe the contract was less money than with the other company. And I don't know how they can afford that, but I think that was a wonderful change. And I really hope those buses are diesel clean.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Okay, thank you.

ANN BERMAN: Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Any other questions? Thank you very much.

ANN BERMAN: Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Next, Chris Herb, followed by Thomas Carr, followed by William Johnston.

CHRISTIAN HERB: Good afternoon. My name is Christian Herb. I'm the Associate Director of the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association.

We represent 450 heating oil dealers and gasoline distributors in Connecticut who employ over 13,000 of our State's citizens. The vast majority of our members are family-owned and long-standing employers in their communities.

ICP represents more than 450 Connecticut-based, independent businesses supplying the majority of our State's heating and motor fuels.

I wanted to hit on a few points. We did submit some written testimony that goes into various proposals that we support, but I'm going to hit on a few of the ones that we don't.

We are against the proposal for the Oil Conservation Fund for a few reasons. First, my industry's experience with the Commercial Tank Fund.

The Commercial Tank Fund is partly intended to help clean up the environment, stimulate the economy, create jobs. And we have found over the last 15 years, at various times through State budget problems, that those funds have been diverted from the mission of cleaning up leaking tanks.

And we feel that, with the current budget deficit, that we wouldn't want to see another fund with perfectly good intentions being used for debt reduction, instead of conservation or cleanup.

Another concern we have is the cost of energy. We've seen the price of oil rise dramatically over the last year, and any additional costs would be a burden to the residents of Connecticut, let alone the individuals that are on the Energy Assistance Program.

ICPA has been working with our Congressional delegation, and the Department of Social Services, and various community action agencies over the past two years to try to come up with better ways to stretch the dollars to go further, so that Connecticut's poor could use as much oil as possible to heat their homes and stretch those dollars.

We have seen funding cut on the federal level. And with the increased price of heating oil over the past year, there is less oil to go around.

And another fee on heating oil would perpetuate the shrinking amount of oil that's being able to be used to heat the poor's homes.

What we do suggest is that we continue to promote low sulfur heating oil. ICPA has a bill in, and as does DEP, that would require Connecticut to go to 500 part per million sulfur content for heating oil.

We think that this is a good move, we support it fully. We think that it will affect particular emissions immediately, instead of some of these more long-term things. We can do something today.

We think that to encourage citizens and businesses to upgrade their heating equipment to higher efficiency systems, private low interest, no interest loan programs that could be pushed by the State of Connecticut could affect real change today.

And we also believe that this issue should probably be coordinated as a region. As you know, Congress or the Senate overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto.

And Connecticut, to lead this alone, is probably not in the best interests, long-term interests of our country and their State. Thank you very much.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you. Questions, comments? Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: I wanted to ask you, do your member companies have a long-term loan, maybe through the service agreements with the consumers, so that if they wanted to upgrade their furnace to a higher efficiency, they could do it over, say, a ten-year period?

CHRISTIAN HERB: Our Association actually has a program through an energy conservation loan program that allows their customers to access low-interest loans. And they do sell that to try to upgrade the equipment, absolutely.

We are also a part of the National Oil Heat Research Alliance, which the State of Connecticut spends just over $1 million a year on research and development for cleaner technologies.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thank you.

SEN. STILLMAN: Yes, Representative Piscopo.

REP. PISCOPO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your comments on your opinion of the dedicated fee. We've seen that happen over the years where, in tough budget times, sometimes the fee gets raided.

And what happens is, the surcharge on your electric and what will now be your oil bill will, in effect, be a tax, just a tax into the general fund of the government. But I'll save that argument for another committee I serve on, Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee.

I just have a question on the low sulfur oil. Is that done at the refinery? Is that stage done at the refinery or does that have to be imported as low sulfur crude?

CHRISTIAN HERB: Absolutely. The refineries would be responsible for reducing the sulfur content.

REP. PISCOPO: And have you looked in the biodiesel technologies as part of your industry?

CHRISTIAN HERB: Absolutely. We have several associate members who are biofuel companies that promote biodiesels, bioheating oils, all various types.

REP. PISCOPO: Is that at all feasible in home heating?

CHRISTIAN HERB: Our members actually are strong proponents of low sulfur fuels, biofuels. The biggest challenge, I think, that faces any region is making sure that the supply can meet the demand.

And I think that on the biofuels, we still have a little ways to go. There are questions on low sulfur, but I think that we're much closer on that than we are on having a mandated 20% biofuel mixture, whether it's diesel or heating oil.

But it's something, I think, there's definite scientific benefits to moving to those fuels.

REP. PISCOPO: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SEN. STILLMAN: Any other questions for the gentleman? Thank you. Thomas Carr, followed by William Johnston, followed by Kathryn Hale.

REV. THOMAS CARR: Thank you for what you're doing on this critical, critical issue. I'm the Rev. Tom Carr, and I come in support of the Plan.

I'm also Co-Chair of the Board of the Interreligious Eco-Justice Network, which represents about 800 individuals and dozens of congregations throughout the State. And the board of IREJN has endorsed this Plan.

I'm in support of the Climate Change Plan for myriad reasons, and many of these have already been mentioned.

But first, I want to say that, like the meaning of the word crisis in one of the Chinese languages, we are in a time of dangerous opportunity.

The dangers are very obvious, as many have stated. The opportunities are also almost limitless for us to act, to begin to put the brakes on what a climatologist called the supertanker of global warming.

He said the potential effects on human life and the rest of life is like a supertanker that keeps moving steadily onwards, gaining speed, and we need to put the brakes on very soon, because it is going to take a long time to finally stop the damage we are inflicting upon the creation.

We really can't wait and piddle around, with slight adjustments here and there, or the supertanker will just keep gaining momentum, until it's too late.

And I think this Plan is a very good start to start putting on the brakes of global warming. A concern I have, and I share with Judi Friedman, is that we should not and cannot rely on nuclear energy to meet future energy needs.

It is not sustainable, and the unsolved problems of nuclear wastes and all the problems far outweigh any short-term gain from energy production.

And then, finally, for me, as a person of faith, the most important reason to support this Plan is that it is a good, practical step to address global warming, which I consider the greatest moral and ethical dilemma the human race has ever faced.

Never before has any one of God's creatures altered the systems of life that sustain all life as we know it here on earth, and now we humans have done it.

And in my faith tradition, the fundamental human vocation is to be a good steward of all of God's creation, a caretaker of life, conserving, preserving, and restoring the created order for at least the next seven generations.

And this Plan, I believe, is a good initial step in living out that call, and I urge you to give it your full support. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you.

REV. THOMAS CARR: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, Sir.

REV. THOMAS CARR: Thank you.

REP. ROY: William Johnston, followed by Kathy Hale and Darek Shapiro.

WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Representative Roy, Committee Members, my name is William Johnston. I'm a Professor of History at Wesleyan University.

And when I heard about this testimony today, I felt I needed to try to do a little bit more of what you just spoke about, Representative Roy, which is to put my mouth or put my action where my mouth often is.

In part, well, I would like to say I'm very happy to testify on behalf of the Connecticut Climate Action Plan, and would like to thank you, all of you, very much for the efforts you have already made in this direction.

In part, I'd like to speak from a personal experience, is one point. And that is that I grew up in Wyoming. I've lived about seven years in the Boston area, I've lived about seven years in Japan, Nagoya, Kyoto, and Tokyo, and I've lived, since 1988, in Middletown.

And only since coming to Middletown did I develop asthma. I found that when I have bad asthma problems and go to Tokyo, immediately, they disappear within a week, which, of course, is to, I want to bring this back to local issues in Japan and the importance of local issues.

I'd like to speak briefly from a historical perspective. A gentleman pointed out the recent book by Jared Diamond called Collapse, in which he points out where inflexible economic rationality has lead to the collapse of societies and civilizations.

The civilization that existed on Easter Island is a very good example. It's an island that was once completed forested. They had an economy which was based on the trees, and they eventually cut all the trees down.

I heard somebody ask, what was the man thinking who cut down the last tree? I'm sure he was thinking, we're out of wood here. Look it, there's one more tree. Think how valuable that wood is. We've got to cut it down.

Other places we see similar kinds of examples. Jared Diamond points out the example of Greenland. We can also look at Sicily.

My neighbor is an archeologist who has looked at Sicily, pointed out that, at one point, Sicily was a green island. It is now almost devoid of forestation. It is all due to human economic rationality. Haiti is another example.

The economic predictions that people make, I would like to say, when we look at long-term predictions, it's something like weather predictions. Economists will be the first to tell you, look, we really can't give you anything more than the short term here.

But when we start thinking of the costs, I think we need to take into consideration the social, health, and other costs. One gentleman pointed out what is usually called so-called externalities, in addition to the cost to business.

And with this, I, in particular, want to emphasize health costs. Most of my own historical work is in the history of disease and medicine.

And we see lots of cases in the history of public health, where it's clear that certain measures could have been taken at a particular point in time, but were failed to be taken, simply because the economic costs in the short term countered those.

I would like to point out that, with the question of oil prices rising, when people in the oil industry point this out and say we need to do things about heating, well, I wish that we could also see them saying things like, we also need to encourage efficient vehicles.

Finally, I'd like to encourage the use, not of renewable resources, but unlimited resources and, in particular, solar power is a very good example.

In Japan, there are municipalities which have encouraged solar power by giving short-term subsidies to households to do this. They repay it by putting their own solar power on the grid.

When their power is produced or when they're producing more power than what they're consuming, this goes onto the grid, and that eventually repays the municipal loan that they get for that.

And finally, in the end, when that's paid off, they don't get a bill from their power company, they get a check. I would like to encourage you to think of these issues.

But again, I'd like to thank you for the efforts you've made and the direction you're taking, and encourage you to please keep up the wonderful work you're doing.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any members have questions?

WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Thank you very much.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Kathy Hale, followed by Darek Shapiro and Virginia Walton.

KATHRYN HALE: Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Kathryn Hale. I am speaking in support of the draft Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan 2005.

I'm an attorney in South Windsor, Connecticut, the mother of two children, and a former member of the South Windsor Town Council.

I am here, in part, because of the impact of asthma on my family. These are the medications that one of us has to take for asthma.

Two of these are daily medications. This is the one you take when you're coughing so hard that you can't work or go to school. The cost of these medicines for three people in my family of four is very high.

When you hear about additional costs of $2,700 for a family, weigh that against the savings that we will reap from reducing our asthma rates. The cost of asthma medications has to be multiplied by millions of people within the State of Connecticut who are now suffering.

The point I'd like to make, however, is that energy efficiency equals economic opportunity. If you don't think that energy efficiency is economically feasible, ask Toyota.

About five years ago, they came up with a hybrid gas-electric car which saves a lot of fuel. There's now over a six month waiting list, and people are willing to pay $5,000 over list price just to get one of these vehicles.

They're very popular in Hollywood. I understand Leonardo DiCaprio has one and a bunch of other celebrities. That's probably why I can't get my hands on one.

Solving the problem of global warming through energy efficiency technologies is a huge opportunity for the State of Connecticut.

It will provide great opportunities for economic development. In South Windsor, we have international fuel cells. And we, in fact, power our high school with a fuel cell, which provides reliable energy in a safe manner with few emissions.

Connecticut should position itself to be a leader in these technologies. I firmly believe that this is how we will drive the engine of growth.

The challenge of global warming is the greatest challenge for this century. We should be the ones developing innovative technologies and marketing them to the rest of the world to take advantage of this economic opportunity.

We need not only to look at the immediate costs, but the long-term benefits of these technologies. I thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Do any Members have questions? Senator McKinney.

SEN. MCKINNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. I actually was unaware that South Windsor powers its high school with a fuel cell.

KATHRYN HALE: Yes.

SEN. MCKINNEY: Are you familiar with that, to speak to the cost of setting up the fuel cell and the savings with having it powered by fuel cells?

KATHRYN HALE: Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the statistics on the operation. I do know that there has been no negative feedback, you know, no negative publicity in the town about this.

I do know that the State of Connecticut helped with the funding when it was originally installed a number of years ago. And so, perhaps some of your colleagues actually have a better handle on the numbers.

I'm, you know, I was just a citizen when it was installed. My kids are at the school. We haven't had a power outage. We also have the capability of using that facility as our emergency shelter if the grid goes down.

And with the problems in, you know, lower Fairfield County and the need to really distribute our energy sources with solar, with fuel cells, is very critical.

Because if you listen to the numbers for how much it's going to cost to put in more, to extend the grid and reinforce the grid, why don't we change direction?

We heard how much, that we are now the third rank in the expense of our energy in this State, going up from number ten. That should be our greatest signal that it's time to turn the wheel and avoid the cliff.

Obviously, the policy that we have now of relying on nuclear and the grid, you know, is leading us into crisis. It's time to take the step, support this Plan, and start to change.

REP. ROY: Any other questions?

KATHRYN HALE: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Darek Shapiro, followed by Virginia Walton and Victoria Thompson.

DAREK SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Senators of the Environment Committee. I'm very grateful to be able to live in a country that encourages citizen input and to live in a State with visionary leaders.

I'm an Architect, I'm a Building Biologist, and I'm an Environmental Inspector, based in Stamford, Connecticut. I practice sustainable architecture. A lot of you know what that is.

It's a way of building that will have a minimum impact on the environment. But building in energy savings, energy-saving materials, and recycled materials aren't enough to stop global warming.

Sage, like leadership, is required to create a sustainable culture. The energy industry today, here, claimed that the taxes to stimulate clean energy production would be too burdensome.

What they failed to point out is that declining fossil fuel supplies are, and will, contribute far greater to burdensome energy costs.

Clean energy, like wind and solar, can be a lot cheaper than fossil fuels if we create the market to make it more competitive. Are we discussing whether or not to stick out our necks?

To understand the Antarctic glacial meltdown alone is to realize that our necks are already way out. I've provided all of you with your own personal picture of the Antarctic glacier melting. It's enlarged here on the poster, reprinted from last Tuesday's New York Times Science.

And you have your copy there, I handed out in my testimony, okay. You can grab it from last Tuesday's Times. Let me continue. It's convincing evidence that we need to take courageous action, not just to slow, but to reverse the trend.

If, for a moment, we visualize what Connecticut could be like, with all the timely solutions provided here today by my fellow citizens. I would add, return to incentives and loans for geothermal heat pumps. They eliminate the need for oil.

So visualize for a moment a new, clean energy, a new clean industry and a service space, healthier living, decongested roads, flourishing ecosystem, and a healthy cultural attitude toward helping our beautiful earth sustain us.

You are the visionary leaders that can lead the way. As you can see, your constituents are with you. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Virginia Walton, followed by Victoria Thompson and Kim O'Rourke. Virginia Walton? Victoria Thompson.

VICTORIA THOMPSON: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name's Victoria Thompson, and I'm a graduate student at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

I'm here to speak in support of the Climate Change Action Plan. Connecticut has a remarkable opportunity to be a leader on climate change, energy conservation, and renewable energy.

What Connecticut is doing is doubly important, given the inaction of our federal government on this issue. Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, Connecticut is really stepping to the forefront and setting a good example for other states.

I worked this past summer in the Town of Hamden government, writing a local climate change action plan for the Town.

There are so many people who really want to do the right thing on climate change, but at the local level, it's very difficult to affect climate change without broader legislative support.

So having a statewide plan would be an important support and encouragement to local governments and institutions, such as Yale University, all over the State, to tell them that change is possible.

Climate change is a serious threat to our health and our way of life. I urge the Committee to endorse this Plan, to help Connecticut continue its leadership in mitigating this global threat.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Yes, Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I wanted to ask, on your Hamden plan, did you put anything in the plan to do anything about vehicle miles traveled to reduce single person car trips?

VICTORIA THOMPSON: Not in the way of carpooling or anything like that, but the Town is actually looking at ways to increase traditional neighborhood development, so as to reduce the need for car travel, encourage more walking and bicycle riding. So, yes [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2A to Tape 2B.]

REP. ROY: --Norman Richards.

KIM O'ROURKE: Good afternoon, Representative, Members of the Committee. Thanks for having us here today. My name is Kim O'Rourke. I'm the Recycling Coordinator for the City of Middletown. And I'm here today on behalf of Mayor Domenique Thornton.

We're here to support the Climate Change Action Plan. We're specifically here to talk about Section 43, regarding increasing the State recycling rate to 40%.

We like to consider Middletown as being very proactive when it comes to recycling, and we have found that in the past five to eight years, support of recycling programs at the State level has dwindled.

We virtually find it impossible to meet the 40% goal, unless there is additional support from the State. We currently are working with no State Recycling Coordinator. We have no State Recycling Educator.

We have recycling staff divvied up amongst other divisions, and we have no Recycling Unit. And programs, technical assistance, grants, all kinds of recycling support have pretty much gone away.

So we're excited to see that the Climate Change Action Plan has recognized that recycling can have a significant impact, not only with greenhouse gas pollution but other great environmental benefits also.

And we hope that the State supports the Plan in its entirety, but especially the proposal to seriously work towards reaching that 40% recycling goal. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Do you have any specific plans to do that?

KIM O'ROURKE: We have lots. Sure, I mean, there's lots of programs and projects that can be done to help us reach the 40% goal. In Middletown, we're focusing on enforcement projects.

We're working towards an electronics recycling program. We're working with businesses. We found that, in the last eight years, you know, when recycling started, everybody recycled.

But that's changed in the last eight years, and it's hard to keep on top of it, especially if you don't have somebody dedicated in the Town to maintain the program.

But the State, and this was addressed earlier, the State is working on getting a consultant to do their State Solid Waste Management Plan, which is wonderful, and that will develop a comprehensive plan to reach this 40% goal.

We hope it doesn't take as long as the last one did. We've been waiting years and years for one to come out, and their timeline is within a year.

So we're very supportive of that effort, and that will have specifics in it, including education, enforcement, new initiatives. I'd be glad to follow up if you really want specifics on it.

REP. ROY: Thank you, I'd appreciate that.

KIM O'ROURKE: Okay.

REP. ROY: Any other questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much, Kim. Jon Russell, then Norman Richards, and followed by Jiff Martin.

JON RUSSELL: Well, good afternoon, Chairman Roy, Members of the Committee. My name is Jon Russell. I'm here, appearing on behalf of Northeast Utilities. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our comments, and I will try to keep my comments brief.

Northeast Utilities was a member of the climate change process, and we recognize that many hard choices are necessary, in order to meet the New England Governors Climate Change goals.

This Action Plan certainly represents opportunities, challenges to both Northeast Utilities and the State. Particularly, I'd like to point out four items that were recommended, the first one being the Greenhouse Gas Feebate Program.

Regarding that program, we'd recommend that there is an exemption for the utility companies. We purchase perhaps 200 to 300 new vehicles every year.

Many of these vehicles are necessary, heavy-duty vehicles or 4-wheel drive vehicles, so we can get to emergencies, off-road applications where our lines and distribution system are, and, certainly, inclement weather.

Without an exemption, we'd be looking at about a $400,000 fee, based on the number of new cars we would buy each year. I would like to point out the comments were made, buy biodiesel, is that we have a pilot program that we have been expanding every year.

We currently burn about 150,000 gallons of biodiesel in our diesel systems, large tractor trailers, construction equipment, and the such. So we are voluntarily moving in that direction, but we certainly recognize that this Feebate Program could impact us quite a bit.

Element 46, on extending the renewable portfolio standards, this requires increasing the portfolio standard to 20% by 2020. We have concerns about this recommendation, that the mandated levels of renewables just won't be available.

What we really see is that the markets haven't matured enough for us to look forward that far. We think three years out right now is about as far as we can project, and we currently see the markets are relatively tight along those lines.

The other thing we'd like to know is, are we creating the incentive for the type of renewables we want? We're seeing quite a bit of biomass come online that is new, innovative, but it really wasn't what we were expecting.

And the wind that we were expecting is not coming online anywhere near the rate we were expecting. So as these markets mature, we would like to look at them, examine them, examine the incentives that we're creating, and then look forward to the appropriate levels.

So I see that my time is up, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinions, and we look forward to working with this Committee and other interested parties on this Action Plan.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there, Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Yeah, I wanted to ask you about the goals, the 2020 goals. I had written one of these climate plans and passed it in the Legislature at least ten years ago, and it had goals in it, like this one does.

But when they came up, there was no goal, and then there was a goal hit. And when the goal hit, the Legislature exempted various people from the goals.

So what I learned from that, the hard way, is that maybe having one goal too far out is not the wisest way to write this. And maybe, what we need to do instead is have smaller goals that come more often.

So I wanted to ask you about that. What would you think about, instead of having a goal of increasing to 20% by 2020, have instead step goals that are smaller, but come sooner and more often?

JON RUSSELL: Well, that's certainly a step in the right direction, and you get the ability to look back, make sure that you're on the right track, and then, of course, make corrections to your future path, if that's the case.

The current regulations go out to 2010, 7% by 2010. And again, our people are looking forward to the three years, just to make sure that we're on track along those lines.

So I think that, you know, in two years, we would have enough information to say, okay, what do we do beyond 2010?

And then make, perhaps, the next four, five, six years, again, then looking about every five years, looking forward. And we would certainly be willing to work with you on those types of step goals.

REP. MUSHINSKY: I'm just wondering what the market would say if we said, you know, 2% a year increase or something like that, if that would be, if you think the market would respond better and if the affected, the folks who have to do the efficiencies, would respond better?

JON RUSSELL: Well, certainly, the markets prefer a stable position, so they want to know how far out they're going to go.

If you were following the federal issues with the tax for wind farms, that nothing was built in the last eight months of that while the tax was still in effect, because they knew they couldn't get it on the ground in time, until it was renewed.

As soon as the renewal happened, there was significant growth. So I think you need to give in the renewables area at least three years, and perhaps a five-year window, to know that some stream of renewable energy credits will be paying for their investment.

But if you put the goal too far out, we may be on the wrong track, and then have to backtrack or change. And there is a certain reliance upon legislation for when they put new renewables on the ground.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Representative Willis.

REP. WILLIS: Just a comment, more than a question, regarding your recommendation two, the first one, excuse me, on the rebate program, and your comment about feeling that would be unfair impact, a financial, on Northeast Utilities.

One of the ways the market moves is when there's a demand. And if you buy that many vehicles, I know where I live, I have to have 4-wheel drive.

And I would love Toyota to produce an electrical 4-wheel drive vehicle. So I was just going to say that maybe you should be speaking to them and convincing them that you need to buy these vehicles.

JON RUSSELL: I will say we are currently piloting several of the Ford Escapes that are a hybrid version. They're 4-wheel drive, and we are using them for our meter readers.

And we are finding them to be not quite as efficient as we were expecting, but it is also the first year of a new technology, and so we'll see. And I believe Toyota is planning to produce a 4-wheel drive 4Runner. So--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on]

JON RUSSELL: Yeah, you know, you were certainly right is that demand, markets change. It is questionable whether Connecticut is enough of a market incentive for Detroit to change the types of vehicles that it produces.

But in the future years, we do see new hybrids coming online, and we do track that. You know, that is, if we can save on mileage, we save on gasoline, just like everybody else.

REP. WILLIS: If they build them, they'll be buying them. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much.

JON RUSSELL: Thank you.

REP. ROY: I've been informed that Norman Richards, who is up next, has left on a personal emergency. Should he return, I'll insert him at the top of the list of whatever is left.

For now, Jiff Martin, followed by Kathy Fay and Christopher Phelps. Jiff Martin? Is she here? Kathy Fay, followed by Christopher Phelps.

KATHY FAY: Okay. I'm Kathy Fay. I'm from New Haven, Connecticut. And I want to thank you, Chairman Roy and Members of the Committee.

Obviously, I'm also here to ask the Committee to endorse the 2005 draft of the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan, and I'm going to keep my comments very short.

I got broadband this year, and I've been on the e-mail a lot, writing to my friends and making new friends, people from all over the country and all over the world.

And a few months ago, I got a lot of pessimistic e-mails from various people about this state of the world and the state of things.

And I kept thinking, well, what can I say? What consoling thing can I think of to say? What's a bright light? And finally, it hit me.

And I say, well, you know, even the Queen of England, who's never made any political statement, has come out against global climate change.

And here in the Northeast, the Eastern Provinces and the Northeast states have joined together to take action. And all of these states and provinces are working on action plans.

And I was so proud of that. That was the best thing I could think of, the best piece of news I could think of. And I just want to remind you that we should all be proud of what we've been doing together.

We're leaders, we're leading by example. And this is one of the things that I think in our lifetimes is the thing that we can be the most proud of.

And I've worked for about 12 years in low-income in New Haven as an organizer and an activist. And I just also want to add that there's no argument about how this is going to negatively impact low-income people.

That's as strong as the positive effect that it's going to have on all these children with asthma. In our inner cities, the health problems that are related to these issues are enormous.

And the fact that we're all joining together and dealing with these things straightforward is really something that we should all be proud of.

And so just keep up the good work. You know, you're doing the right thing. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Okay, thank you. Christopher Phelps, followed by Tom Holahan.

CHRISTOPHER PHELPS: Thank you, Representative Roy, Members of the Committee. My name is Christopher Phelps. I'm an Advocate with ConnPIRG, the Connecticut Public Interest Research Group.

We are a non-partisan, public interest advocacy organization, with over 10,000 citizen members across Connecticut. You have my written testimony before you. I'm not going to read verbatim from that. I'll summarize and also respond on a couple of points that have been raised here today.

First and foremost, I'm here to support this draft Connecticut Climate Action Plan for 2005. We think it is a very positive step forward for our State and continuing Connecticut's leadership on the issue of combating and tackling global warming.

As you know, this draft Plan is before you, in large part, as a result of P.A. 04-252 from last year.

This landmark legislation established the commonsense goals that we need to reduce emissions and global warming pollution, in order to fulfill Connecticut's commitment as part of the New England Governors Eastern Canadian Premiers Agreement from 2001.

This Plan is a sensible and an important step towards that goal. So again, we do urge you to support its adoption and endorse it.

Why do we say that? It's simple. Global warming threatens our environment. It also threatens our economy and the public health. Increasingly, citizens and scientists, environmental advocates, businesses, and political leaders are unified in their support for actions to reduce global warming pollution.

In fact, I think all those sectors have been represented here today, testifying in support of this Plan.

This draft Plan before you, as you know, is the result of months of hearings, of analysis, years, in fact, of analysis, hearings, and effort that have produced this.

We support many of the core initiatives included in this draft Plan, including transportation initiatives, such as the Clean Cars Act, which was passed last year in Connecticut.

We support continued implementation of its provisions, including the next phase of the Clean Cars Program to reduce global warming emissions from the tailpipes of new cars and trucks sold in Connecticut.

I'm going to come back to that, briefly, in a moment. Well, I will note, right now, that, yep, Toyota is preparing to produce a hybrid SUV, both a Lexus and a Toyota Highlander. You get your choice.

We also support energy efficiency initiatives. It's one of the core and key strategies that we must pursue as a State and as a nation to combat global warming.

Frankly, it's the safest, cleanest, and most effective way, and fastest way to combat global warming pollution and traditional air pollution from the electricity sector.

We support all of the proposals in this Plan that move forward on efficiency initiatives and also on clean energy initiatives. We strongly support the Renewable Portfolio Standard and continued progress on that to lengthen and deepen that standard in Connecticut through 2020.

I know I'm running out of time, so I just would like to respond briefly to a couple of the points raised earlier by Mr. Dana regarding the Clean Car Standard, on both cost, the question of preemption for the next phase of the standard, and a little bit of background on fuel efficiency. I can elaborate on that more if the Committee wishes.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: None.

CHRISTOPHER PHELPS: Okay, I'll be brief. The first question of fuel efficiency, I know the statement was made that the industry has increased fuel efficiency an average of 2% annually since 1975.

I believe that's essentially an accurate statement, although unfortunately for us, the vast majority of that gain was achieved between the early 1970s and the early 1980s, after the imposition of federal efficiency standards.

Unfortunately, in the 20 years since 1983 or 1984, fuel efficiency, real world fuel efficiency in the automotive industry has declined.

An EPA analysis of 2003, Average Real World Fuel Economy, found that average fuel economy in the American fleet was lower than in the year 1981. It's a little background info on that point.

The question was raised of preemption of the next phase of the Clean Car Standard. That is something that, the industry has challenged that standard in California.

However, it is our belief, and certainly it is the position, I know, of many of the states that are moving forward with this, that that standard is not preempted by federal law.

And certainly, Connecticut should be continuing to move forward in step with the other states that are part of the Clean Cars Program.

And lastly, the question of cost new was raised of CARB's estimate, California Air Resources Board's estimate, that the next phase of the California program, specifically targeting global warming emissions, will increase the cost of vehicles through 2016 by $1,000 per vehicle.

That is the number CARB has suggested. However, the other part of that is that CARB has also estimated that reduced operating costs for those vehicles, as a part of that standard, will actually produce a net savings to consumers of $3 to $7 a month at the end of the day.

So that's the full estimate from CARB, the cost savings combined with the increased costs of vehicle, produces a net savings to the consumer.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions? Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Yeah, that last piece of testimony is very important to have on the record. Would you please prepare a supplemental sheet with that information on it?

CHRISTOPHER PHELPS: I will definitely do that.

REP. MUSHINSKY: That excerpt from the California plan and throw in the net savings information so we have it on the record.

CHRISTOPHER PHELPS: Yes, I will supply that to the Committee.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thanks.

REP. ROY: Any other questions? Thank you very much.

CHRISTOPHER PHELPS: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Paul Filson, followed by Donald Kirshbaum.

ROGER SMITH: Paul Filson had to leave but expressed his support for the Plan and submitted [inaudible - microphone not on].

REP. ROY: Thank you. Donald Kirshbaum, followed by Jonathan Edwards. It sounds like a good name for a [inaudible] college.

DONALD KIRSHBAUM: Thank you, Chairman Roy. I'm here today, testifying on behalf of the State Treasurer, Denise Nappier.

Members of the Committee, on behalf of Treasurer Nappier, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of the Climate Change Action Plan. I'm Donald Kirshbaum, an Investment Officer for Policy in the State Treasurer's Office.

First, Treasurer Nappier would like to congratulate the Committee, the General Assembly, the Governor's Steering Committee, and the other stakeholders and administrative agencies for the work over the past several years in planning and taking action on climate change.

While not a direct participant of the specific planning process, our Office has been in communication with the Department of Environmental Protection and other stakeholders as efforts have proceeded, and we have shared information about what our Office is doing.

You may wonder why Treasurer Nappier is represented here today, testifying on climate change.

Well, as principal fiduciary for the $20 billion Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, Treasurer Nappier has been concerned about climate risk and the risks it poses for the value of those investments.

There are certainly investment opportunities, but there is also financial risk to any company that is not evaluating risks posed by climate change, planning to address climate change, and planning to operate in a carbon-constrained economy.

That is why Treasurer Nappier has been working with other institutional investors, asking companies to evaluate the opportunities and risks they face from climate change, and to tell shareholders what they are doing to mitigate that risk, because climate risk is financial risk, particularly to long-term investors, such as the Connecticut pension funds.

But we have been able to raise awareness of this issue with a number of companies in which we invest.

We have also had some successes, such as the groundbreaking study and report written at our behest by the Board of Directors of American Electric Power. AEP is the largest emitter of CO2 in the country, which is a principle greenhouse gas. Other industry companies have followed AEP's lead.

We are also continuing to work with Securities and Exchange Commission to require more detailed disclosure on climate risk that poses to the companies in which we invest.

Treasurer Nappier also co-chaired the first Institutional Investor Summit on Climate Risk held at the United Nations in November of 2003, and will co-chair a second summit in May of this year.

The Summit brought together over 250 investors and other leaders, representing over $1 trillion in invested assets. Participants from experts in science, business, and government engaged in a conversation among peers, examining climate risk in their portfolios.

Those addressing the Summit included United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, former Vice President Al Gore, and the CEO of Swiss Re, John Comer, as well as numerous academic and business leaders.

With this as background, Treasurer Nappier would like to suggest that you add another facet to the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan.

Just as climate change poses risks to all companies in which the Pension Fund invests, it also potentially poses those same risks to every company, every employer, in Connecticut.

There will be changes in Connecticut's economy from both the effects of climate change and from the necessary actions taken to mitigate the impact of climate change.

As you move forward, Connecticut companies should be encouraged to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks from climate change, and work to develop a strategic plan to mitigate those risks and hopefully take advantage of new business opportunities.

The State's economic development agencies should also start to consider the implications of a future economy impacted by climate change and operating in a carbon-constrained economy.

Climate change is real and will have increasing ramifications in the coming years on the world our children and grandchildren will live.

It will also have a tremendous impact on Connecticut's economy, its employers, and everyone who lives in our State.

Treasurer Nappier looks forward to working with you, the Governor, administrative agencies, and other stakeholders to bring evaluation of climate risk to Connecticut's Climate Change Action Plan. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any questions from Committee Members? Seeing none, thank you.

DONALD KIRSHBAUM: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Jonathan Edwards, followed by Tom Holahan.

JONATHAN EDWARDS: Distinguished Committee Members, my name is Jonathan Edwards. And I am the Chief Operating Officer of SmartPower, a non-profit marketing campaign that is leading the effort to promote clean energy in Connecticut through public awareness and consumer outreach efforts that encourage 20% of our electricity is to be generated from clean energy sources by the year 2010.

I want to thank you for providing SmartPower and the rest of us an opportunity to voice our strong support for the Climate Change Action Plan.

SmartPower stands in strong support of this entire package, and we have submitted written testimony to that effect.

As a leading voice to promote clean energy, and encourage and foster a voluntary clean energy market in Connecticut and elsewhere, we today want to specifically and enthusiastically encourage the Committee to show support for the clean energy measures that are a part of this Climate Action Plan.

My focus on clean energy is simply because others in this room, other organizations in this room, are lead and staffed by people with countless years of experience that can and will do a better job than I in demonstrating the reasons why this Committee should recommend to the full Legislature that the strong work that you have accomplished in the past must continue in the future.

Clean energy in Connecticut is real, it's here, it's working. And it is largely due to this Body, and will continue to be largely due to this Body in the future.

We must, in Connecticut, continue to be a leader. And the following policy actions that are part of the Action Plan must be adopted by the State.

Action 42, supply and demand are critical features of a viable clean energy industry. The support of the Environment Committee to support economically viable Landfill Gas-to-Energy projects is one critical, yet easy, way to increase the locally produced supply of clean energy to be part of the evolving RPS and the heightened demand created by the pending introduction of the Alternative Standard Offer.

Action 46, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, is the clearest path currently available to increased use and source production of clean energy, which, by definition, will lower the production demand of traditional power plants.

Simply, increasing the RPS on the glidepath cited in this policy action will increase jobs and decrease pollution.

Action 47, Connecticut has already started to show tremendous leadership with the creation of a voluntary energy market and the direct correlation between increased clean energy use and decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, we see an example of how this Action Plan tackles directly the realities of increasing electricity demand and the need to curb the satisfaction of our energy appetites with the traditional sources of fossil fuels.

We also support Action 48, the Production Tax Credit, because of the necessity and sensibility of this incentive to increase renewable energy production in Connecticut.

Item 49, the birth of the ATSO, hopefully soon to be called the Connecticut Clean Energy Options Program, is a direct result of your efforts in this Body.

We need to pass this entire Plan and continuation of this item to continue to make your leadership a reality.

Number 51, finally, most critically, is the importance and protection of the restoration of the Clean Energy Fund here in Connecticut.

The importance of this organization to Connecticut's leadership role with clean energy, both nationally and beyond our borders, is, indeed, profound.

Clean energy leaders from across the country and throughout Europe seek the guidance and expertise of the Clean Energy Fund.

The work of this fund has helped to continue and enhance Connecticut's reputation as Cellicon Valley and has worked tirelessly to maximize the public's awareness of and access to clean energy.

This Committee and the entire Legislative Body should tour the State and see firsthand the constant reminders of the investments in clean energy and impact on climate change that the Fund makes.

Each of you can go back to your Districts this weekend with the knowledge that this organization is working to give each community in your District the tools and motivation for onsite generation of solar power, and is helping all of us have a better understanding of the critical nature of clean energy for job growth in this State and greenhouse gas reductions in not only Connecticut, but our entire region.

I'd like to thank you, again, for your time and ask you to support this entire package.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Tom Holahan, followed by Dennis Moore.

TOM HOLAHAN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Tom Holahan, and I come from that great energy-efficient city of New Haven, from which its alleged reputation as the former capital of the State of Connecticut is well-deserved.

As President of the Mill River Watershed Association of Southcentral Connecticut, I must admit that I'm a strong fan of the Connecticut Climate Action Plan, presently in its draft form.

And I respectfully urge you, as Members of this Environmental Committee, to vote to endorse it to the General Assembly.

Unfortunately, one outcome it cannot promise through the activation of this Plan is the serious temperature crisis which surrounds this building for the last couple of days.

In fact, it's predicted, if global warming takes its course, that because of the melting of Arctic and Greenland ice mass, that the gulf stream may potentially be diverted, resulting in an extreme ice age, both for Europe and the United States.

One of the great advantages of a Plan such as this, in my opinion, is the opportunity it provides as a mechanism of cooperation and coordination between departments of the State of Connecticut, facilitating them to focus together on the solution of a common and extremely urgent problem.

As an example of complicated and potentially controversial actions available to the State Assembly, would be, for example, to create legislation enabling Connecticut's cities and municipalities to enact a commuter tax, which might not only discourage vehicle volume into the municipalities, but also, with a system of tax credits for drivers who change to mass transportation, actually to increase conservation.

The second might be the installation of electronic, that is, Easy Pass-type tolls, on limited access and interstate highways in Connecticut, with electronic sensors stationed at the entrances and exits.

This, besides encouraging a more limited volume of traffic, could also be used to allocate proportionately, from the electronic records produced, a portion of the funds to be diverted to the cities through which the interstates run, to give them the resources to help solve the pollution problems that these highways produce. Thank you very much.

REP. ROY: Thank you, Sir. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you.

TOM HOLAHAN: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Dennis Moore, followed by Roxanne Hosking and Henry Link.

DENNIS MOORE: Members of the Board, thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm Dennis Moore from Shelton, Connecticut.

As an interim student of landscape architecture at SUNY-ESF in Syracuse, I come to speak to you as a priority about smart growth and its capabilities, as it seems you seem to be like loosely aware of the issue, and there hasn't really been much built yet in Connecticut.

But first off, to offer some support about global warming, I really think that, here in Connecticut, we have the power to sort of, you know, push the tide.

And like, you know, dealing with the science of these issues, there's really a cloud like over everything. And basically, I want to say that I think it's a choice.

Because we need to decide whether we want a world in the future with a climate that we can't predict or one we can, and we've been used to for, you know, as long as we can have written history.

But one of the choices made in the early 20^th Century was by the oil industry. And they had a chance to, they were actually all producing oil for gasoline from biofuel. These are grown on a farm.

And instead of making this choice to enhance these investments and to get our fuel this way, we chose to mine it from the ground. And that's the difference, and that's why CO2 is becoming a problem.

And it's just, you know, one of those choices that we made, and we're stuck with it now. And now we have the choice to decide whether or not to actually act on global warming.

And smart growth is relevant because, basically, for most people, we need a car. And the reason is because we chose, in the 1950s, to build everything around cars.

And for the homeowner with a family of four kids who wants an acre of land, they definitely should be entitled to this acre of land and to grow their family with a yard.

But for the rest of everyone, you know, they're looking for places to live, like teenager and, you know, empty nesters, and whatnot, and they're looking for places to live.

And they either have to buy a house to maintain the status quo and feel prominent in society or, you know, buy a condo out in East Haven or something, and, you know, and still maintain this wealth. And you still have to buy a car to get around.

And where smart growth fits in is, if we cultivate it around areas of mass transportation like New Haven, potentially Hartford in the future, using this pool of people who already live this way in New York and who would like to, you know, spread this lifestyle here into a small town atmosphere, smart growth offers this opportunity.

And we need to find ways to enact it from the State level by saying, look, this is what we think the people of Connecticut should be given as a right to choose their lifestyle.

And then have this carry over into the private sector, where people will actually be able to implement it through construction companies and whatnot. And just to final off, just to attack them, well, that's not even necessary. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Were there any questions? Representative Mushinsky.

DENNIS MOORE: Sure.

REP. MUSHINSKY: No, just a comment. Thanks for remembering to add smart growth to the discussion pile. We've been trying to pass that Bill for probably six or eight years, and it narrowly fails in the House every year.

I want to encourage you to testify in front of the Planning and Development Committee as well. Representative Lew Wallace, who is mightily trying to pass this, would be so pleased to see you there in support of the legislation.

DENNIS MOORE: Do you have the dates, by any chance, or should I--

REP. MUSHINSKY: No, but if you check before you go home today, if you stop at the Planning and Development Committee and find out when their smart growth hearing is going to be--

DENNIS MOORE: Great.

REP. MUSHINSKY: --and try to find Lew Wallace, and tell him you're interested in testifying.

DENNIS MOORE: Thanks.

REP. MUSHINSKY: Thank you.

REP. ROY: Any other questions? None? Thank you. Jeffrey Warren, I skipped over you. I'm sorry. And then Roxanne Hosking and Henry Link.

JEFFREY WARREN: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jeff Warren. I'm a student in architecture at Yale University, and I'm also representing the Climate Campaign student group, as well as a product design firm, Vessel Design, specializing in sustainable products and sustainable design, as well as architecture.

I submitted a written testimony as well. And I'm here to voice my support for the draft Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan 2005.

One thing that, you know, has come up, is that there are a lot of constraints. A lot of people have different viewpoints on this. And there's a lot of, you know, for example, economic or business-related issues that come up with this.

But I think that, fundamentally, you know, this is an extremely important issue with long-reaching effects, as well as short-term effects. And it's something we really need to take into consideration.

Certainly, it's one thing that a lot of my peers, students and youth, have a lot of concern about. And, you know, often I find that there's some degree of apathy in regard to what can be done about it.

I mean, we have meetings, and we recycle, and we turn the lights off, and, you know, we try to turn the heaters off when we have a thermostat.

But I think that some degree of, you know, an example and perhaps some support from governmental institutions is terrific.

And I think that, certainly, it's great when people are able to come up, you know, and speak about their opinions, and their feelings, and their beliefs in regards to climate change. And I'm happy that we're able to do that.

In terms of my specific interests, you know, I noticed that 19 and 20, I'm sorry, the issues 19 and 20 in regard to lead certification and green building, you know, I think that's a key area that needs to be addressed.

Government buildings serve, in a lot of ways, as examples for development in other areas. And I think that, you know, in terms of materials and construction practices, recycling of old construction materials, all those things need to be taken into account.

You know, government buildings are where these things are, in a lot of ways, showcased. So, you know, I would encourage that.

I know that, for example, the Green Roof Initiative in Chicago has been a really interesting and inspirational program there, where, you know, green roofs, not only do they provide, you know, oxygenation, but they also clean the air in the city around.

So, you know, for example, I think the state capital or, sorry, the capitol building in Chicago has a green roof, which is a pretty good example for the rest of the city.

Also, I think that, you know, this is an education issue as well. I think people who are apathetic or who do feel helpless about this type of thing, I'll wrap it up, but, you know, they don't take into account these issues in their day-to-day lives.

And I think the conservation of energy is a key one, where people, you know, they feel like they're just turning off a light or they're just, you know, turning down the heat.

But, I mean, it only works if we all do it. And I think there's certainly, you know, a governmental guiding hand in that respect is very key.

It tends to come across as somewhat preachy when I tell my housemates to, you know, turn down the heat or take shorter showers, but, you know, thank you very much.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you. Roxanne Hosking, followed by Henry Link.

ROXANNE HOSKING: Good afternoon. My name is Roxanne Hosking, and I'm President of the Connecticut Earth Science Teachers Association. I'm also Tolland County Director of the Connecticut Science Teachers Association.

I work with approximately 1,300 Connecticut earth science and science teachers. I'm also a concerned constituent of the State of Connecticut.

It is unfortunate for me that I have been born, bred, and raised here in Connecticut. And I say unfortunate, because when you look in my face, what you're looking at is an individual who is now suffering from adult onslaught of severe asthma.

I now have to sleep with a breathing machine every night, whether I like it or not, because of my problem with asthma. I now have a problem with allergies that are part of the environment.

I'm allergic to petroleum products, corn, wheat, soybean, formaldehyde, phenol, the list is quite endless as to, unfortunately, the things I'm allergic to.

I can no longer teach full time because of my ill health. In the last three and a half years, I have been diagnosed with not one, but two separate, different kinds of cancer, of which I will survive.

I'm here to support the Climate Change Action Plan, not just as the President of the Connecticut Earth Science Teachers Association or Connecticut Fellow of Science Education, but as a concerned citizen.

I am now forced to substitute teach, because I can no longer teach full time because of these health issues.

I do not want, ever, any one of my students, my nieces, my nephews, my grandnieces and nephews that are going to come after me, to have to go through the health issues that I'm now dealing with on a daily basis.

Senator Stillman, you asked the CBIA representative as to insurance costs. Mine have tripled in the last year. Instead of paying $10 apiece for my medication that I now have to take, it is now $30 apiece.

My insurance rate has gone from December of 2004, which, on a monthly basis, my husband has to pay $900 and something out of his pocket for his insurance, it now has gone up to $2,700 a month.

Considering that I am no longer working full time, it's coming directly out of his pocket. And I can't tell you how upset I am about that.

I'm an environmentalist. I have a gas stove, of which, during the day, I turn off my gas, so that during the day, when I'm not home, the gas isn't running.

My heat is now, I live in a 300-year-old home, I turn my heat down to 60 degrees whenever I'm home. That's the highest it goes.

When I am not home or no one is in the house, it goes down to 55 degrees. Every single one of my appliances, including the two computers I have in my home, are energy efficient.

However, because of the fact that I don't use my gas stove and don't keep the burners on and so forth, I now have to pay, instead of $2 a gallon for propane gas for my stove [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2B to Tape 3A.]--$6 a gallon, because I'm not getting the gas on a regular basis, and I'm being penalized for that.

Those are a multitude of reasons why I am supporting the Climate Change Action Plan. I am also working on writing lesson plans and developing lesson plans with NASA to educate not just our students, but also our teachers and individuals like yourselves, on what climate change actually is, and what the science is behind it, and what the real truth is, as opposed to what we hear from President Bush. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Any questions? No? All set? Henry Link.

HENRY LINK: Hello, I'm Henry Link, Energy Engineer with the EnviroEnergy Connections Group in Hartford. I strongly support the Climate Change Proposals and, in fact, I made written comments on the draft proposals back a couple of months ago.

But now, the reason why I'm here now is, now I could talk about them in general. But specifically, I decided to talk about when the fellow from Northeast Utilities, Mr. Russell, said that he didn't like the idea of having a goal of 20% by 2010.

I firmly believe that we do need a goal so that we can strive for it. If we don't make it, well, we don't make it. But I remember, I was old enough to remember back in the '60s when President Kennedy set the goal to go to the man in the moon.

You know, I'm an engineer, and I thought that it would be very difficult. But we strived for it, and we completed it. You know, I think we have to keep that goal in there right now.

And I see the fellow from New Haven, the first town in the State to adopt that goal, and the Town of West Hartford adopted it, and Portland adopted it, and the State should adopt it for all its State buildings and use it as a goal. And it would be a model for the whole country and try to do that.

And if Northeast Utilities and other utilities started right now trying to get green power generation, and just to say, well, we can't do it and ask for more studies, but, in fact, start trying to implement it, I think we might get there. And I hope we keep that goal in there.

The other thing is regarding energy conservation or energy efficiency. I'm a concerned person about climate change, but I know there are a lot of people that are against it, and they don't think that it exists.

Well, whether it does or not, who cares with the debate of engineers, and scientists, and the general public. We need to generate energy as efficiently as possible.

Whether there is a climate change or not, we're wasting a lot of energy. I mean, this country, 5% of the world's population, consumes about 25%, a quarter of all the world's energy.

And it's a ridiculous waste. And we have to use, as a goal, to be as energy efficient as possible, just for that goal, whether it's for climate change or not. Thank you.

REP. ROY: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Thank you very much. That's the last of the speakers who signed up.

Is there anyone else who would like to comment before we adjourn? Anyone else? Thank you. I'll take a motion for adjournment.

REP. MUSHINSKY: So moved.

SEN. STILLMAN: Second.

REP. ROY: We are adjourned.

SEN. STILLMAN: And just a reminder to the few Committee Members that are still here, we are meeting on Monday. What time are we, 11:00, in 2E.

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.]