May 1, 2026 · 88,025 words · 81 speakers · 1856 segments
The chamber will come to order. We are in a--, just what we needed this morning, as we don't have anything working right now. Folks are working on it. Our great IT team is on it, but we are unable right now to get the board open and vote. We may have the ability to do audio, so we may be able to proceed in the coming minutes. But let's do this. Let's have our prayer. Let's do our Pledge of Allegiance, and we'll figure out where we are. So we have Donna Berman, one of our Chaplains, who's going to lead us in prayer.
Sn/ak 2 Universe gathered in this chamber on this beautiful spring morning are dedicated leaders of our state who have come ready to do the people's work. We ask that you bless them with good health and vigor, with courage and wisdom, vision and discernment. May they be able to carry out their responsibilities with grace and strength knowing that you are with them, knowing that their commitment is a beacon, a model, and inspiration for us all. Bless their coming and their going forth now and forever, and let us say, Amen.
And we'll add a little prayer for the IT system too. Thank you, Donna. Dominique Johnson from Norwalk will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Representative? Oh, you already did it? Oh, boy. Oh, boy. We got a typo. Alright. Let's do, Robin Comey, you want to do it? Let's go. It's like The Price is Right. Come on down. Let's go. And you know what? Let's do something from the other side. Sn/ak 3 Well, Representative Piscopo, you just went yesterday. You want to go again? Let's go. Come on down. Here we go. Put some good juju in the world and maybe the system will come back on. Alright. Here we go.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
We can still do business on the clerk's desk, I believe, if there's any. And then we'll do announcements.
I have favorable reports senate bills.
Mr. Majority Leader. Sn/ak 4
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move we waive the reading of the
I see no objections, so ordered.
And the daily Calendar.
Thank you. Let's do announcements or introductions, please. Raise your hand. Problem is the mics don't work. Okay. So listen to me. All the microphones are hot. Okay? Which is not normal. Normally, it is the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader and the Speaker whose microphones can automatically turn on. Whatever you say will be captured and recorded. So any individual private conversations, they are going to be heard live on television. So you may want to go in the other room if Sn/ak 5 you can't have a conversation. But we're going to try to continue on our day so we don't get too far behind. So announcements or introductions, your microphone will be automatically hot. I'd ask you to raise your hand if you have an announcement or introduction. We'll start with Representative Rader in the back. Still hit the button.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am honored and really excited today to welcome the fourth-grade class of East Shoreline Catholic Academy that is located right here in Brantford in our district. I'm here with Representative Comey. They are here with their fourth-grade teacher, Missus Pecoraro, and they've already toured some of the Capitol Building and will continue to do so. So I hope we can now give them all a really warm welcome. [applause]
It's very nice to have you here. Although, I don't think you told one of the young students about the violation of our Sn/ak 6 dress protocols. We don't allow New York Knicks sweatshirts in the chamber, but it's okay. Congratulations on your win last night. Nice to have you here. I think I saw, Representative Belton had her hand up, but she disappeared. Representative Nolan, I'm just going to go that way.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to do an introduction.
You may proceed.
So today, I am happy to share that I have Dr. Rashelle Litchmore from Connecticut College, and Conn College students here today. They have come up to find out what a hectic day it is to be with a state representative. Sn/ak 7 So I ask you to welcome them. And I also, though, I do want to agree with you about the shirt that you just talked about. But I won't say a name, but I agree with you. So please help me welcome Connecticut College here to experience what we go through. [applause]
Good NESCAC school. Representative Farrar.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with a point of personal preference.
You may proceed, Madam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise and hope that the chamber will join me in saying a very happy birthday to my goddaughter, Sn/ak 8 Mira, who is turning 11 today. And she has visited me here in the building. And although she can't be here today, I just want to give a shout out to her for her love of theater, her love of tennis, her love of chocolate, and her love of the excellent television show Brooklyn Nine-Nine. But to Mira, your uncle Chan and aunt Kate love you dearly. We're so proud of you. And therefore, if the chamber could join me in wishing Mira a happy 11th birthday, I'd much appreciate it. [applause]
Happy Birthday. Representative Gresko. Deputy Speaker 121st, Stratford, what do you have?
There you go. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I have a point of personal privilege. It's been, 10 years since, my mom passed away. She was a great lady. She very instrumental in my life. We Sn/ak 9 miss her, very much and I just wanted to say, [00:07:11 - foreign language] Thank you.
Thank you Representative Gresko. Representative Gucker.
Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege.
Yeah. Nice shirt.
Thank you. So one time I get to wear it is in here when we have dress down day.
You like my dress down? Sn/ak 10
I love it. I don't know what different tie you do for a dress down, but the green certainly works for you--.
Getting old and grumpy, that's all, so.
So one of the things that I have really learned and experienced, and I've said this many times in this chamber, is how this house becomes a family, it becomes a really close bond, and it gives us an opportunity to really meet people that we normally would meet in a daily basis. We get to meet people from diverse communities, different viewpoints, different areas of The States, and it's with that blessing and idea that I have met one of my, who has become a real close friend of mine, today, who has fought adversity from where he comes from, who has fought his way to become a member up here in the house, Representative Travis Simms. Sn/ak 11 And the reason why I bring him up today, because today is his birthday, so if you happen to see him today, razz him a little and say, happy birthday. Double nickels as we would say, for Mr. Simms. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Representative Berger-Girvalo, 111, Richfield, Madam Chair of Transportation. What do you have for us Madam?
Good morning Mr. Speaker. I rise for an announcement.
I just wanted to announce that thanks to all of the donations from not only legislators, but also from staff and from Capitol Police, we were able to raise lucky $1,300 for the Connecticut Alliance to end sexual violence. Thank you all so Sn/ak 12 much for your participation. Appreciate it very much. It goes to such a wonderful cause.
Thank you. You got my Venmo? Representative Comey. How was the pledge? Is it everything you thought it would be?
It was. I waited eight years for that moment.
Did you really?
Thank you so much. Yes.
Wow. I'm sorry about that. Sn/ak 13
Thank you. I rise for a purpose of an announcement.
You may proceed.
I'm here to introduce my dearest and one of my longest, friends, Stacia. She lives in Hamden, but, we went to college together, and we have been dear buddies since she's here for the mental health awareness day that, Representative Belton organized. So I, am so glad to have her to be able to grab a picture and brag about her visiting here. Thank you for the honor to introduce her. Everybody give her a round of applause. [applause]
Sn/ak 14 It's very nice to have you here today. Representative Menapace.
I don't think it's working. Hello. Sorry about that. I just wanted to wish all of us that if we do get out of here today or excuse me. I rise for an announcement. I just wanted to let everyone know at 05:30 today, there is going to be an event at the Old State House, celebrating the life of James Morris who was a man who was bought and sold into slavery. If we do get out here early enough that you'd like to attend, I think it's going to be a great event. It's actually put on by Discovering Amistad and led by my brother Chris Menapace. I hope everyone has a great time and can check it out. [applause]
Chamber will come back to order for a second. It should go without saying that we're going to, did think maybe timing would work out. It's not going to work out. Sn/ak 15 So we will be here late tonight. So if you need to make adjustments to your plans, you're going to have to do that. There's not much we can do. Things happen. So we will be here late tonight. My apologies about that. We have more visitors, it appears. Chair recognizes Deputy Speaker Reyes of the 75th from the City of Waterbury. You have the floor Sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege, Sir.
You may proceed.
Sir, I'd like to welcome to the chamber, The Brass City Charter School for the 75th District Of Waterbury, Connecticut is a Pre-K to 8th Charter School. It's one of our most successful schools and programs in the City of Waterbury. Sn/ak 16 Want to especially thank Doctor Barbara Ruggiero for her Leadership and her vision to create this school and this opportunity for these great students for the City of Waterbury. 100% of the students are from Waterbury and I want to welcome them to the People's House and give them a nice round of applause and welcome to the people's house. [applause]
It's nice to have you all here today. Unfortunately, we can't be doing bills right now because our machines are not working. So it is truly the people's house, and sometimes we got to wait it out like everybody else so things work again. But it's nice to have you here today with us. Any more announcements or introductions? If not, the chamber will stand at ease. Our chamber's going to come back to order. If we could bring stuff outside while we do that, please, because we have to get down to business. Have time for this riffraff. Okay. So, we have no boards that work. So we're going to go back to 1892 and we're going to legislate. Sn/ak 17 So here's how it's going to work. We're going to hope that Kyle Wall of famous yesterday of fame can fix it along with his team, but that may not happen for a while. We're going to call a bill manually. It's going to be, I believe, S.B. 397, and we're going to bring it back. If you want to speak, you have to raise your hand, and I'll write down your name. When we vote, we will do it by roll call. So like opening day, the clerk will call 151 names. But we got to move, so we're just going to do the best we can. Appreciate everybody's understanding of the uniqueness of the situation. And with that, let's just get down to business. Okay? Any questions from anybody? Obviously, have your leaders approach us. We're going to try to make it work, and, yeah, we'll do our best. I don't know how to do this, so we'll find out. Do it together. And with that, will the clerk please call Calendar 455.
On page 36, Calendar 455, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 397, as amended by Senate Amendment Schedules "A" and "B", AN Sn/ak 18 ACT CONCERNING DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, favorable report of Judiciary.
Alright. The Chair will recognize Chairman Stafstrom. Again, we are on the Bill as Amended by Senate "A" and Senate "B". Chairman Stafstrom.
Mr. Speaker, I think I need to move passage again. So I will move for acceptance of Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill as amended by Senate Amendment "A" and
One more reminder. One more reminder. All of your mics are hot. Everybody [gavel] everybody pay attention. The mics are all hot. That never happens. Only the Minority, Majority Leader mics are hot, which means everything you say will be on television. Sn/ak 19 So all the things, the bad things you say about me, try to take them in the back. Okay. Both of you. But in all seriousness, they're going to be hot. It's the only way to operate. So your private conversations probably are not so private. Be very, very mindful. Okay. That's the only way to make this work. So with that, the Chair has moved acceptance of the Joint Committee’s favorable report and passage of the bill. Would you care to remark further, Representative Pavalock D'Amato, you have the floor, Madam.
Okay. Alright. Thank you. And if I may, may I begin?
You may begin, Madam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let's start with the basic question. Do laws matter? Because if immigration laws are Sn/ak 20 optional, if they are optional, then we don't have a system. As the good ranking member has said, we have a suggestion. The United States enforces laws in every other area. Taxes, criminal justice, national security, and immigration should not be the one exception. We are a nation built on laws, and that principle is not abstract. It is the foundation of fairness, order, and sovereignty. Among those laws are our immigration laws created not to exclude arbitrarily, but to ensure that entry to this country is safe, lawful, and orderly. Supporting ICE is not about rejecting immigrants. It's about respecting the rule of law. Every country in this world has borders, and every functioning government enforces them. Without enforcement, laws become a suggestion. And a system without enforcement is not a system at all. When immigration laws are ignored, it undermines the legal immigration system and disadvantages those who follow the process. I'm one of those individuals who followed that process. My first husband was from Venezuela, and through an I-30 form and relative's visa and fiancé visa, we submitted those Sn/ak 21 forms so that way he could come over to this country. Now that process takes patience, and it took about a year for him to be able to come here. But that process is utilized for two main reasons. One, to make sure the individual can be financially self-sufficient or supported by their sponsor. And number two, background check to make sure the individual coming over is not a criminal. ICE agents carry out this dangerous work. They investigate human trafficking, dismantle criminal networks, and remove individuals who pose threats to communities. Their role is not theoretical. It directly impacts public safety. But ultimately, it comes down to balance. We can be a nation that welcomes immigrants. We can also be a nation that enforces laws. These are not contradictions. They are responsibilities. If we believe in fairness, then the rules must apply consistently. If we believe in safety, then enforcement is a must. Supporting ICE agents is about recognizing the necessity of their role in a lawful society. Because a nation that enforces Sn/ak 22 its laws with fairness and integrity is not weaker, it's stronger. Without enforcement, legal immigration becomes meaningless. Without enforcement, human trafficking networks thrive. And without enforcement, border security collapses. And most of us remember 911, and we don't want another 911. ICE plays a huge role in those three concepts that I mentioned. They investigate trafficking operations, pursue individuals who pose public threats, and uphold the integrity of the immigration system. That's not controversial. That's essential. Mr. Speaker, in the last year, over 25,000 dangerous individuals, illegal aliens, have been arrested and taken off our streets. But the real debate here is not about ICE. It's about whether we are willing to enforce the laws that we have. Because if we're not, then we're sending a clear message that legality depends on politics, not principle. A functioning country requires borders. Borders require enforcement, and enforcement requires agencies like ICE. That's not extreme. That's basic governance. Sn/ak 23 A couple individuals have mentioned, and I know, we see this online about the supremacy clause. And, really, what many of us have said over and over again in committee and here on the floor is that parts of this bill are not enforceable because of the supremacy clause. And we can go back to 1918, McCulloch v. Maryland. Now in that case, it involved an individual where well, let me back up. The State of Maryland actually taxed the second bank of The US, and James McCulloch was a federal bank cashier, and he refused to pay. The state argued that the bank was unconstitutional while the federal government argued that the tax violated the federal supremacy clause. And the supreme court established that there were implied powers of the federal government and that under the necessary and proper clause, Article 1, Section 8, Congress had the authority through their implied powers to create a bank even if it wasn't explicitly stated in the constitution. And, of course, it also established this supremacy clause that the court held that these states cannot hinder or tax the constitutional operations of the federal government. Sn/ak 24 A similar law recently, of course as, we indicated yesterday, was addressed recently in the ninth circuit. And, again, for many individuals who did not go to law school, when you're learning con law, the one thing you learn in con law is that, there are different districts for circuit courts, and some of those are more liberal than others. And the ninth circuit, as we learn, is extremely liberal. Well, recently in the ninth circuit, those judges overturned and blocked two laws put forward by the California legislature. One was prohibiting masks of ICE agents, and then the other, was requiring those ICE agents to wear a badge that had their name and badge number on it. Both of those were overturned and found to directly violate the supremacy clause and found to be discriminatory. It's exactly what we have here in this bill. And, of course, we can achieve, I think in this bill, there are ways to achieve what maybe this legislature is really seeking to do, in other ways. But not allowing these individuals to wear masks puts them directly in danger and puts their families in danger. As we just Sn/ak 25 discussed outside in a press conference, it is becoming the norm in this building to, I would go so far as to say incite violence because I think we're heading in that direction. We have an individual, not in this chamber, who I believe the, numbers are 8647, if I recall, and stood with this picture that basically is a threat to our president, and I find that unacceptable. And as we address outside, other videos and other, comments made as a result of the debate that we have. Mr. Speaker, the chair of the judiciary at the beginning of this debate read situations, not specifically names of individuals and situations where, they were taken into custody, and some were released, when it was found that they were here legally, that they actually were not here, illegally. I believe there was an individual in Cheshire. And of course, I fully support, making sure that somebody who is here legally, has all the protections that they are allowed to have, and should have under our constitution. I have clients. I do family law, and I have had clients in divorce who end up getting threatened from the spouse that they are divorcing. Sn/ak 26 And it makes me very proud to be able to tell the opposition, that you will not threaten my client with deportation. They are here legally, just because you're not getting your way, doesn't mean you get to threaten my client. And I will fight till the end for my client who has done nothing wrong but possibly fall out of love. There's been also some other policies at the federal level that I don't agree with. I'm also helping a family from Haiti. Recently, the exception to have them as an exception to, I believe it is exception to deportation, when they are a refugee, refugee status, has been lifted, and I don't agree with that. I think there's a lot of issues in Haiti. It's dangerous. And this family is hardworking, and I will do everything I can to keep them here. I lived in South Florida in what was called Little Haiti, and, I know a lot of the congressmen down there have and are doing everything they can to help all those individuals. But the names that were read yesterday from the Judiciary Chair, were those situations. Those situations where, again detained, but they didn't die. And if I may, Mr. Speaker, I did Sn/ak 27 not memorize. I have under 10 names and one in particular, just of individuals who have died. I didn't memorize the names. I'm not going to read 100. Just--.
Madam, you may read the names.
It's okay. Yes. You may, Madam.
Thank you. Jocelyn Nungaray, 12. She was strangled in Houston in Houston, Texas in 2024. She was only 12 years old. Laken Riley, a nursing student--.
Sn/ak 28 We'll just continue. Yep. We'll just continue. Thank you. Let's make the mic hot, please. Not going to be possible. Is Representative Candelora's microphone working? I'd be glad to allow the Representative to speak from there. Test. Test. Test. We got it. Representative Pavalock D'Amato, if you don't mind, would you please speak from Representative Candelora's microphone as we go through the IT issues? Thank you, Madam. Thank you for your flexibility. Representative, you may continue.
Thank you. Rachel Morin, 37, a mother of five who was murdered in Maryland by an illegal alien. Sarah Root, 21, killed in 2016 by an illegal alien. Molly Tibbetts, 20, killed in Iowa in 2018 by an illegal alien. Joshua Wilkinson, 18, murdered in 2010 by an illegal alien. Louis Lopez, 15, shot in 2025 while protecting his mother in Kentucky by an illegal alien. Chris Babcock, 62, killed by an illegal alien in North Carolina. Sn/ak 29 The last one I'm going to talk about has some disturbing details. The individual's name, Chandra Mouli. I'm going to mess up the last name, Nagamallaiah. This gentleman was a 50-year-old Indian national, came to this country in hopes of a better life. He was a manager at a motel. He was murdered by an employee who is an illegal alien. The individual took a hatchet. And in front of his wife and teenage son, decapitated him. He then played soccer with his head in the parking lot before putting it in the dumpster. Bob, as he was known, again, was just here looking for a better life for his family. The individual who killed him had previous charges, grand theft auto, false imprisonment, carjacking, and even child sex abuse. He was actually released on an order of supervision on January 13, 2025 under the Biden administration. Mr. Speaker, incidents like this would not have occurred if individuals, like in this case, it was Mister Martinez, had that background check. And I've thought about Bob because it happened last September. Sn/ak 30 And I often think about his wife and his child and lifetime effect this will have on them. I also want to mention and talk about just this past, this past earlier this year. It might have been even late last year as, time flies when we're in this chamber. But, during the State of the Union, we had a congressman who actually brought somebody up to the State of the Union from Bristol. And this individual, was brought because his nationalization ceremony, citizenship ceremony was delayed. He was not losing citizenship. He was not going to be deported. It was delayed. If anybody has been to those ceremonies as I have, they're beautiful. And it is one of my favorite things to do, as a state rep. is to go to those ceremonies. But what this congressman, the person this congressman didn't bring up with him was another constituent from Bristol, a constituent I know personally whose father was murdered by an illegal alien down in Florida. And I wish she was able to come, go to the White House, go to Congress, and have her story heard because it's just as important. I know some of my colleagues discussed as, the good Sn/ak 31 Representative from Watertown did last night, the issues with appropriations and the concern for losing federal funding. Being on the Appropriations Committee, there is nothing more frustrating than hearing cries over and over again, about losing federal funding when we intentionally act and do things knowing that, what's going to happen, is that we will lose federal funding and yet blaming the government, the federal government for those actions, for our actions and for our decisions in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, over and over again, I run into an effect that I feel has been the result of many laws that we've passed. Again, the good chair of the Judiciary Committee mentioned last night about an amendment that was facially unconstitutional. But yet in this chamber, we do that over and over again. And I have to say, we're losing respect, not only in the state but around the country for some of the laws that we're passing. And I recently ran into this, and it was over the credit card bill that we passed a couple years ago. My son is in a program, and they were charging the fee to the customer for the credit card. I won't say which one. But Sn/ak 32 that fee was charged. And when I said you can't do that, we live in Connecticut, you have to absorb that, I was then referred to a New Jersey attorney who told me, yeah. Too bad. That's unconstitutional. We're still going to charge it. It concerns me that what we do here, again, the impact is that we are losing respect for what we do in this chamber. And we all sacrifice our time, our families, our work to be up here, not to lose respect, but to follow our oath to serve our constituency. Mr. Speaker, I am going to cut this short because I actually do have a couple other individuals, and especially one in particular, who I really think it's important that we hear from, the Representative from Terryville, Bristol area. As an immigrant, I think it's, I know we've heard his story, and I know the governor did recognize him, I believe, last year in his opening speech. But again, we're individuals who have firsthand experience in this process. And, I would like to yield my time to him so we can hear his story.
Sn/ak 33 So I can't allow you to just give him the microphone. Because there are other members of your caucus who are before him, so they'd all have to get off the board. Right now, I have Representative Mastrofrancesco of the 80th, and I had accidentally skipped over Representative Nuccio so she would be first. So, if you want to talk to your leadership and figure it out, we can do that.
Yeah. He no. He can wait. That's fine. I didn't realize those other individuals were on the board--
--was working. So I would, like to respect my colleagues and not take up the entire time. So I appreciate that.
Sn/ak 34 Madam, thank you very much.
Representative Mastrofrancesco, who I don't see in the chamber. So we'll let her come back when she's ready. I don't see Representative Nuccio. So guess what, Representative Hoxha, you're in. 78th, floor is yours. We should be back to normal, so you can speak from your own desk, and the lights are live, and the board should work.
Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, just some comments, that I began making yesterday that I would just like to conclude today. So 30 years ago, almost to the day, tomorrow marks the day, I will have been in this country for 30 years tomorrow as a legal resident to start off with and then, a United States citizen back in 2006. Sn/ak 35 I didn't have any choice in the matter, really, because I was a minor and my parents were awarded citizenship, after certain amount of years as legal, green card holders, and residents. They took the test. They passed with flying colors, and I was sort of grandfathered in as the federal law works. And it was one of the proudest days of my life. We all here are sort of a self-selecting group. I'm sure every single one of us at some point were the social studies or history nerds in our classes. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't be here. We have a passion for civics and civil service and history and what this country is about. And in 2006, that was, one of the proudest moments of my life, when I became, officially a United States citizen. And as a former president, Democrat President, Barack Obama once said, the most important title he ever held was citizen of The United States. And I agree with that, and I don't agree with Obama often. And that truly resonates with me and with so many other people, including so many people abroad who look to come to this Sn/ak 36 country, and look to come to this country legally through the right process. Unfortunately, there's always going to be people that try to skirt the system or sometimes even just have no choice and have to sort of force their way in. And I understand that there are some circumstances, so extraneous, that people have to just flee their country and seek asylum. But even for that, there is a process. And I know many people that have sought asylum in this country and had it granted to them. We are a very generous country. We always have been since our inception. All we ask is that everyone follows the rule of law, and there is a process for everyone. Regardless of whether you come here just seeking for more opportunities or you're fleeing an oppressive government in your native land, we will take you in, but you need to follow the rules. You need to follow the law. ICE, they're not the bad guys. This bill, in my opinion, my humble opinion, would kind of sort of state mark, ICE as an agency with a broad brush, in that we are conveying through this bill that they cannot be trusted and, Sn/ak 37 thus, their powers and the way that they, conduct their job, needs to be curtailed and limited. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that, and I think we should actually be going in the opposite direction and working with federal law enforcement to apprehend violent illegals. And I'm not saying that every single illegal is a violent criminal or rapist or murderer, but some are. And in those extreme instances, I think we should, we ought to work with federal law enforcement to expedite the removal of those criminals. I think everybody can get behind that. And we don't do that by putting up bills like this for a vote that ultimately will pass and will curtail the ability for ICE agents to do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, we are a very generous country, a very welcoming country, and I hope we continue to be that way. And to come to The United States, must mean that you are looking to be an American one day, and not just here as a temporary pass through or here for illicit purposes. Sn/ak 38 And I really hope that we change direction in this building, not just in this chamber, but in this building that houses two out of the three branches of government. And that we change course and start to work with federal law enforcement regardless of who, the chief executive is on the federal level, whether it's a Democrat, whether it's a Republican. We need to establish a tradition here where we work with our federal law enforcement partners and not against them. And I believe that this bill is not in that spirit, and I would urge my colleagues as an immigrant and as some of you here, they're my friends, that are immigrants. I would highly encourage you to reconsider, your vote on this and vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative, would you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Would you care to remark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests come to the well of the House. Members take their seats. The machine will be open.
Sn/ak 39 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Now would be the time to check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And will the clerk please take and announce the tally?
Total number voting 144 Necessary for passage 73 Those voting Yea 91 Those voting Nay 53 Absent not voting 7 Sn/ak 40
The bill passes as amended in concurrence with the Senate. [gavel] Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move we immediately transmit Calendar 456 to the Governor.
Without objection, so ordered. We will briefly allow announcements or introductions briefly. Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank, my session. I rise for the purposes of an announcement.
Go ahead. Sn/ak 41
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank my sessional. We have intern, Lucy Sheldon, who is a junior at Trinity College, and she is majoring in political science. And Lucy is planning on going on to bigger and better things and going to law school, eventually. Her work was amazing this session. And wherever she goes, she will be an asset. I'm here with Mallory [Bien Amay?] and Mackenzie [Fournette?], and this is the team behind the Insurance and Real Estate Committee. And we just wanted to say thank you, Lucy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll just say this. I have a 11-year-old daughter named Emma, and I hope she grows up to be as responsible and successful as you young lady. So thanks for joining us here today. So Representative LaMark Muir of the 36th, a nice Dave Matthews song. You have the floor, Madam. Representative LaMark Muir is your button on purpose or is that an accident. At least Sn/ak 42 I got to reference the Dave Matthews song. Representative Ackert of the 8th.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today's dress down day. And, you and I came in the same year, and you never saw me dress down ever. And I'm not sure if I'm actually dressing down, by all the way. And by the way, do make your contributions, to Representative Quinn for your dress down. I did make that contribution. But a special announcement, on today, a gentleman named Babe Ruth hit his very first Yankee home run. And I was I'm thinking of Holly Cheeseman who knows all of these facts. Again, and remember, and he did hit it against his former team called the Boston Red Sox. And Mickey Mantle in 1951 hit his very first Yankee home run. So, today, I am celebrating those accomplishments for the team that I represent. So I see David's waving his hand, but thank you, I'm not sure if I'm getting as much claps as Sn/ak 43 everybody else, but thank you, Mr. Speaker. [00:55:27 - clapping]
Representative Buckbee of the 67th.
Hello, Mr. Speaker. How are you today?
Just great.
I can see that. I can totally see that now. It's great. Great to follow the good Representative of Coventry. Mr. Speaker, I rise for purpose of introduction, if I may.
You may proceed. Sn/ak 44
I stand here with Jason O'Connor from the Connecticut Youth Services Bureau who spoke with so many children here today. And luckily, we had some kids from New Milford come all the way up. Look, we get kids from all over the place all the time, and and I want to thank the good Representative Carpino and Carney and Turco and Gilchrist. All those Representatives spoke on their panel upstairs today, talking to these kids from across the state. They want to ensure their voices are heard. So I stand here with Representative Buchsbaum and [0:56:19 - Callehino?], I think, just walked out. We just missed him. He's working. He's busy, Mr. Speaker. But I want to make sure that we let these kids know across the state, We hear your voices. We want to hear your voices. And if anyone else is here, these kids that are here from different districts, if you don't know your rep. I'm happy to introduce you to whoever it might be. Mr. Speaker, these kids are out standing across the board, and I can't be more proud to stand here with kids from New Milford, the best town in the USA. Sn/ak 45
Thank you, Sir. Representative Quinn, and that'll be our last one. Unless you have guests, that'll be the last one. Representative Quinn.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I need about five minutes for rebuttal on those comments. And clearly, we're not charging enough for dress down day, if that sort of attire is going to be allowed. But in all seriousness, I'll have in total for you later on, but as usual, everyone in the house and our staff people and Capitol Police have come through and made it another successful day. So give yourselves a round of applause because you deserve it. [00:57:24 - clapping]
Last one. Representative Weir.
Sn/ak 46 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for introduction.
We also on youth service day, we have the AHM, youth services bureau and, Ram High School, Representatives from Ram High School down in the well. [00:57:44 - clapping]
Thank you all very much for joining us on this busy Friday. With that, we'll get back to oh, Mister Majority Leader, I apologize. Yes.
No. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We started off today with some technical errors, and then I followed up with a human error. In the motion that I made, I had the Calendar number incorrect. The Calendar that I moved to be transmitted to the governor has not Sn/ak 47 been voted on. The motion that I would like to make is I move we immediately transmit Calendar 455 to the Governor.
Is there objection to immediate transmittal with the correction? If not, so ordered. [gavel] Let's make sure the clerk has all that information and the withdrawal of the prior one, but we did not take action on it. Shouldn't really matter. With that, will the clerk please call, Calendar 480?
On page 40, Calendar 480, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 5, as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 4418, AN ACT CONCERNING ONLINE SAFETY. Favorable report of General Law.
Good morning or afternoon, Representative Lemar. I think this place is like a casino, and I can't tell what time it is or what time of day it is, but you have the floor, Sir. Sn/ak 48
Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. It just passed noon here today. I think the clock still works. I'm not sure. Madam Speaker, I move for the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill as Amended by Senate "A".
The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A". LCO 4418 in concurrence with the Senate. Representative Lemar, you have the floor.
Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I think as a Chair, I found a bit of a cheat code, and I'm going to unfurl it here today. I'm going to bring out this bill, but I'm going to be served quite, safely and steadily by two other members of the General Assembly on our side, the Vice Chair of the Committee, Representative Turco, who led us fabulously on one of the Sections last year and has taken a great leadership role Sn/ak 49 this year, and the Chair of the AI caucus in the house, Representative Delany, who will be available for us to help answer a number of technical questions as well. And believe it or not, to all my chairs, this is a great option that's now available to you. I get to do a high-level introduction. I get to make some wonderful remarks about what wonderful things we're about to do, and then other people have to explain it. Madam Speaker, the bill is about protecting people without stopping innovation. Very succinctly, that's what we're doing today. An act concerning online safety, it's had other names over the last few years, but this really has been a herculean effort undertaken chiefly by my co-chair in the senate, Senator Maroney, who's become a national thought leader, in how to best approach an ever changing technological revolution that our country is facing. There is no longer doubt that the nature of work, the nature of life is going to change rapidly with the continued evolution of AI. And this is about protecting people without stopping that innovation. It's a difficult balance, and I believe what you'll hear today is we've achieved it. Sn/ak 50 Madam Speaker, this bill creates some common sense rules for artificial intelligence, just like we have done for every major technological shift our country has faced. It ensures transparency, accountability, safety, while all still allowing Connecticut to compete in the AI economy. There's a number of consumer protection issues, that we raise and address. Transparency about what AI is. It discloses the limits, restrictions, risks associated with a number of the products that are in the marketplace. We ensure there's informed consent from a number of people who don't know what they're entering into when they buy or use an AI product. We can't ignore the wonderful advancements AI is going to allow us to make. Senator Maroney and I had an opportunity to visit, both in Las Vegas and New York, advancements in the business sector that AI will allow us to achieve in the health sectors, the financial sectors, and in delivering food, and delivering safety, housing, medical assist devices. There are so many remarkable advancements we'll be able to make with the use of AI and common applications across our Sn/ak 51 country. We should be excited for that technology, but we also can't ignore the risks of advanced AI systems. The bill, like other states, will help establish safeguards around frontier AI models. It'll protect employees who report dangerous capabilities of AI, it'll protect employees who report security failures, and will protect in this bill in number Sections, children and vulnerable users. Madam Speaker, the bill goes a little bit further and addresses some of the concerns you've heard about chat bots. People have a right to know when they're dealing with AI interactions. Sometimes people get confused, and they equate the conversations that they're having with a conversation they may have with a human. And we've heard horrible stories about, the use of AI and how it's impacted, people in their decision making, encouraging people to take their lives, encouraging people to enter into affairs, encouraging people to engage in a series of dangerous behaviors because people lose track the technology that they're talking about. Sn/ak 52 AI also should not become a black box that decides people's livelihoods. So we make sure, employees disclose when AI is used in making hiring decisions, what data is being evaluated, and that AI is not a defense against discrimination. All of these terms are defined throughout this bill, and that's where that robust conversation with other people will happen because I'm going to sit down and turn over, that conversation to a lot of folks who understand these frontier models. But I wanted to make it clear. My great colleague in the the passage of bills in states far away from Connecticut, and I'm proud that we get to do it here today. We will support innovation and business growth. There are a number of applications you'll hear about today that will make sure our students, our residents are ready to compete in this space. We've struck that important balance between protecting our residents, putting in responsible safeguards, and allowing for Sn/ak 53 the continued innovation and positive attributes that AI will bring. So Madam Speaker, with that, I move adoption.
Thank you very much, Representative. Will you remark further? Will you remark further. Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and, thank you to the good chairman for bringing up the bill. So this might be an unusual situation here. The subject matter is so complicated, and it's taken so long for all of us to have a basic understanding of some of the language that's used, some of the wording they use, and some of the things we're trying to regulate that sometimes we get up here, and I'll look at the good chair of General Law, and we'll either just agree on something because we've worked it out. We've talked about it. And sometimes we don't agree when we ask probing questions and run amendments to try to fix things Sn/ak 54 and do and sort of bend the curve for our will. Right? I mean, for lack of a better term. Today, I thought it best that maybe we just ask a few probative questions to bring up everybody's knowledge of what the bill actually does and what we're trying to do. Because there is some important things in here. I feel that we're trying to walk a fine line between consumer protection, protecting our young people, and not stifling innovation and industry. So with that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to do, sort of a 30,000 foot cursory discussion section by section, and I'm hoping the good chair and the vice chair can answer the questions. And I hope that the chamber finds it informative. So with that, I'll begin. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Absolutely. And will the chair and vice chair please ready themselves? You may continue, Representative.
Sn/ak 55 Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, Section 1, it basically talks about subscription disclosures, which is the consumer protection part about the bill. Can the proponent please explain what qualifies as quantitative or qualitative limitation? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mike is on. So, Madam Speaker, this Section 1 is dealing with individuals who subscribe to a particular AI platform. I'm just going to use ChatGPT as an example because that's the one I personally subscribe to. And when you subscribe to it and you have a paid model, this Section is dealing with transparency for that consumer with that paid AI platform so that they know exactly, what the service entails. And when you talk about that quantitative and qualitative parts of the service, we're talking about when that subscriber Sn/ak 56 is using that platform, what kind of quality or how much use that individual can do on that particular platform. So I'll give you an example, Madam Speaker. In the senate, the ranking member of the senate said that with his son, he was using the platform, a paid model, and they were taking pictures and putting them up of baseball cards and asking Chat GPT how much these baseball cards were worth. And they didn't realize after doing this for a while, that the platform was actually stopped and was restricting them from continuing. They had done it too many times, which was the quantitative side of it. The system said, nope. That's--, you a- - 100 different times. You're cut off at your limit for the quantitative side. The qualitative side would be if it restricted you on the quality of answers that the system provided you, based on your subscription model. What this Section does is ensures that consumers know what they're paying for and when those models, quantitative or qualitative, could be scaled up or scaled down. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 57
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So Madam Speaker, I have to understand that through their disclosure, I would imagine, when you sign up for a subscription model, it doesn't mean you have unlimited access to the ChatGPT or to the AI model. They can limit you either end of that spectrum that we just talked about? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker, it could mean you have unlimited, but you might not. So the purpose of this is, that the companies have to disclose that to you so the consumer has complete transparency in what they're paying for, and how it'll work for them. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 58
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the bill before us gives the provider, for lack of a better word, the ability to limit consumers' access to AI functionality mid subscription. Is that functionality just for child protections, or is that just a discretion that we give to the provider? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Let's find out. Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker, that is for all individuals that subscribe to a platform. Any platform you're using, let's say, a cell phone. If you have a cell phone plan that doesn't have unlimited minutes, you have a thousand minutes a month, you Sn/ak 59 reach that thousand minutes midway through that month, you might start receiving subsequent charges. You might not be able to make calls anymore. It doesn't prohibit the actual platform from being able to do these things. It's just transparency for the consumer so they know what they're paying for. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, through you, so that particular part of the bill, is that solely enforced by the Department of Consumer Protection, or is this Section, just in the purview of the attorney general? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Sn/ak 60 Through you, Madam Speaker, solely by the attorney general under our CUPTA laws.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Also does this provision of the bill apply to free tier AI, or is it just a subscription model? Through you.
Representative Turco.
Just a subscription model. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 61
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, Section 2, has to talk about frontier developer and sort of like whistleblower reporting. Just so that we're all clear, could the good vice chair just explain what a frontier developer is? Through you, Madam Speaker?
Let's see. Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker, there are frontier developers and there are large frontier developers. And these are the developers of the AI technology and other types of emerging technologies. And the bill defines them specifically, based on how large they are, how much computing power they are, how much revenue that they bring in. And that separates, shows the difference between a frontier developer and a large frontier developer. Sn/ak 62 And the specific definitions in the bill, if the ranking member, wants me to read them, they get very technical. But at the fourth grade level, what the ranking member needs to know, we're talking about, you're talking about, and I'm not saying because you need it at a fourth grade reading level, but most people do when it comes to AI and this technology. So we're talking about, large platforms and super large platforms like your Gemini, like your ChatGPT that have millions of people using them, and have millions of revenue coming in. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Oddly enough, that's exactly how I took it. I thought he was telling me, I had a fourth grade. It's not the first time it's been said, probably. So through you--. Sn/ak 63
I will give you sixth grade at least.
There you go. Through you, Madam Speaker. So this has to do with whistleblower protections, right. How many companies in Connecticut actually meet the threshold of using sort of the floating-point operations and training through an AI model. It was slightly confusing. This Section was slightly confusing because it talks about catastrophic damage, something that could kill people, over 50 people. So I just thought it would be great if we could just walk through exactly who we're trying to protect, what whistleblower we're trying to protect, and what type of company this would apply to? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Sn/ak 64 Through you, Madam Speaker, as far as my knowledge, we do not have companies of this size operating in Connecticut currently, that are developers of AI and emerging technologies that fall under this law. However, as the chair of general laws, said when his opening, AI is rapidly growing. This is the wave of the future, and I'm sure we're going to see more and more companies develop. So we are being proactive here to protect individuals who will work for these companies to have the ability to be a whistleblower if they find something, of wrongdoing within the company that could result in death of life or loss of millions of dollars. I think it's almost a billion--
--dollars of property damage, things like that. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 65
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you to the good, vice chair, General Law. It does say that this Section applies to companies with a catastrophic risks with very specific thresholds. I believe it's 50 deaths or a $1,000,000,000 in property damage. What happens if something falls just below that? It's an odd thing to say, but what if it's 48 and 900,000,000? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. So the bill is protecting whistleblowers if there's a foreseeable risk. So they believe that the actions of this company and how AI is being used could Sn/ak 66 result in that large loss of life or large dollar amount loss or, if the risk has taken place. So, through you, Madam Speaker, the protections, may still be in place even if the actual damage did not result in that number because it's foreseeable risk. They believe that it could. We're talking about something very catastrophic. And as the bill points out, nuclear, very serious, issues. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I guess the follow-up question with that, so if it does fall just below the numbers, articulated in the bill, that employee who is the whistleblower would still be protected? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 67
Through you, Madam Speaker. If they had made the complaint before the action actually happened and it's a foreseeable risk, then yes. If they make the complaint as a whistleblower after it's happened and it was below the threshold, then the way the bill is currently written, they may not be protected. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this bill excludes risk from publicly accessible information. Could the good chair, vice chair, what exactly does that mean? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 68
Through you, Madam Speaker. If there's information that anybody can access at that time and anybody could see the potential dangers of that information and be able to investigate and, scrutinize, that is not something happening within that company's operations, that somebody who is managing it or overseeing it or working on it would be, the only one privy to, so it doesn't protect the whistleblower in those cases because the public has full access to it. Through you.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if we can just go over a scenario, a covered employee submits an anonymous report alleging wrongdoing by the company officer or the company itself. The company itself is responsible for reporting on the progress of that complaint. How does the company able to Sn/ak 69 maintain the anonymity of the whistleblower while investigating and reporting on the complaint? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. So there's several Sections in the bill that specify that in some detail. It's really the large platforms, the large frontier platforms that have to have this anonymous system that employee can report this foreseeable, risk so that the company can investigate. And then they need to, make parties aware within that company that the investigation is happening at a senior level, so that it's shown to be taken serious. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 70
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, is there a civil penalty for the violations in this Section? And are those penalties investigated and imposed by the attorney general or private attorneys or a civil suit or the Department of Consumer Protection? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. Yes. It is enforced, by the attorney general, and it is a thousand dollar, civil penalty. Through you.
Representative Rutigliano.
Sn/ak 71 Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the answers. If we move on to Section 3, it calls for the DCP and other state agencies to come up with a regulatory sandbox, just for the edification of the chamber. We use this term sandbox quite a few times. Could we just explain exactly what we mean by sandbox? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. And I believe, the good chair of the committee from the senate said that this actually comes out of an idea from the State of Utah, which has adopted this. But the regulatory sandbox, I think, is a really important thing to ensure the innovation and development of AI technology in the State of Connecticut. What it says, and this is a pilot program that's being created in the bill. But what it says is that, a framework will be created, so that an AI development company could, do development, do Sn/ak 72 testing, try out their platforms and have the ability to not be under all of the regulations, and restrictions, and laws that the State of Connecticut may have in place on AI companies. And the reason for this, Madam Speaker, is to give the flexibility for these companies to have the most innovation possible in a way though that the State of Connecticut believes is still safe for Connecticut residents. But that testing period, they're allowed some flexibility there. So really neat thing. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, through you, the sandbox program itself isn't actually created in this bill. Do we know what the timeline is between the plan and there actually being a sandbox? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Sn/ak 73 Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the ranking member because I misspoke there. There are pilot programs in the bill. There are plans in the bill. This is--, the ranking member's right, to create a plan to put together the regulatory sandbox. And they have to come up with their recommendations for the plan, not later, DECD, by January 1st, 2028. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, when the companies test their products under a theory in the bill called reduced licensure, I guess that's a regulatory requirement, the way I read it. Are there any consumer protections in place while Sn/ak 74 they're testing or using that method? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. Yeah. That's the idea of the DECD putting together the plan. The plan will include how we can allow these companies to be in the regulatory sandbox, to be able to develop and test with less restrictions, less regulatory rules, but still ensure there's consumer protections. And that plan will come to the legislature, General Law Committee. We will be able to then vet it before anything moves forward. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Sn/ak 75 Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, that Section there, the parts of the bill that the good vice chair and I just covered, I think is part of the, hey, there's going to be some consumer protection aspects of the bill. But while we're developing and thinking about it, we're going to allow these companies to keep innovating and growing. So I support the sort of hands off approach, slightly hands off approach we've taken. I know it was some of the concerns over the past few years that we were coming too hard on these innovative companies, and we didn't want to keep them out of the State of Connecticut. I think this here, even part of this bill, says that we could get, together with other states, come up with best practices. We're sort of not on our own. So even though we have our own DCP and banking and everybody involved in the process, we're allowed to collaborate with other states. I think that's actually a good way to handle it. It's unique. We should probably do it with other industries also. The next few Sections, starting with Section 4, have to do with AI companions and minors. This is a little bit more of a Sn/ak 76 concern with folks, about how this technology is interacting with our young people, some of the things that we see on the news, chat bots and things encouraging minors to make bad decisions or self harm. So through you, Madam Speaker, starting in Section 4, it defines an AI company as conversational and human like relationship. So is that, you see, this is where I even get confused. The AI bot's not actually speaking, right? If this is sort of a typed or written, read conversation? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. So this is AI companion Chatbot's. There are certain types of Chatbot's. There are exemptions in the bill. For instance, you're talking to the customer service agent in your bank, for businesses and things like that, that are not being advertised as companions. Sn/ak 77 So certain type of platforms, and I mentioned the example of ChatGPT, earlier. You get on that platform. You can have complete conversations back and forth like the Chatbot is your best friend. They express human like responses, human like emotions. That's the type of platforms we're talking about. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Section defines the AI companion excludes chat boxes used for business purposes only. I guess that, my understanding might be a customer service chat that you're having, something like that. But how does the AI companion, sometimes the apps blur the line between business and personal. How how would the AI companion, how would the AG or the AI companion know that it's not a personal chat, but a business chat? For lack of a better, I guess, question. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 78
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. The bill tries to spell out in the different Sub- Sections under Section 4, defining the difference. But as the ranking member said, when a platform is used for business operational purposes only, productivity analysis related to that source information, technical assistance. It's not considered an artificial intelligence companion. And I guess the way you would know, for instance, my bank has a Chatbot when I go on to the website. I think, its name is Erica. But it will tell me information about where I could find my account number. It's not going to start answering questions on what I should make my wife for dinner tonight, or what city we should visit in Italy. It doesn't have that capacity. It's going to stop and say, sorry, please ask me a question more robotic than human like. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 79
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, through you, Section 5 requires a disclosure to the user when they're talking to AI. That they're not human. It's the AI at intervals is supposed to say, hey, I'm an AI Chatbot. I'm not a real person. The disclosure standards sort of vary by age. An adult, it's once every three hours of continuous use, which I'm going to ask a question about because what defines continuous use, that just being open on your computer or you actually typing and interacting for three hours, which seems like an awful lot. But is the interval stated in the bill enough for a minor? So I get the once every three hours for an adult. I'm just not sure it's enough. If we can go over what that is for a minor? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Sn/ak 80 Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. So when a individual is using this AI Chatbot companion, that seems human like, there is, for adults, every three hours, the AI companion chat needs to tell the individual that it is artificial intelligence and not a human. But for children, it is, every hour there is a notice. So the first time the individual uses the platform in a twenty four hour period, there is a notice that this is artificial intelligence. It is not a human. And then for children, once every hour of continuous use. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer. I think we're going to go get into age verification a little bit later Sn/ak 81 in the bill. But through you, Madam Speaker, well, he said the word, children, which I agree. They're children. But is there any difference in the child notification system for somebody that's 16, 17, than from somebody who's nine, 10? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker, the bill just specifies under 18, there are a set of rules regarding AI companion Chatbot's and over 18. Through you.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the bill prohibits AI companions from mimicking a romantic relationship or Sn/ak 82 stimulating emotional distress, some of the things we hear about in the news. Who determines whether an AI output crosses that line? And do we actually articulate in the bill what that standard of proof is? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker. So the ranking member is mentioning the Sections now that apply only to children, minors 18 and under. It does say that the AI Chatbot cannot encourage any romantic, erotic, sexually explicit interactions. There is no specific definition in what those are, but if there is a complaint that is brought, the attorney general has the right to investigate. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 83
Through you, Madam Speaker, would those definitions be part of that sandbox process that we talked about in an earlier Section, or is this based solely on a complaint that would be filed with the ruling authority, which I believe is the attorney general in this case? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Madam Speaker, I don't think it's directly related to that regulatory sandbox. Although I'll say within that regulatory sandbox, someone could be testing something that maybe, sort of blurs these lines and is allowed to within that sandbox based on how that is created, which we don't know yet. But as of now, this would just prohibit these Chatbot's when interacting with children, from not doing these things, and it would just be enforced by the attorney general. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 84
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So just to put a period on that part of the bill, because I think it's an important part. It's the part we hear about in the news. It's the part that many parents are concerned about, about their children getting involved with, Chatbot's that are saying things they shouldn't have said. When it's talking about prohibitive manipulative techniques, including simulating emotional distress with a minor, conversations and also discourages them from keeping it secret from their parents. Do we know how, simulating emotional distress is defined in practice? And I guess we're going back to the AG at this point. Is that a content standard, or is the AG the one who's going to sort of come up with that standard through litigation and enforcement actions? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 85
Representative Turco.
Oh, good to see you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, to the ranking member, for his question. There are some details within the bill from, Lines 371 to 391 that talk about that manipulative technique and how that, can be, you know, sort of, proven, and the attorney general's office can use what's laid out here in a potential investigation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer. I understand. We are attempting to regulate through the attorney general. Hopefully, some other regulations that might come down the pipe, how these AI Chatbot's and these companies are interacting with young people so that they're not encouraging. Sn/ak 86 I do think that the disclosure piece is a great one where it pops up on the screen reminding everybody that it's not a human being, that this is a machine talking to you. So I support that Section. I actually believe that many in my caucus and maybe on the other side, if we could figure out how to make it tighter and stronger, we probably would. But great first step. We don't have any regulation now and, so at least there's something in place. So I would be very supportive of that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, the bill does carve out an AI companion that's designed to deliver mental health services. Some might find that, the fact that it could even do that may be a little concerning, but if a clinical safeguards it, so it has a provision that it could deliver mental health services, if clinical safeguards are met. Do we know or does the bill articulate exactly what are those clinical safeguards? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 87
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. So there are platforms that are being designed to provide information for people that want to discuss, different medical, mental health, emotional, issues they may be experiencing. The platform does need to tell individuals that they are not a licensed medical professional. They are artificial intelligence. They are not human. They cannot discourage people from seeking a human for help. They have to utilize clinical best practices. There has to be data privacy provisions. There has to be accountability. So there's very strict restrictions in this bill that if these platforms are going to advertise themselves as providing mental health and health care services, that they have to follow in order to be able to do that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Sn/ak 88 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the answer. I do think there's a difference. And one of the concerns that we had in that, while drafting the bill is, I think it's a little bit different than you asking a medical AI Chatbot, what's this bump on my finger? But then talking to him about your emotional and mental health problems that you're having. Through you, Mr. Speaker, are there any clinical AI mental health products that actually meet these standards, or is there an effective way to create these pathways to design these, really focused on mental health? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe there are, currently some exist throughout the country, very narrow and focused on certain elements of health. And we assume that many more will be developed, so we are being proactive to put those protections in Sn/ak 89 place for Connecticut residents, especially our minors. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if the operator -- well, let's start there. When we say operator, are we talking--, this is where I get bogged down on this bill all the time. The operator is the person, the company using the AI model, not the person who developed the AI model. Am I correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So the operator could be the user. It could also be a business that maybe is white labeling Sn/ak 90 or, has embedded a, AI product into the platform that they're providing. So could be both depending on the situation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the good vice chair. If the operator genuinely believes a user is 18 or older, they're not liable, right? What verification message does the bill consider sufficient, or is that left entirely up to the operator? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Can the ranking member, please repeat his question? Sn/ak 91
Representative Rutigliano, please.
No need to apologize. And through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't typically use notes and things like that, but I do have them today because some of the words and the language and the parts of this bill, you could read them 100 times and still, I got to be honest with you. So I hope that's okay with you, Sir, and, the good vice chair. So I got to look down a little bit every now and again. So if the operator generally believes there was a user who was 18 or older, so I guess, what verification methods does the bill consider sufficient, or is that left entirely up to the operator? Meaning, does the bill tell you what the age verification is sufficient, or is that just left up to the AI operator to determine what sufficient age verification is? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 92
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So the language specifies that if the operator knows the individual is a minor, somehow knows that information definitively, then they obviously have to treat them as a minor, or has reason to believe based on certain information in the way the minor might interact with the platform, maybe pictures, different technology that is being used now. And this is, rapidly evolving, the technology that exists to be able to determine someone's age with extreme accuracy, actually, without having to, see a birth certificate or something like that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Sn/ak 93 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer. This is one of the more concerning parts of the bill. We are attempting to at least put a little bit of parameter on how this is working. I don't know if the bill solves all the potential problems that are. I think this might take some more action over the years, but we have nothing in place once again today, and I believe we should, especially in this arena. So just for clarification through you, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for their enforcement in that structure, that operator, verification method? Is it DCP or just entirely the attorney general? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Following our CUPTA laws and the AG has sole authority. However, individuals can have a private Sn/ak 94 right of action if a minor, feels they've been hurt by these companion Chatbot's. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Very good. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that satisfies the chamber that we are recognizing some of the parameters around minors, youth using these Chatbot's and using AI for certain things and that we're trying to at least establish some sort of baseline of regulation, when it comes to this population. So if I move on, Sir, to Sections 7 through 12 has to talk about employment decisions. This was one of the more contentious parts of the bill about, how AI might be used in employment decisions, either reviewing reviews, resumes, or selecting candidates to be interviewed. So I understand the bill one way. I just want to clarify with you, the good vice chair. The bill outlines discrimination Sn/ak 95 that is not allowed by AI. But do these, the way I read it, they basically mirror current labor laws. The current labor law does not allow you to discriminate against certain--, I can't pronounce the word, characteristics. And so AI basically is following the same rules? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. That's exactly right. We have discrimination laws in place already in our Connecticut statutes, especially for different protected classes that they cannot be discriminated against. And what this bill is saying is, using artificial intelligence to help with your hiring or your employment practices is not an excuse for discrimination against those protected classes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 96
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, many companies use a third-party employment site, Indeed which is a great Connecticut company comes to mind. If the third party a site is using AI, who's ultimately responsible if any discrimination takes place? If you're using basically, a third-party site and, God forbid, they discriminate, but you sort of hire them to do your work, who's responsible ultimately if discrimination takes place? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So if you're a business and you use a platform like Indeed, and there is information or the way that Indeed was programmed or whatever AI they're using Sn/ak 97 discriminates, you as the business are not held liable in those situations. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that's an important point. Many small businesses in Connecticut use, third party vendors to collect resumes, or sort through resumes, or put up qualifications and that their program decides who's best to look at you. And I don't believe those small employers are looking to discriminate. And if discrimination, unfortunately, does happen, it would apply to the proper party, which in this case would be the third party provider. I think that's a good business protection for, businesses in Connecticut, and I'll move forward. How do we handle if this AI tool is used by an out of state vendor or a contractor to handle Connecticut employees or HR functions? Do the employers, do the deployers, have to Sn/ak 98 physically be in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that if this particular business or product is, doing business within the State of Connecticut, that then they could be subject, to liability from our attorney general and under our Connecticut state laws. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Section 10 says that, a written notice has to be given to an applicant, that there may be AI involved. Is that upon applying, or is that, if they were Sn/ak 99 denied an interview or they weren't selected, do they have the right to go ask why, and then you have to disclose that it was an AI agent that did it? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So nothing prohibits a business from using some sort of automated decision or artificial intelligence software to help with their hiring practices. It's just ensuring that the applicant has disclosure that they're interacting with it. And that would be at the time, that they are filling out an application, that they know that this particular platform that they're filling out the application on, is using some sort of artificial intelligence technology that may affect, whether they are hired or not. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 100 Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that's a good thing. I think, disclosure is always good. How about if you're just using it in the resume review process? Do we also have to have that sort of disclaimer, where somebody's using an AI Chatbot just to sort through resumes, not actually in the particular application process? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, the disclaimers for the individual, the actual applicant, when they are interacting with the artificial intelligence platform. If it's Indeed, let's say, and they're using artificial intelligence, to make the employment decisions and recommendations to the employer, then Sn/ak 101 that disclaimer needs to be presented to the actual applicant at that time. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the better protections or the small business protection that's in there is that the attorney general or the law says that there's a 60 day cure period, a period when a business could fix whatever they might possibly being wrong, before they are liable for sanction. That grace period does sunset December 31st, 2027. So, what happens on January 1, 2028? Does that protection completely go away, or does it sort of, the grace period just come about in a different manner? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 102
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Because this is a new law and we're dealing with new technology, and platforms, and businesses may need to make some adjustments to assure they adhere by this. This grace period is put in so that they can, cure that mistake. But, yes, once the grace period is over, the sunset date to allow grace periods is over on December 31, 2027. There are no grace periods offered based on this current language going forward. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer. I think a year and a half should be plenty for everybody to get their ducks in a row. And they should be discriminating in the first place. Sn/ak 103 Let's be honest. It's already against the law now. I think the bill really just says, hey, discrimination is illegal as it should be, but it's also illegal for AI to discriminate. We probably don't even need to state that, but I think it's good that we did. Through you, Mr. Speaker, Section 13 and 14 clarify that using AI is just a little bit of enforcement. I just want to be clear how this went. This was a big contention in the bill over the past few years that if somebody's using AI in employment decisions, they had to do a bias test with the AI. They had to send it to, they just had to test whether it was biased or not, which many people found was burdensome, and it has been removed from the bill. There is no requirement for there to be biased testing on their AI model, but the bill also says the courts may consider anti-bias testing as a mitigating factor. If we can just walk through that. So we're not requiring you to do anti-bias testing. But if you do, you sort of have a little bit of an argument in court. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 104
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think the good ranking member did a great job of answering the question so well, in his question. I'm not sure if I need to even repeat it, but yes, everything the ranking member said was correct. A business, an entity can use anti-bias testing as a defense in court, for discrimination complaints. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
I appreciate that. And, we've had these conversations so much. And since this is sort of an informative discussion, I was probably just working the question out through my head, and I've got an answer. Sn/ak 105 But I think it's good that we went through it because many in the chamber, that was a big sticking point in the bill. I know it was a big sticking point for others in industry, that we were sort of burdening these companies with these massive testing models and all that. So I think we ended up in a good place. I think it's something to be proud of. I'm glad the good senator upstairs, took that advice and made adjustments. I think that might be one of the reasons the bill's before us today, to be perfectly blunt. So just to put a period on this one, who does the testing? Is there a company or is there an approved third party or a vendor that does this type of thing? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So there are some third party companies that can, provide this service that do the anti bias Sn/ak 106 testing or, within certain protocols, internally, a company may do the anti bias testing if they have that capability. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I think that ends our employment discussion. I think what it's saying is, that you could use AI to speed up certain, hiring mechanisms. You can't discriminate, which you couldn't do before. We're telling you that if you test the model you're using to sort, you could actually use it for defense in court. It's not an absolute defense, but it's something that can be considered. I think it's a reasonable compromise in the bill. I do support that Section. I find it, workable. So if we move on to Section 15, it talks about synthetic digital content and provenance data. Let's give that a Sn/ak 107 definition? Because I got to be honest with you, I don't even think I remember what it means? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to go back to that fourth grade reading level here. When the bill talks about provenance data, the easiest way to think about it is, let's say, you create an image. You use one of the AI platforms, Gemini. We'll give someone else a shout out besides ChatGPT here. And I create an image of the good looking, speaker here, but with hair like his younger days, when I first met him here at the capitol working together.
And taller.
Sn/ak 108 And taller.
And taller.
And I send that image out to the world. What the providence data is going to allow, is for us to be able to see the authenticity of this particular image, the history of it, the editing of it. You're going to be able to know the metadata so that we can see that, the speaker doesn't have hair anymore, and this is not an accurate picture. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
My buddy. My buddy. Representative Rutigliano.
It's good to see that the good vice chair's making friends today, and, I think he understands that this friendly conversation could turn on a dime at any second. And, there's a Sn/ak 109 lot of terms in here that I don't think a college professor could answer, but we'll leave that. No. I'm just teasing. So I appreciate that. I understand it. It's, sort of the history of the photo. There's a standard that's outlined in this Section of the bill, but it's a voluntary industry framework. Does the bill lock in that standard, or does that bill say, hey, if their standards change, our regulatory environment changes with it? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. The language in the bill is saying that, they should use commercially and technologically reasonable methods, which of course, will change over time but not limited to and provides a standard that's established here, but not limited to. So there are other standards that will be able to be used as time goes on and technology changes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 110
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are those standards developed by the state? Do they evolve over time? Does the bill allow them to sort of adapt, or does it have to come back through the legislature? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. The bill does suggest a standard that could be used, but they can adapt as technology improves. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 111
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill only applies to providers with over a million monthly subscribers. I'm guessing this applies to companies out there that this does apply to? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think the big names of the different AI platforms that most of us use that I've mentioned today, this applies to. But for smaller new companies that don't have as many users, does not apply to until they reach that number. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Sn/ak 112 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this, provenance data, these images could be manipulated downstream or as the picture goes through a process. Does the liability for following that part of the bill follow that image as it goes through certain processes and other programs use them? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, and most likely, depends, if an individual manipulates this particular image on one of these large platforms. The large platform at any time is supposed to embed this providence data. They have that responsibility in this bill, despite how many times somebody has tried to change it. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 113
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, we're finished with the Section that sort of, talks about images and manipulating things and maybe some sort of deep fakes or whatever. Doesn't specifically say it, but I think that's what's implied. I don't believe that this is perfect, this Section. I think that technology will probably get around it. But as we've said in other Sections, Mr. Speaker, we have nothing now, and now we'll have something. So I think this is a good first step. I don't think it's going to be over burdensome to current people operating the state, but it's a beginning to a regulatory environment that probably needs some protection. So the next Sections of the bill, Mr. Speaker, talk, and many of the remaining Sections of the bill really start talking about workforce development, the Connecticut AI Academy, a lot of smart people sitting around a table talking about AI, and how to get a job in AI, and what to do with AI. But most notably that none of them created the AI, but they get to talk about it. But I think they like doing that, but Sn/ak 114 whatever. The way I read the bill, this is one of the questions that I had was, is Charter Oak University, are they the only ones that are going to offer the academy, or is it available to every state college? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, there's several different Sections that deal with higher education and collaborating between public and private universities to come together to help foster AI development, to help train our workforce, specifically to the Connecticut AI Academy. And I am told this is already getting started at Charter Oak College, and that the office of higher education, the board of regents are working with them to further develop. Yes. They are going to be able to offer, and the bill specifies numerous different subjects. Sn/ak 115 Everything from trying to get our workforce to be as trained and educated as possible to work into the field, to help teachers with being able to responsibly use AI in the classroom, a slew of different things to get our workforce to be the best it can be to compete, and Charter Oak will be the the main area where that, is done. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the answer. Section 18 proposes, I guess, exploring. I don't think it mandates a technology court for AI and data privacy disputes. Can we just go over the rationale for this technology court? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 116
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Section 18 is creating a working group as the ranking member said before, a whole bunch of smart people getting in the room and working on a lot, again, a lot of different areas to try to make, AI development competitive here in Connecticut, but also looking at different policies that we need to put in place for the future for additional consumer protections and to help business growth. And the technology court, I think, is a really interesting concept. It comes out of Delaware, which is starting a technology court. And what it's basically saying is artificial intelligence is very complicated. Our current court system and the expertise that they have may not be able to mediate and adjudicate different cases that come up regarding artificial intelligence. So it's saying and again, this is a working group to put together a plan and recommendations. They may not even recommend we do this. But it's saying, maybe a new type of court specific to technology should be Sn/ak 117 created so that it has the expertise to deal with these complicated cases. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill says that this has to be presented back to the legislature by February. It includes 15 voting members spanning industry, academia, a little bit of labor. The Labor Committee has appointments to it. The only thing that's missing, and maybe we could talk about who the rationale of the appointments is. Doesn't include anybody from small business. I don't know if the Labor Committee is charged with putting somebody who represents small business on there or if the Labor Committee is more sort of like a, maybe a state workforce? Through you, Mr. Speaker. It's okay. Take your time. Sn/ak 118
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, there is an appointment for small businesses. I believe it's the ranking member of the Labor Committee who will make that appointment, and, it is on Line 1052, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the clarification and the correction. I'm glad to see that's in there. I think it's good that all voices be heard. Small business people definitely use AI probably differently than large models. I know some of the concerns was, we don't want to stifle innovation in the health care industry, especially in the New Sn/ak 119 Haven Triangle that they're trying to build down there. So I actually think this is a good thing. I actually think the court's a good thing. Should be a place where people could resolve or at least discuss some of these headier issues that, maybe aren't appropriate for the General Law Committee, over and, over and, over again. But, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Sections 19 through 31 start talking about workforce development, education, economic strategy. Section 26 requires employers disclose their WARN notice. I guess what it's saying is that, we have the WARN Act here in Connecticut. If you're going to lay off more than 100 people, you have to notify them ahead of time. So does that mirror the WARN Act so it's 100 or more? Or if your job's being lost just from AI, is that when the notice goes out? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 120
Through you, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding it does mirror the WARN Act, so it's only in cases when people already have to provide the Department of Labor, notice of layoffs. But now, with this Section, if those layoffs are due to artificial intelligence, they have to tell the Department of Labor that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wrote a lot of notes about, sort of, has to pertain to the AI Academy and how this is, all going to go in. There's a little bit about UConn in there. UConn gets a has an institute for regional and public policy. I think you covered, Sir, most of the answers to that, that listen, we're empowering some of our institutions of higher learning to come up with academies to teach young people either Sn/ak 121 to discuss these issues in a regulatory way or discuss these issues in an employment way, what jobs are available, or how somebody can navigate the workforce. So I'm not going to ask those. I'm not going to go through that. I think, you've done a good job informing the chamber about those aspects. There was one part. I wanted to just be clear that we're on the same part is that the bill adds AI and emerging technologies as to K through 12 computer science instruction. Are teachers currently equipped for this? Do they have the educational materials? And, are there any professional developments for these teachers? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So already in our K through 12 education curriculum requirements, computer programming is being offered, and now, that will be expanded to computer science and Sn/ak 122 artificial intelligence as part of the curriculum. But within the bill, there also is an expansion for teacher certification. Teachers already need to have teacher certification in computer science. So computer science now will be expanded for artificial intelligence. So we're doing the expansion both for teachers, where there is going to be actually additional courses through the Connecticut AI Academy at Charter Oak, and we have the expansion for the students. So really trying at a young age to make sure that artificial intelligence is incorporated in their education. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So is it proper to say that this isn't a new educational mandate? It's just sort of a curriculum update to a computer science class that's already in the curriculum, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 123 Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. That's a 100% correct.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, starting at section 33, we talk about independent AI verification pilot program. So it does say that there's verification organizations that are admissible in private lawsuits, but not in AG enforcement actions. Can we explain why, if there's a civil lawsuit, a private right of action, say, you're able to use these verification third-party verifications, but the AG is not? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 124
Through you, Mr. Speaker, in the negotiations of this bill, I cannot tell the Ranking Member why it was decided this would be enforced one way or the other, but I know putting together this bill required a lot of compromise working with the industry and various different parties, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just concerned if there was two tracks for evidence. One for a private citizen and one for the attorney general. Through you, the program caps participation of five independent verification organizations. Do we know why we're capping it at five, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 125
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So in this section, it actually is a pilot program, putting together the third-party verification. So that's why it's limited for the pilot, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the last question on this section, and the good Vice Chair may or may not be able to answer it. But in the bill, it states that a company that materially misrepresents information to a verification organization loses the evidentiary benefit. But who audits the verifiers themselves? So if you are not telling your verification company correct information, you lose your ability to use them as defense. But who's auditing them, through you, Mr. Speaker? Sn/ak 126
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding of the Department of Consumer Protection. Through you.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So once again, we've gone through a section. And this section is basically, is coming up with a regulatory environment, or a redress environment, places where people could go, and how regulations are going to be developed. I think it's a good thing. Listen, it's in its infancy. We're still talking about verification companies that may or may not exist. It's still a work in progress for sure, but at least progress has started. Sn/ak 127 So I do support this thing, this part of the bill. Sections 37 and 38 really talks about how the state procures and purchases these things. It prohibits AI use in public benefits delivery unless it complies with OPM and DES standards. But my question, through you, Mr. Speaker, do those standards exist yet? I didn't see the bill saying they had to create the standards, but they're supposed to use internal standards, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Yeah. Through you, Mr. Speaker, most of the language in those sections is existing law, where we have a chief data officer that already has to comply with certain rules or regulations. Now it's taking to account the different AI platforms that state agencies may work with, making sure that they follow those protocols and as well as information that the executive branch has to comb through that, and decide which Sn/ak 128 should be available to help with AI development, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, yeah, I won't belabor this section too much. Basically, the government could use AI. AI could be used for lots of things, inventory. It could be used to control things, maybe where their trucks are out on the road. They just need to go through a procurement process that has standards. I could ask questions like who determines the standards, but it does seem like they're going to use existing processes to come up with standards for using AI. And, they can't violate the discrimination rules for hiring either. Those are set. So I won't continue in that one. The last part of the bill is really -- it's sort of the -- for the -- it's basically the social media bill, for lack of a better term, that's been kicking around the legislature for Sn/ak 129 quite some time. I think it had wide bipartisan support. We could ask a few clarifying questions on it, just so that everybody's comfortable with it. But I will say there's not much new in this section that we really haven't debated and or passed in this Chamber before. So this one comes with AI companion safety protocols, some of that's in section five. We talked about that a little bit. It does direct ChatGPT, or I shouldn't say ChatGPT. AI models. If somebody expresses a risk of suicide or imminent violence, it has to refer them somewhere. Through you, Mr. Speaker, exactly where do they get referred to, through you?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just going to go to that section earlier in the bill so I can make sure I can answer those specific questions. Section five. Yes. So if an individual, and this is for adults in certain cases, as far as Sn/ak 130 expressing concerns of self-harm, suicide, or violence to others. And then for minors, there's even additional areas such as expressing wanting to illegally do drugs or alcohol, or eating disorder concerns, things like that. When the when there are serious concerns like that, lines 295 to 299 specify where the individual needs to be referred, and that does include 988, the national suicide prevention lifeline. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the AI companion detects a minor expressing suicidal isolation and refers them to a hotline, but that minor can dismiss that notification. Does the bill require the operator to do anything next, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 131
I'm sorry. Can the good gentleman repeat his question?
Let me rephrase. So the bill requires that if somebody is having suicidal ideations or expressions of violence, it's required to give them notification to call 988 or some other agency where they could seek help, some other outlet that they could seek help. But I believe the minor or the person using AI could just dismiss the notification to keep working, I believe. So my question was, what's next? What does the what is the operator obligated to do? Are they obligated to disengage? Are they obligated to report, or does it just keep a notification coming up over and over and over again, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Sn/ak 132 Through you, Mr. Speaker. So at first, they provide the national suicide prevention lifeline and some resources. If the individual then, after that is provided still expresses some concern regarding harming themself or harming others, then the AI companion chatbot needs to refer the individual to mental health services in a matter that is consistent with clinical best practices and expertise. And, it goes on from there, some other restrictions at the AI companion and protocol that it needs to follow to ensure that it takes an individual's claim that they're going to hurt themselves or someone else serious and provides resources to them, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I know the discussion's getting long, but we are trying to just give everybody a general understanding of the bill. I actually think the more we do, the more detail we do, it actually might shorten the discussion in the end because people will feel informed about the bill. Sn/ak 133 Maybe I should have did this stuff first. It is really what I believe the most important part of the bill is how AI and chatbots interact with young people and people who are distressed, I guess, for lack of a better term. The self-harm detection requirements applies to all users, not just minors. But the AG under CUTPA it's the same enforcement mechanism for children as it is for adults. Do violations in this bill for children have higher penalties than for adults, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Violations for minors can allow a private right of action individual lawsuits, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Thank you, Sn/ak 134
Mr. Speaker. Does an operator avoid -- well, I guess the operator avoids liability if they reasonably believe that the user was 18 and old. But the bill doesn't specifically express what reasonable is. Reasonable belief is. Who decides that reasonable standard, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you. Mr. Speaker, in a situation where there is an investigation from the attorney general, or there is a private right of action, it is going to be up to the investigators and the courts to really look at all of the facts and make that determination, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 135
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If a minor enters a false birth date, to clear the bar for reason, does that clear the bar for reason? If there is fraud involved or the minor figures out how to bypass the system, does that clear the bar for a reasonable standard, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would only be giving an opinion that perhaps it should if there was fraud by the minor, but we should really leave that up if there was a complaint to the actual investigation to determine if somehow the AI companion chatbot platform still reasonably knew that this individual was a minor. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 136
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the answer. I understand it. I just wanted to get it on the record that the standards aren't absolute. If there is fraud involved, even though we're trying to hold the AI companies and social media companies responsible, if there's fraud involved, there's a way for them to avoid sanction. I guess that was my point. The bill prohibits AI companies from soliciting gifts or purchases from minors to suggesting that if they don't do that, they won't keep talking to them. Has there been any inventory, is there any prevailing practice currently among AI companion platforms that actually have this feature, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So I believe that there are some AI platforms that already have put some of these measures in Sn/ak 137 place, and that could be because this law, right now, that's coming on the books, has many pieces that other states have already passed into law, and those platforms are adhering to, or they've been proactive to do that. But as far as we know, there are no platforms that include all of the different protections we have in here for minors that we believe should be in place. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the good Vice Chair's answers. If we turn to section 39, now we're getting into a little bit more of the social media part of the bill. The bill prohibits covered social media platforms from using personalized algorithm recommendations for minors. We've heard this before. They're basically, in layman's terms, and correct me if I'm wrong, sir, they can't specifically target minors through algorithm or through the feed that the kids see and all that. Sn/ak 138 The one thing that the bill does do is that it has a default one-hour daily limit applies to the algorithm content, meaning they could reach out to these kids, but only for an hour a day. But that would change if a parent opts out. So my question to you, through you, Mr. Speaker, is, is it a default one hour and the parent has to opt out, or does the parent have to select the one-hour limit, through you, sir?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So the prohibitions on the tech companies being able to use the algorithms to feed the minors, different content to keep them addicted to the platform. That is in the default settings of the platform that a minor uses restricted to one hour a day. So if there are no change to those default settings, it will only be that one hour a day that the algorithms can be used for targeting the minor. The parents have the authority, though, to change those default settings down or up, through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 139
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the answer. Just so that we all understand that things aren't absolute. Right? The minor could still use the same platform for direct messaging, subscribe content, or search result without any limit, even the one hour. We're only really restricting, through you, Mr. Speaker, the algorithmic interaction; they could still do lots of other things on that platform. Am I reading that correctly, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The individual, the user, the minor can search for any content that they want to see, and view, reach communities that they belong to. There's no Sn/ak 140 restrictions on their particular searches as long as it's not obscene or lewd or not age-appropriate. But there is restrictions on what the tech companies can decide they want the minors to see, to protect minors, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill defines sensitive content as whatever the platform itself deems sensitive content or its own community standards. So in a sense, are they really only self-policing themselves? Are they the ones that determine what is too sensitive for a minor, or is there some other community standard that we're using, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 141
Yeah. Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct. Although there may be other laws that Connecticut or the federal government has in place that regulate the type of content that can be showed to minors. But in this bill, we are not prohibiting those social media companies from restricting minors' access to content that is considered sensitive. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, sir. The bill says parents can adjust the default one-hour limit, but the bill explicitly states that platforms are not required to give parents access to their children's account or data. In some way, are we really sort of taking the legs out from underneath the parents? If the platform doesn't allow them into the account, is this actually enforceable or adjustable, through you, Mr. Speaker? Sn/ak 142
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So the default settings regarding restrictions on notifications, the time of the algorithms can be used. Those type of settings that are outlined in here, parents do have access to. The legislation requires that the platform set it up so that a parent can log in and change those default settings in the way they see fit for their children. What it is saying is restricted is parents cannot view the content that their children are viewing on the platforms, or being able to restrict the content that they search for. There may be other apps that are out there that parents can download that are companion apps. They may be able to use settings within the social media platforms themselves. It's just that this legislation is not requiring that, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 143
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill takes effect January 1st, 2028, which is quite a long way away, this part of the bill anyway. Do we know why we're delaying the implementation? I mean, given the documented mental health crisis among adolescents and the preamble of the bill says this is the most urgent thing ever, I didn't know if there was any interim protections that we were using in the bill, or we just wait until the January 1st,2028 implementation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Yeah, through you, Mr. Speaker. I would agree with the good Ranking Member that date does seem a little too far out with the crisis that our youths are facing. Because it requires some technological change, there is some programming that needs to be done on these default settings, allowing parents to have access Sn/ak 144 to it. It was decided to give the social media company some time to do what they have to do to ensure they can adhere to this. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, because as the good Ranking Member said, we passed this bill out of the Chamber last year, and, unfortunately, with overwhelming bipartisan support, unfortunately, wasn't taken up by the Senate. We are very behind on these regulations. So a lot of these social media platforms are already passing most of the provisions that are in this law or going even further, which means these social media companies are making these changes already and may benefit our constituents before this mandate goes into place, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the answer. I completely agree with the Vice Chairman. I do think there's a little bit more of sense of urgency. I think maybe even the Sn/ak 145 consciousness we're raising about the issue is good enough. We had a great conversation the other day about the cell phone. It really isn't just about making a telephone call. It really is the using of some of this technology that's becoming very harmful for a young person. The bill states that the platforms must report annually to the attorney general, hours in use by minors broken down by age and time of day. Right? What exactly is the AG doing with that information? And is there a public reporting requirement? So the AG is going to get the information about how long and how old, but, a, what's he doing with the information? And, b, do we get access to the information, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So this data is very important for the AG in our state to be able to collect, to know how many minors are using the platforms, if the parents actually change Sn/ak 146 the default settings, how they change them, how many hours they're staying on the platform. As far as if the data is made public for us, I do not see anything that specifies that in the bill. I'd like it to be public, especially for the General Law Committee, regarding how we can further enhance the laws, but I'm not sure that it actually specifies that here. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, section 39, is it intended to apply to payment platforms? Platforms that facilitate payments, like Venmo. Is that considered a social media platform? Does this bill apply to that type of platform, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 147
Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. It does not.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm nearing the end of my questions. One of the other ones I had that came up in committee, I don't know if the good Vice Chair and I talked about it, but there was some discussion about what exactly is a social media platform? And the question came up, oddly enough, but I thought I'd ask it. Does this include a dating site? I don't know if dating sites go from people under 18. I'm not really sure. But would these social media restrictions also apply to a dating site, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 148
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So I think it's very important that we look at the definition of 19 -- from lines 1947 to 1953, a covered platform. Because a traditional dating site, the way I think of it, might not fall under this definition, but platforms can change all the time and they can include things that then would fall under the different definition here of a covered platform. So the definition is a platform that has a significant part of its services that are offered, recommended, selected, or prioritized for display, that are generated or shared by the user. So if you think of a traditional social media platform like Instagram, I just put a post up there this morning myself. It was content that I created. I put it on there, and then, somebody shares that. That's the traditional platform. A dating site might not have that, but it could. So I just want to be careful on that, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano. Sn/ak 149
Through you, Mr. Speaker. How about a streaming platform? Is a streaming platform contemplated in this section of the bill? Is it considered a social media site? So like your YouTube, where you're just watching videos, something like that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
So again, it's very important we look at the specifics of the language here because YouTube, as the Ranking Member used an example, in my understanding and my belief of the language, most definitely would be included in here. That is a lot of content that is created and then shared by the user of that platform. However, streaming services like Netflix, and Hulu, and Amazon Prime, shows where the content wasn't created by the user. It was created by an entertainment company. And now it's there for us to view, would not be a covered platform under this Sn/ak 150 definition. Of course, they could change their model and then fall under this, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Rutigliano.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I really appreciate the good Vice Chairman's answers. I think that's an important distinction to make. That concludes, I hope we've done, the good Vice Chair and I who answered the questions, really well. And I thought we were -- our attempt today was to provide an informative discussion, exactly what the bill does, exactly what's in it. So I think in conclusion for myself, the time has come. This isn't overbearing. We're not stifling innovation. We're not doing anything to suppress economic development. What we're saying is that we need to start parameters around some of these AI vehicles and AI programs that interact with our children and interact with adults or maybe people who aren't feeling well. So let's be clear. If you're using chatbot and Sn/ak 151 it's telling you to do things that aren't right, it shouldn't be doing that. If you're expressing yourself that you're in mental distress or that you're having problems, maybe it should direct you to somewhere else to go. These things, and I know we're all starting to use them, are way too lifelike. They answer the questions in an odd way. They're always encouraging. So if you give them something bad, it's going to encourage you to do more bad stuff. So I think it's okay for us. I think it's proper for us to start a regulatory environment where we could start reining this in. I think this bill takes a measured approach to that. It allows for AI to flourish. It's even saying that, hey. We're going to let you regulate yourself. We're just going to watch you. We're going to start a little court so that if somebody has a problem, they have a place to go to address their grievances. And most importantly, the social media portion at the end is super important. These algorithms are targeting our young people. It's the reason we're trying to tamp down on their cell phone use. Sn/ak 152 We see the social harms that are going on there. Things have been going badly for a while, in that end. I think it got worse with the short-form video. When TikTok came on the stage, you could actually see an increase in all the stress and anxiety, suicidal ideations, lots of problems that some of these platforms are having. I believe are the parents, myself included as a parent, need help. We need more tools so that we could sort of get in there with some technology that maybe we don't understand. So I want to thank the good Chairman, Vice Chairman, not just for his answers today, but for all the conversations we've been having for months about this, including the Chair, Representative Lemar, and Representative Delaney, everybody has been -- this has been sort of a communal conversation to try to get to a good place. I think we're in that place. It's certainly not perfect for my members who might think it is, but it is a start. It's where we're heading, and I think it's a good thing. I'll be supporting the legislation today, Mr. Chairman. I encourage my other colleagues. I hope they've found the discussion informative, and I hope they would support it Sn/ak 153 also. And with that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the good Vice Chair.
Thank you, Representative Rutigliano. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Buckbee of the 67th. You have the floor, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
Good afternoon.
I take some umbrage to the comment of your hair follicles like mine earlier in this discussion. But, actually, I'm going to start with that question if I may. I have a few questions on the bill, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 154
Please proceed.
So I'm concerned how that piece of this legislation could become something of a lawsuit with some of this. Now, if someone were to make an image of me, some of that falls under artistic interpretation or parody. So, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't that also, within AI, be considered parody, through you?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So the liability in this section is on the large AI platforms, the large companies, the Gemini, the ChatGPT, that if somebody puts an image of you on this platform. And as politicians were subject to this. Somebody puts an image there and wants to make you appear doing something you weren't doing that. That AI platform has to embed this code, Sn/ak 155 this data, this information so that if this image then gets sent out to the public, somebody has a way to say, wait. This is a doctored image. This is a deep fake. The Representative didn't do this, wasn't there, and it's a way to protect yourself and the public. So it's not on the individual that actually made that image. Now there may be other laws. There may be other ways that you can sue that person or hold them liable for doing that for you, but that's in -- not in this bill. This is regarding the AI platforms, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Buckbee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just curious how that's done with a screenshot, through you.
Representative Turco. Sn/ak 156
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So when you put an image into an AI platform like ChatGPT, I upload something, or I ask it to create an image. Now that image has that metadata encoded inside of it. Now, how you actually -- how it does that is way beyond my technological expertise. But let's say you download that image onto your computer, any image right now, you right-click it on your computer, you click properties, you could find out all different information on that image. Now it's going to include the history of that image. So you know this is a doctored image, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Buckbee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the explanation. I just don't know how that works with a screenshot if you were to take a copy of what that is. If you download it, sure. That's exactly the preferences are all there. You can see it where it Sn/ak 157 came from. But as a screenshot, you don't. And I think it opens up the door to what those parodies could be. Do we now say a caricature you can go after somebody for it? I think it opens the door, but I'll move on from there. As we talk about bringing this to, to a lawsuit, let's say, how how is the attorney general and with what tools is the attorney general? What mechanism would be used to regulate the Internet? Because really that's what all of this is, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. The attorney general now has a team of individuals that with expertise to do some of this investigation. But the bill in its fiscal note, is allowing the attorney general to hire some additional individuals because, as we know, artificial intelligence, this is a whole new level of expertise that you need to have. And combining that with our Sn/ak 158 legal system is added expertise. So the attorney general is going to be bringing in these people who can do this, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Buckbee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I understand the intent, but I believe that the jurisdiction at this point would truly be fictional. You're talking about, let's say, it's a frontier model that's built in California. It's built out in San Diego or something. And then it's trained on a server in Virginia, accessed in Connecticut on a phone made in China. We're all over the place. That's what the Internet does. It's really difficult to track any of that down. And regardless, so what I got from the good proponent was we're going to go after the big guys, but somebody else could pop up tomorrow. So I'm curious again. It's regulating the Internet, which we've tried to do for years, and we just -- we Sn/ak 159 can't do. It's well beyond the borders of Connecticut. So I'm just curious how that works, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Yeah. Through you, Mr. Speaker. There most likely is some limitations on the attorney general's ability to hold some companies accountable, especially if some of these companies are not operating in Connecticut right now. Although this bill is being proactive because we believe they one day will. But the attorney general still has some abilities, even if they are not operating in the state but are providing a service in the state. For example, Meta, as far as I know, and other types of social media companies, are not providing -- are providing services to our constituents but don't have a physical presence. But there are different lawsuits that the attorney general has been able to do against some of these different companies, and Sn/ak 160 settlements, and has certain abilities to do some of those things. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Buckbee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the problem with that is, we can see it now on something as simple as an IP address. Right? We want to say it's Connecticut. The one thing we can honestly say is technology moves far faster than legislation. We can all agree on that. Terms like -- that we've already heard are going to be obsolete by the time this bill -- before the ink dries on the bill. Terms like frontier models or AI companions probably will even be obsolete by the time this gets to the Governor's desk. Although I think AI companions are a wonderful idea for our seniors too, something to consider so many are alone and looking for someone to talk to. Mr. Speaker, have we had any direct conversations with companies like Anthropic, Llama, Google, any Sn/ak 161 of them that they're leading the way with AI to see what their thoughts are as far as their responsibility in this, through you.
Representative Turco.
Yeah. Through you, Mr. Speaker, from my understanding, the good Senate Chair of the General Law Committee, who has become a national expert on policy regarding artificial intelligence, has spoken directly to numerous companies in this space, as well as our Department of Economic Development and Department of Consumer Protection. So we have a lot of people that are having conversations with industry to understand these platforms better, how they work, and the proper ways for regulation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Buckbee. Sn/ak 162
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Where I'm trying to go with it, and it's great that the good Chair was getting this information and talking to some of the people. If we're going to move forward with legislation that's actually going to work, I think first off, the most important pieces, jurisdictionally, I think Connecticut is quite limited with that. We need federal legislation is what we need to start with and work alongside federal legislation. That's A. B, I think the next best step would be to bring those companies here. Have them come in and talk to us and sit down with the legislation, sit down with the committee, sit down with each of the individuals, and answer those questions, which I guarantee they'd love to do. You've got companies like Anthropic leading the way who are doing a fantastic job. I use AI in a pretty regular basis for a number of different projects, and it's amazing to me how sharp, how fast it can be, but I think those companies have every desire to be responsible for their actions as well. I think that's a better step. Looking at what the legislation is on this, I don't honestly believe it does a whole Sn/ak 163 lot. I don't think there's a whole lot that this can do. It's got great intentions, protecting kids. We all agree with that, Mr. Speaker. We all want to protect the kids, but the intention doesn't necessarily provide the good law, and that's what I fear. I think the next step on this, honestly, Mr. Speaker, would be to invite those companies in now. Even after this goes through, invite them to Connecticut. Let's sit down and talk to them about how we should be talking to kids about this, the legislation itself, and about the responsible use of AI for everyone. But I think we need some federal regulation. Until then, it feels more like theater that we're trying to do something for these kids, but there's really not a whole lot we can do with this, trying to regulate the Internet. That's tougher to do. Last thing I want to say about this, and I think they're just compelling discussion to have on this. I don't know if I'm going to support the bill or not. I'd like it to have some teeth to it, but I don't know if it can, and it kind of puts me in a tough spot. So I'm going to listen to everybody else on this, but just a solid point, Mr. Speaker. All the questions I asked on this were provided by AI today. They know what's wrong with the bill. AI read the bill Sn/ak 164 and told me exactly what the faults were, where the concerns were, and what we can do to fix it. So instead of us trying to be something we're not, because we're pure intelligence, not artificial, sometimes we look at things a little bit differently. I think we need to take on the artificial intelligence, listen to them like we were our constituents, and find the best solution to keep everyone safe with us.
Thank you. Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Hoxha of the 78th. You have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to make some comments and potentially a question in there, through you.
Please proceed. Sn/ak 165
Thank you. I want to start off my remarks with a quote that I'm sure many of you are going to recognize. As Peter Parker's grandfather said with great power comes great responsibility. And this Pandora's box, can of worms, whatever you want to call it, all those expressions apply. The AI is truly all that and then some. We don't understand the full potential of this thing. It's really hard to describe, isn't it? What is artificial intelligence? My good friend and colleague from the 67th did a good job of kind of making a case for why this is such an abstract concept to really understand, even used it to articulated his points to make that point, of how powerful it could be, and almost indistinguishable from real intelligence. Well, that's precisely my point. The indistinguishability of AI is getting to the point where it's becoming literally dangerous. And what do I mean by that? So we're all on social media in one form or another, whether it's Facebook, Twitter, X, Instagram, TikTok. There's new social media platforms coming out each day. Maybe not each day, but all the time. Sn/ak 166 And we've all seen these videos, videos of cute animals that seem so real, seem so cute, so lifelike, but they turn out to be AI. Now, we may think that that's sort of like a harmless kind of example or side effect of AI, and that the good will eventually outweigh the bad, but it's not, because what this really speaks to is a fundamental altering of the way that we perceive reality. If reality will not be distinguishable from the fake, the augmented reality, the artificial intelligence- produced reality, that's a problem. It reminds me of a book that I read once, this conversation does, by science fiction author Philip K. Dick. He wrote a book titled, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? It was a book specifically about this sort of dystopian era that we seem to be entering, where robots and AI and technology have sort of developed a life of their own and have become indistinguishable from other humans, from -- not other humans, from humans and animals, and other natural phenomenons of this world. That's not a world that I want to live in, where I can't tell the difference between a robot and a person, or human- generated content and AI-generated content. But unfortunately, that is the world that we are ushering in. Just lately, I was Sn/ak 167 watching, flipping through my Facebook reels, and came across a video where it portrayed Vladimir Putin. It was an AI video. I immediately recognized it. It wasn't very well done. It was poorly done. But to some people that aren't trained and don't have enough experience viewing these things, it could seem very real. And he was basically making a very thinly veiled threat that nuclear weapons were going to be used very soon here and that it was only a matter of time. And to somebody that, again, doesn't -- can't spot that it's AI, that could be a very, very serious thing and can cause some real emotional and, distress and stress to this individual that that could see that and believe that it's real. I mean, can you imagine if we all saw a video and believed that it was real, that a nuclear weapon was on its way to hit New York City or somewhere in the East Coast? Listen. I am all for individual responsibility and people using their brains to discern certain things. But when technology gets weaponized, which is what is going on here, to the point where real and fake become indistinguishable, that is not a fair expectation to have for society, to be able to discern that, to discern the differences between real and fake Sn/ak 168 in this new age of the digital world as I like to ref -- as I've spoken to before, in previous arguments on another topic. It is not a reasonable thing to expect of most of us, of the older generations who have no idea what we're even talking about. There are some individuals that have kept up with these things. I'm not trying to make a blanket statement here. Listen, there's plenty of young folks that are -- can't keep up with all the evolution of artificial intelligence because it's impossible. It's growing at a rapid rate, and I'm not sure that those who created this modern-day Frankenstein know how to control it. That should all give us -- that should give all of us pause, especially when a Gen Z/millennial is making this point. If it scares me, it should scare all of you. I do have a question, and then I'll make a few more points after that and wrap it up. Just very simple. I read through the bill through the amended notes, and there's a lot of departments and sort of bureaucracies being created to address the -- with this bill, that to address the aims of this bill. Is there an estimate or a fiscal note or something so that we may know how much, if this Sn/ak 169 bill passes, it would cost the taxpayers to implement the -- what this bill is trying to do? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. It is a comprehensive bill that is providing different resources to different state agencies to implement different parts of it. And in the fiscal note, and the bill did go through the Appropriations Committee, there are some various increases to the Attorney General's Office, Department of Administrative Services, Office of Higher Education, UConn, Department of Consumer Protection, Department of Labor, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Hoxha.
Sn/ak 170 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if I heard a number. Is there like an actual cost, or a number that the good proponent can give me, through you?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would say in fiscal year 27 estimate, without using a calculator and adding all the numbers up, somewhere between a million to 2,000,000. Through you Mr. Speaker.
Representative Hoxha.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I truly appreciate that. And while that number may sound high, and believe me, I'm all for spending wisely and spending as little as we have to get the job done. We Sn/ak 171 may find that that could actually be a very small price to pay to accomplish what this bill is looking to accomplish. I agree with 90% of this bill, maybe even a 100% of it. I haven't read every single page in great detail, but just from what I've read so far, I can't find something I disagree with. This is a complex issue that's going to require a multi-pronged approach. Different agencies and departments working together, maybe some new task forces and groups being formed. This is really a new frontier. And it sounds funny that I reference Spider-Man and some of these sort of obscure references. But I assure you, sometimes fiction is a lot closer to reality than we may think. And this is truly a clear and present danger. We may not always see it. We may not always feel it much like with the cell phone ban bill that we discussed earlier in this Chamber that I was very much in favor of. The reason why I was in favor of that was because of the fact that cell phones can access social media, not because kids are making too many phone calls with their cell phones. They're using it to access social media, where AI lives and can be used to manipulate children. In China, from my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone has more accurate information Sn/ak 172 on this than I do. Their TikTok is actually totally different than the product that we have here in the United States. And we've discussed this topic in other committees about banning the use of TikTok at the state level on state computers and things like that. And the federal government has also tossed the idea around of banning TikTok altogether unless it gets transferred to a US entity where it's fully under our purview and jurisdiction, and we can regulate it. TikTok in China actually does not allow what's known as Internet slop, which is this: I'm going to be throwing out a bunch of new terms here, Gen Z terms, that I just learned a few months ago myself. So feel free to look these things up. But these things like Internet slop and brain rot, these are real things and that have a real impact on children. And AI is used to generate these things. This could be just content that has absolutely no educational purpose, no educational value, no value whatsoever. Just a compilation of stupid, poorly done montages of images, sounds, and videos that, truly, if you watch enough of it, you'll feel like your brain is rotting away. And that is what the majority of the youth, our youth, our youth, American youth, whether it's in Connecticut, Sn/ak 173 Massachusetts, California, Michigan, New Hampshire, Illinois, Florida, Texas, all over the country. That is what our youth are consuming. That is what the algorithms are set to produce on children's accounts, on young adults' accounts. There's garbage that is literally dumbing us down. Meanwhile, in China, they're showing their youth, their children productive and constructive things, like how to build houses, how to take apart some electronic device and put it back together, how to do rocket science, how to do calculus. And we're here sitting on our hands and saying again, it's the federal government that should be regulating this. It's the state government that should be regulating this. It's up to the free market will handle it one day. I don't want to wait for the federal government. I don't want to wait for the state government. I don't want to wait for regulators, and I don't want to wait for the free market because this is way too important for the youth of this country, of our state, for the youth in all our districts, for the next generation, this is way too important to wait for the free market or some other entity, some other force to do something about it. Sn/ak 174 We have the ability to do something about it right now, right here, right now with this legislation. Is it perfect? No. Is it a good starting point? Absolutely. I truly believe that. And I had no contribution to this bill whatsoever. We need to start somewhere. This is a real issue. We need to grab this bull by its horns. This AI generation, this monster that we humans have created, will take us over one day if we do not get it under control. Maybe not literally, but mentally, if it deteriorates our intellectual capacities, then it's done its job. And that's what it's doing. I assure you. And there's statistics to prove this. Objective test scores and things like that in developed countries, quote unquote developed. Social media is attributable to higher depression and suicidal thoughts, as mentioned by my colleagues that spoke before. So many bad things. Sure, there are some good things, but if we know how to harness its power, if we let it run rampant and do not even attempt to address it and regulate it, or even understand it, then it'll do us in. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 175 Thank you, Representative Hoxha. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Zupkus of the 89th, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just rise for a couple of questions.
Please proceed.
Thank you. And I am on probably a second-grade level, not reading level, but to AI. I do use it, minimally, and it is of concern. But just a couple of questions, if I may. In section four, it talks about video gaming and game systems. One thing that I have always had concerns with are video games. I think they numb our children to shooting people and all of these types of things. And I'm wondering if anything in this bill relates to that, through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 176
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. And I agree with good Representative, with the concern over video games, especially with our youth. But in this bill, it actually provides an exemption for a video game chatbot, that is, not considered an artificial intelligence companion if it doesn't have, human-like responses and the other parameters that are set in this bill, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I'm hearing that that would be a no. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And it's unfortunate because, really, some of those games, they're human-like. So, but for another day, another session, I'm very interested in that. My Sn/ak 177 other, really question, and I agree with the good Representative from the 67th. It's very hard to understand how we will be regulating the Internet and how things in Connecticut could be prohibited when they're not throughout the world, the country, other states in the world. So, I'm not sure how this is really going to work, and I won't reiterate that because the good colleague did talk about that. There is just a -- there was an incident in British Columbia, which I'm sure we're all or most of us are familiar with, on -- where AI really is being found to be a piece of -- when a girl went and shot up people in British Columbia. And there's actually a lawsuit right now against Sam Altman and the whole AI in business. And I'm interested to see what will happen with that because I believe, a judge ruled in the favor of the victim's family that it did aid in that. And I'm curious, which is horrible. And I'm curious how this bill would help to put precautions because one of the main things was that the AI industry did not even alert the police that they were asking these kinds of questions and getting these kinds of responses Sn/ak 178 through the ChatGPT. So I'm curious if this bill will help in any of that, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So first, when a minor is using these AI companion chatbots and expresses that maybe they want to do some self harm or harm someone else or they want to do illegal drugs or and have an eating disorder or something like that. The platforms will be prohibiting from encouraging that behavior, from offering any kind of advice or guidance or assistance, and instead, providing different, mental health referrals and services. So, stop from helping, put some resources out there. It does not notify the police or anything, like that, at this time, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus. Sn/ak 179
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that's good to hear, but here we go with my knowledge of AI. How would that happen in Connecticut and not in another state, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So this platform cannot be any AI platform that doesn't apply with the parameters set here, the protocols to protect minors in these situations where they express harm. These platforms cannot be offered to be used here in Connecticut. They cannot operate here in Connecticut. And one of the ways that happens is sort of like geofencing. For example, with our sports gaming. There are certain platforms that have agreements like DraftKings, and there are others if you wanted to play a particular game like Fantasy Football, that are not allowed to operate here in the state, and that they can set the parameters Sn/ak 180 to geofence. So if you're within the Connecticut confines, that platform is not accessible. Soon as you drive over the border, though, it becomes accessible on your platform. And for companies that don't adhere to that, our attorney general will be able to try to hold them accountable, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the explanation of that. Just my last question is, I actually, a friend of mine called me and said, wanted me to know that AI had called him using my voice even with my southern accent. And he thought it was me and that I was supposedly asking for money. And he said, of course, I like you. I'll donate. And then he -- as the conversation kind of went down the road a little bit, he said, Leslie, is this recorded, or are you reading a script? Sn/ak 181 And it was like, yeah. It's me. I'm just trying to raise some money. And, finally, he said, I literally had my credit card out. And he said, I was going to make a donation, but I said we have a mutual friend in our community. How do we know each other? Now he's very smart to do that. And, of course, it couldn't answer the question. That's very scary because if anyone got my child's voice and called me and said that they were in trouble as a mom or any parent, you're going to -- there's going to be hell to pay. But with that being said, it's very scary. So I have created a secret word in my house for my children. We didn't -- we wrote it on paper, so no one's listening and all. But that's really scary, and it literally happened to me about three weeks ago. And so is there anything in this piece of legislation that would curtail that from happening, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Sn/ak 182 Through you, Mr. Speaker. I actually just read an article about the number of Connecticut residents that are getting scammed by similar scams using AI, that you mentioned. While this bill specifically does not deal with that, I most likely believe that type of scam is already illegal under our Connecticut state laws. And though any individual found doing that can be held accountable. I think as you mentioned, sometimes it's difficult to find out the perpetrator, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answers. It is concerning for me, these things. Our children, it's concerning what happened to me. I had to put it out all over the Internet, saying it wasn't me. If you get my voice, and most people know me, know that I wouldn't do that. So, anyway, so this is a big, I think, as my colleague said, a can of worms or whatever we want to call it, and it moves much faster than we Sn/ak 183 are at any rate. So I do believe that the feds and I am sure when this court plays out, this lawsuit against Sam Altman and AI, there are going to be some very hopefully, some significant changes to how this is going to operate. So, thank you, and I thank the good Representative for answering my questions.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Courpas of the 149th, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the good Chair and the and everyone. I've learned a lot about AI today. So, my first -- I only have two big, kind of topics. The first one is on the enforceability and the social media. I just wanted to understand better how that works. Say you had a young teenager right now, like a 14-year-old, who would still be a minor on January 1st, 2028, when this bill, that part of this part of the bill comes into effect. So, my son fits into this category. So he's on Instagram right now. On January 1, will something pop up Sn/ak 184 on Instagram in his account, or somehow the person over 18, which would be me, affiliated with his account, to let the parent know that now is the time to opt in or opt out, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. That discretion is left up to the social media companies, if they decide when somebody goes -- turns 18 that the individual gets some sort of notice, a pop up on their device or an email, or if there's something they have to go into the settings and then be able to prove that now they are an adult and don't have to follow the same, protections that we have for minors. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Courpas. Sn/ak 185
Okay. Thank you. So I guess you just answered the other question, to a good Chair, which is so if the child is on multiple social media platforms, each platform will have its own way of accomplishing that objective. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.
Representative Courpas.
Thank you. And so, I think the Rep. Zupkus asked this, and I think I heard the answer. But is that restriction, say, the parent doesn't opt out? So now the algorithm is restricted to an Sn/ak 186 hour for the child that fits that description. Does that follow the child? Because we cross the border into New York even to go to the grocery store. Does that flip in and out when you cross the border? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turko.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the platform may have some ability with our law will only apply within Connecticut. So it's possible a platform could create it so that when someone drives over the border, something flips. Likely, that would probably be an added technological burden, and maybe they would just because -- it's a Connecticut resident who resides most of the time in Connecticut, just keep that standard, but they have that discretion if they do not want to adhere outside of Connecticut. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 187 Representative Courpas.
Okay. So if you go on like a family road trip and you drive through five states, I'm just curious about this, and maybe you don't know. You could be flipping through five different state- level regulatory frameworks on one Instagram account on one phone in the course of that drive, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. And that is already what's happening because there hasn't been any federal regulation in this area. Many states have already, Connecticut is behind now in adopting protections for minors on social media platforms. So already state to state, there are different restrictions, and the social media companies will either try to create their platform, to follow the strictest one, so they never have to Sn/ak 188 worry about reducing at any levels. But they do have discretion on how they handle that, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Courpas.
Thank you. That was very helpful. The other topic I was concerned about is the big topic here, whether the bill strikes the right balance between being prudent in regulating an industry which can definitely cause harm, versus creating an overly prescriptive regulatory environment where Connecticut will in effect, be left behind. And I don't know the answer to that. I don't know whether we're taking prudent and appropriate action here or whether we're like people must have been when the industrial age came to the country, and they felt like factories were dehumanizing and people needed to stay in an agrarian environment. And I just don't know where we stand on that balance. So I had a question about the innovation sandbox in section three of the bill. Sn/ak 189 So this seems to say that this is the language which concerns me. The sandbox is there for a program -- it's a program which allows an applicant to temporarily test an innovative product or service on a limited basis under reduced licensure. So is that a place where companies can opt out of the framework to try something new? That's what it seems like, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. That is the intent to allow a company that's developing when they're in this regulatory sandbox to have less restrictions, less regulations, so that they can do this innovation, this development they want to do. There'll still be certain protocols that they're going to have to follow so we can ensure we're protecting Connecticut residents, but they will be less. And this section of the bill is putting together a plan on how we're going to do that. So in that plan, that's all going to be specified, through you, Sn/ak 190
Representative Courpas.
And are the companies that can opt into the sandbox, are those companies of any and every size, from start-ups to the big cap companies, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the plan needs to be created, so there may be some specifications, but the intent is most likely it could be any type of company. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Courpas. Sn/ak 191
Thank you. What worries me about that is that to me, the sandbox, to me, the whole state should be a place where an applicant can test an innovative product or service. And the fact that we need a sandbox suggests to me that we're creating a regulatory environment where you can't do that, and you need to go into a special program just to be innovative. Perhaps the proponent could give me his feedback on that question, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, that's why this plan is carefully being thought out. And it's going to take bringing together different experts and agencies to put it together so that Connecticut can get it right, because we want innovation here. We want companies to develop here, and we want to be able to complete -- compete against other states and globally in the Sn/ak 192 AI development and take advantage of our workforce having this opportunity. So this plan will be put together very carefully. So maybe every company has the ability to be part of the regulatory sandbox through that development phase. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Courpas.
I understand that. Thank you. I guess I feel that we're a small state, with not that many natural resources, and we don't have a very well-developed venture capital community here yet. We could. And to me, AI seems like a place where we can really get ahead. One of the things that makes the AI business take off in a state is also great research universities, and we have those here in Connecticut. So what concerns me is that instead of taking the innovators and letting them free in the state of Connecticut and putting the people that do bad things in a box, it seems like Sn/ak 193 we're creating a regulatory environment that restrains innovation and only putting the innovators in a tiny little box. And that concerns me about this bill. So I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and very much thank the good Chair for everything I've learned today.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Carpino of the 32nd, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the proponent of the bill and just a few comments.
Please proceed.
Sn/ak 194 Might the good proponent of the bill be familiar with the movie War Games, through you, Mr. Speaker?
I don't know. [laughs] Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Matthew Broderick. Yes. I'm very familiar. Through you.
Representative Carpino.
Thank you. And I thank the good proponent for not making me hate myself. But as the good proponent of the bill knows, that movie showed us what we thought was going to be science fiction. And here we are today. When I saw that movie in the way-back machine, we didn't have AI, but we got to see the movie on cable. And it showed us things that we thought couldn't happen. Sn/ak 195 It showed us a teenager hacking into a computer and potentially causing the end of the world because of what we now know of as AI. It is no longer a movie. It is here in front of us. And if anybody thinks by putting our heads in the sand that AI is going to go away, they're mistaken. AI is already here. It's not coming. It is impacting our energy rates, how major decisions are made, how we interact as members of community, how we educate our kids, the mental health of our residents, and decisions that are made on global scales. I do not love this entire bill, Mr. Speaker. In some instances, I don't think it goes far enough. And in some instances, I think perhaps we wander off the center path. But I cannot vote no and hope that ignoring AI and social media is going to make the state of Connecticut any better. It's not going to protect our residents if I vote no. It's not going to help our businesses move ahead. It's not going to improve the mental health of the students we saw here with us this morning with the youth service bureaus, and it's certainly not going to make it go away. There have been a lot of things I couldn't support so far this session. But the fact that the proponents, Sn/ak 196 the good Chair and the Ranking Members, just took input for many of us, chatbots were something that truly scare me when they interact with unsophisticated residents. Both those who perhaps don't realize it as well as children. And I think we could do a little bit more, and I hope that when we come back next session, if I'm fortunate enough to stand here, that we can look a little closer at what we're going to do. Do I think that the federal government, I can't believe I'm saying this, should actually take some action? Because I do. I do think in some instances, it would be easier if all 50 states were doing the same. But we can't stand here waiting for the federal government to take action and protect our residents. So, Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of this bill. A lot of people had input. It wasn't a sprint to get here. It's a little bit more of a marathon, and it's not perfect. I do think that if we're actually going to try to catch up, we're going to be here year after year, moving ahead and adjusting what we're doing because AI and social media are going to change. But if we do nothing, it is a disservice to the people we represent. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I stand Sn/ak 197 in support of this. I'll be proudly casting my vote as a yes. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Reyes of the 75th, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon. Just a few questions for the proponent, please.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir. Like many of my colleagues in here that have already mentioned, I consider myself a complete dinosaur when it comes to AI. Computers learning was forced on me. I'm a child of the seventies. So I would agree with the statements Sn/ak 198 that's made here this afternoon that AI is already upon us. And I could tell by the way my grandchildren interact with me in AI. So, as I said in that respect, I'm a dinosaur, but I do have a few questions, and I do believe that Connecticut needs to do something. I don't know if we could be that national leader, but I think we need to do something. And my first question to the proponent, through you, Mr. Speaker, is because at the rate that AI changes, what we're regulating today will probably be obsolete by the end of this year. Just so would like to hear a few comments from the proponent, through you.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So I think what's very important to understand about this bill is it's really creating -- it's twofold. It's creating one a regulatory framework, an ability for the state of Connecticut and our state agencies to ensure we have different safeguards in place. We are starting the process Sn/ak 199 to ensure we can protect residents from potential harms that could come with artificial intelligence. On the flip side of that, we are putting a lot in place to ensure that Connecticut can compete. That our businesses can foster the growth of artificial intelligence, and that our workforce will ensure that they will be able to transition and capitalize on this development in this new technological revolution. So it is likely that this is going to evolve quickly, and we will have to continuously, here in the legislature, update our laws to keep up with it. But this is a really great start to do that as we've heard from a lot of our colleagues today, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Reyes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'd like to thank the proponent of the bill for that answer. And, it's well thought out. And my next question has to do with youth and checks and balances on Sn/ak 200 youth. How can we guarantee that what we're doing is -- I'm not going to say it's the correcting, but it's, are we looking at this from a protection for the youth? And what ages are we considering youth, through you?
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So youth minors under the age of 18 is the threshold we're looking at. And, unfortunately, a lot of the provisions in this bill to protect minors are because of very tragic situations that have happened across our nation, with children committing suicide, children hurting others, with the rapid increase of mental health due to children interacting with social media and artificial intelligence. And we've consulted in a lot of child psychiatrists to understand what these technology platforms are doing to them and what protections we have to put in place. And again with my previous answer, I believe we will have to consistently evolve Sn/ak 201 in our legislation to add new protections as well, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Reyes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And my last question, for the proponent, has to do with cultural sensitivity as it relates to AI. Has any thought been given to dealing with the different cultural associates in the state of Connecticut, through you?
Representative Turco.
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm told that there has been a lot of dialogue, especially with different advocacy groups and entities, our Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity & Opportunity. I hope I got that right. Also has been involved and Sn/ak 202 testified in support of legislation. So it's likely something that will need to be an ongoing conversation, but that conversation has at least started, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Reyes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, I'd like to thank the folks that supported the AI, this piece of regular legislation on AI. I think it's an important first step, and I will be supporting this piece of legislation today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative Reyes. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative O'Dea of the 125th? You have the floor, sir.
Sn/ak 203 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple quick questions, through you, if I may.
Please proceed.
I'm wondering -- I'm concerned. Look, AI frankly petrifies me. I think the world is going to be much different in the next five years. That's why I -- some will remember a number of us were talking about the universal basic income, UBI legislation task force that was put together last session. I am very concerned about the displacement in the labor market. It's going to happen within five years. But on this bill here, I appreciate the efforts that particularly monitoring what's going on in social media and how AI is just evolving so quickly. My concerns and questions surround the involvement with the CHRO and potential claims, particularly for our large employers. So, looking at section seven, the automated employment-related decision process in lines as defined in lines 412 through 427. Sn/ak 204 Let's say I want to be a -- there's an open ad for neurosurgeon at Hartford Hospital. And Tom O'Dea, a non-neurosurgeon, but I apply because it pays 400 grand a year. I'd like a raise. I want to be neurosurgeon. So I throw in my resume at Hartford Hospital and Hartford Hospital. A form of AI or computer work has been in existence for over a decade. Right? And let's say Hartford Hospital has a program they set up that eliminates anybody who doesn't have a -- is not a neurosurgeon. Can't be it, a neurosurgeon. So they just use AI to get rid of those who are applying that don't have the proper qualifications. So I get rejected from being my dream neurosurgeon even though I didn't go to medical school, and I get upset at Hartford Hospital, and I find out that they used AI to call out the non-neurosurgeons. Well, do I have a claim with CHRO, through
Representative Turco.
Sn/ak 205 Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe you'd only have a claim with CHRO if you found evidence or you believe that you were discriminated against based on a certain protected class. Being a neurosurgeon is not considered a protective class under our current laws. Through you.
Representative O'Dea.
Fair enough. Employers can use AI to assess qualifications. So somebody who's not qualified, that could be used. It's only if somehow they use AI and the AI is discriminating based on being a protected class. Is that how I understand the good proponent, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Turco.
Sn/ak 206 Through you, Mr. Speaker. As far as liability discrimination, yes. But if the business, the entity is using artificial intelligence to make these employment decisions, there -- it does require that there is disclosure upfront to the applicant that artificial intelligence is being used to somehow make the decision. That doesn't not mean that there's any discrimination, just transparency for the applicant, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative O'Dea.
Thank you for that response. So, my daughter's a recruiter in the city. She works for a fund, and they go through rounds of interviews. What if one of the rounds becomes artificial intelligence, where they say, okay. This first round, we're going to have AI. Do they have the math capability? Do they have the intellectual acumen for this particular job? Do I understand the good proponents' response? As long as they disclose that AI is used in this first round to assess whether or not the Sn/ak 207 person's properly qualified, that's okay for them to use that as long as it's not you using or discriminating against the protected class. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.
Representative O'Dea.
All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the good proponent for those responses. I've been listening to debate all, all morning and afternoon, and I was on the fence on this. I am petrified of AI, but I also don't want to see us stepping into a realm of regulation when we're going to adversely impact our local businesses or state businesses when Sn/ak 208 the federal government should frankly, as I said earlier, federal government is letting us down, I think, quite frankly, and not regulating this sooner, and we're stepping in where they should have been. So I'm very apprehensive on that score, but we may have been able to thread the needle, so to speak. There's a few parts of this that I don't like, but, in a whole, I'm leaning towards supporting. I look forward to listening to the debate, and I appreciate the good proponents' response. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Will you remark further on the bill as amended, Representative Rosario of the 128th. You have the floor, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this bill as amended. As someone who considers himself, myself a Gen Xer, someone who was a teenager during the dawn of the Sn/ak 209 Internet in the 90s, I know that this legislature and even the federal government was creating guardrails and guidelines to protect teenagers and kids that were younger during that generation. And as a parent of a 16-year-old daughter, I think this is doing the exact same thing. We're creating safe guidelines to make sure that we're doing the right thing to protect our children. We're scratching the surface of what AI and artificial intelligence can do. There's going to be continued exponential growth of this industry, and I think this takes us in the right direction due to the federal inaction. And, I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Haines of the 34th? You have the floor, ma'am.
Sn/ak 210 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill.
Please proceed.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. We've been hearing from some what they call themselves dinosaurs in the room in regards to AI and how it all works. Is there anything in this bill that actually protects those dinosaurs? In other words, we've had situations where we've heard of seniors getting in trouble with various credit card problems and other things. What about AI? Is there anything in this bill that will help our seniors not be -
Sn/ak 211 Scammed. That's the good word. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your help.
Sure thing. Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe there's going to be legislation that we're going to take up later today that's going to include some more of those provisions. This particular bill does help protect seniors like it does anyone, when using the AI companion chatbots. And if somebody is expressing a mental health crisis and providing some information from the -- for them and not encouraging it. There's also the Connecticut AI Academy, which Charter Oak College is going to be providing online classes. And if the seniors are able to do that, there's going to be classes that will help be able help people be able to learn how to use AI responsibly and how to detect scams and things like that, potentially, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 212 Representative Haines.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate that answer. At one point, you were talking about, or the proponent was talking about notifications that would come in if you're younger than a certain age, it would be every hour, and it was over an age, it would be every three hours. Maybe we need to add something in there on the senior side to say, if you go back over 70, you might want to do every hour and a half or whatever. But something like that could be added, to remind people that -- I know after 20 minutes in the -- I go mindless on the Internet too. Those reminders or those bots or whatever they're called, if they show up, it might be a good thing. My second question, through you, Mr. Speaker, is in regards to the computer classes that they're requiring in the high schools. I want to say that I would imagine that most high schools, if not all high schools in the state of Connecticut are teaching computer science. Is that not correct, through you?
Sn/ak 213 Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, it is a course that's required to be offered in high schools. Yes. And now with this legislation, it will expand to have to also teach about artificial intelligence. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Haines.
And is there a curriculum already developed in regards to AI curriculum for that? What sounds to me like it could be a mandate, through you?
Representative Turco.
Sn/ak 214 Through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if there's already through our State Department of Education curriculum that's being recommended to be used on how they teach on artificial intelligence. But our Connecticut AI Academy will have training for teachers to be able to teach about artificial intelligence, as well as the teacher preparation that's required for certification will now include artificial intelligence, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Haines.
Okay. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, just so that I'm clear, this legislation will not only require A, our education of our students, but also require additional, I forget what the word is, but the -- for the teachers to do professional development. Professional development, they're going to be required to do professional development for the AI as well. Through you?
Sn/ak 215 Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. They already are required to do computer science or computer programming. It's expanding that definition to include emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Haines.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. From what the proponent just said, maybe it's not a mandate if it's already in the professional development that emerging technologies have always been there under computers. Maybe that's not something that we need to push if it's already there. Technically, an AI is just the next development. Is that not true, through you?
Sn/ak 216 Representative Turco.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify, so it's the computer science or computer programming that's required for either students or for teachers, the emerging technology, and the art of in which includes artificial intelligence. That's the new part. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Haines.
Okay. Well, I appreciate that clarification. And I think that answers my question is that we're putting on further professional development and further mandates on our schools and our teachers. And I appreciate the answer, but, unfortunately, I'm going to have to vote no on this bill. Thank you.
Sn/ak 217 Thank you, Representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Delaney, the 144th, let's take us home.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And before I give my comments, there are a few thank yous that are owed. To Senator James Maroney, to Dr. Dean Aldarucci, to Mr. Steven Nichols, to Miss Betsy Frankelino, to Chairman Lemar, Vice Chairman Turco, to Ranking Member Rutigliano, the entirety of the General Law Committee, the entirety of the Connecticut artificial intelligence caucus, and too many people to name here today, I want to say thank you for your years of hard work and dedication to this legislation. I am state Representative Hubert Delaney, the House Chairman of the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Caucus, and I am here today to stand in strong support of what my colleagues and I have affectionately named the CAIRT Act, or the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act, a bill that to us represents the common-sense steps into preparing our government for the future and the Sn/ak 218 present of AI. As has been stated, this legislation has been the byproduct of years of hard work. As a well-thought-out, carefully crafted, enabling document that provides not only for a legislative framework, but for the investment necessary and for the technology adopters, our residents, to use and reap the benefits of AI. It provides for the training of our future workforce. It provides the training for our institutions and our government. It creates awareness and protections and provide much of what is vital for AI in Connecticut. Artificial intelligence is a technology that is perhaps the most powerful and transformative of our generation. And this legislation represents the practical extension of responsible innovation and governance that the people of Connecticut have come to expect from this great Chamber. Because the process of reasonable adoption of this technology is being held up by a lack of this legislation. Right now, without standards and guidelines, decision makers can't truly act, and consumers have little guidance or trust of this technology. Could you imagine cities, towns, or homes without building guidelines? Could you imagine roads without traffic laws? Sn/ak 219 Could you imagine manufacturing without safety standards or even flight without air traffic control? No. To govern without this would be reckless and irresponsible. So rather than the legislative equivalent of unregulated dirt roads, this legislation builds highways to progress. To make it a little personal, my father, Hubert Delaney the second, working in Gartner Group in the 90s, helped to create the famous technology hype cycle, which is used as a national tool for understanding the adoption of new technologies. And what I learned from that was that technology adoption goes through three phases. The peak of inflated expectations, followed by the trough of disillusionment, and finally, to the plateau of productivity. And right now, we are in the peak of inflated expectations. And our goal as legislators is to reduce the depth of the trough of disillusionment to get to the plateau of productivity as soon as possible. Our people, the people of Connecticut, are already investing their time and energy into understanding and making use of artificial intelligence. And our responsibility, our duty, is to help them realize the safe return on that investment. Sn/ak 220 And this bill, the CAIRT Act, is the best way to do that. Artificial intelligence is a massive and scary topic. And here in Connecticut, we pride ourselves in being the land of steady habits. We are never ones to put the cart before the horse. But ladies and gentlemen, the horse is artificial intelligence, and it is high time. We hitch the cart to it. I urge you all to gratefully swear the Connecticut CAIRT Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Lemar of the 96th, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss again if I did not mention the outstanding work of my leader on AI issues and has been a leading force in development of AI policy across our country. I'm proud to be here today to move forward his incredible leadership, knowledge, and expertise Sn/ak 221 on these issues, and finally get a bill across the finish line. We have the opportunity to lead, not follow, in the defining technology of our time. There's been concerns raised for the last number of years about perhaps the federal government should be the one to take the first steps. We know here in Connecticut, just like Governor DeSantis knows in Florida, just like our good Senators here in Connecticut, and Governors, and Legislatures across the country, that we need to act now. The bill before us strikes a careful balance, a balance worked through with our Governor Lamont, but with Ranking Members of our committee, the members of the General Law Committee. With the great patience and due diligence of Senator Maroney, I'm proud to offer this product before us. It blends and balances innovation and protection. It blends and balances opportunity and responsibility and it ensures that AI works for people, not against them. The question is not whether AI will shape our future. It already has and will continue to do so. The question is instead whether we will shape it responsibly. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does exactly that. It hits that balance perfectly. We'll be in this space. We'll be talking Sn/ak 222 about AI and regulatory structures for it for the rest of our lives. But Connecticut entered the conversation in a strong, responsible way, and I'm proud and thankful to all the colleagues who've helped guide this legislation along the way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. Will staff and guests, please come to the well of the House. Members, take your seats. Head to your portals. The machine will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the Chamber.
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the Sn/ak 223 machine will be locked. And the Clerk will take a tally. And the Clerk, please announce the tally.
Total number voting 148 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 131 Those voting Nay 17 Absent not voting 3
The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (gavel) Are there any announcements or introductions? Representative Howard of the 43rd, what purpose do you rise?
Sn/ak 224 Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon. Just briefly, I would like to introduce the Stonington High School has a curriculum where students -- seniors who want to graduate have to do 15 hours of a senior project with somebody to feel that interest them. Standing next to me is Finn Meadows, a senior at Stonington High School, who's graduating in June as a salutatorian of his class and will be attending Conn College in New London. He's recently committed. Finn has been up here up here for a couple of days, spent some time in district with me, spent time working on some bills and some amendments. He's been a great asset and a great joy to have here in the capital, and I know that he's learned quite a lot. So please join me in welcoming Finn and congratulating him as a salutatorian of class of 2026. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Congratulations and welcome. Are there any other announcements or introductions? I guess not. Will the Clerk please call Calendar 316? Sn/ak 225
On Page 22, Calendar 316, House Bill No. 5491, AN ACT CONCERNING CENTRALIZATION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION. Favorable Report of Labor.
Representative Sanchez of the 24th, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
The question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Sanchez, you have the floor.
Sn/ak 226 Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO 5491. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, and that I'd be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize.
Will the Clerk please call -- [background noise] will the Chamber stand at ease? Will the Chamber come back to order? Representative Sanchez, take two.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for that. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO 5480. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, and that I'd be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize.
Will the Clerk please call LCO 5480, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A"?
Sn/ak 227 House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 5480. Offered by Representative Sanchez, Representative Carpino.
The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, Representative Sanchez, you may proceed with the summarization.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill requires the Department of Labor to create a web page to centralize workforce development resources and to solicit relevant information. The bill does not result in any fiscal impact because such website already exists. And information solicitation is expected to be accommodated with existing resources. The amendment, before us, would change the last sentence of the bill, beginning on line nine. From the Labor commissioner shall, on a quarterly basis, solicit known and reputable providers of information, resources, and materials described in the section, for items to be included on such informational web page. Two, the labor commissioner Sn/ak 228 shall, on a semi-annual basis, update the information resources, and materials described in the section for items to be included in the informational page. I would like to thank Representative Carpino for her hard work on this. I move adoption.
The question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Weir of the 55th, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And this is an item that came through the Labor Committee unanimously, with accolades from both the Chairs in the House and Senate. I think it's a good initiative where we're trying to make it easier for those seeking jobs and talking about job creation and workforce development. It's a good bill. Ought to pass. Thank you.
Sn/ak 229 Is there objection to a voice vote on this amendment? Hearing none, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guest -- there she is. Representative Carpino of the 32nd. You have the floor, ma'am.
Sn/ak 230 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do really want to thank the leadership of the Labor Committee, as well as the agency, for their help in getting this here. Sometimes our best ideas come from our constituents. In this case, there's some brilliant high school seniors who were looking for opportunities, our best and brightest, but decided not to go on to college and wanted to see what other opportunities were here available in the state. As well as a single mother whose career changed since we're looking where she could put her efforts forward to increase her opportunities and earn for her family. We do a lot for career readiness, second chances, and opportunities here in the state of Connecticut, but sometimes it's not so easy to find. I think the labor commissioner and everybody involved, this little bill is going to have a big impact, and it's going to make it much easier to centralize all of what we already do. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Representative. Will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats. Head to the portal. The machine will be open. Sn/ak 231
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the Chamber.
Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted, will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the Clerk will take a tally.
House Bill No. 5491 as amended House "A": Total number voting 146 Necessary for passage 74 Those voting Yea 146 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 5 Sn/ak 232
The bill as amended, passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar 354.
On Page 26, Calendar 354 House Bill No. 5432, AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECEIPT OF FEES BY A PARTY TO A CIVIL ACTION AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY. Favorable report of Judiciary.
Representative Fazzino of the 83rd. You have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
Sn/ak 233 Question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Fazzino, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I take this out -- Mr. Speaker, excuse me. As I take this out, the good Chair of the Judiciary Committee looks over to me and says, this sounds like a good Vice Chair, Bill. I really do like this bill in all seriousness. When you have an action where the real prop -- where title to real property is in dispute, typically, you got to get a title search. Whether that's foreclosure of liens, whether that's a title dispute, whether that's condemnation, you always got to get a title search. And right now, under the current statutory framework, it's capped at $225. Title searchers got to eat too. Unfortunately, the cost of everything is going up, and this bill takes that into account for situations where you got to get a title search on property. So good bill. Solves a real problem. I urge passage. Sn/ak 234
Will you remark further on the bill, Representative Fishbein, with the pink plays going on of the 90th District? You have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Actually, when I started as a budding young lawyer, I started working with my father. I didn't have any cases. My father does a lot of real estate. And we spent a lot of time together in vaults at various town halls all over the state, doing title searches. I've gotten pretty good at doing title searches. But sometimes, doing a title search, you'll spend an entire day sitting in the vault, going through volumes and books and microfiche in some places, and all that stuff. And our statute right now doesn't compensate those individuals for doing that very important but sometimes laborious work. That's all this statute is -- proposed legislation before us does, and I do rise in support. I ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you. Sn/ak 235
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members take your seats. Head to your portals. The machine will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the Chamber.
Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
House Bill 5432: Sn/ak 236 Total number voting 147 Necessary for passage 74 Those voting Yea 147 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 4
The bill passes. (gavel) And will the Clerk please call Calendar 319.
Page 23, Calendar 319, substitute for House Bill Number 5523, AN ACT CONCERNING A TRIBAL WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES ADVISORY COUNCIL. Favorable report of Environment.
Representative Bumgardner of the 41st, you have the floor, sir. Sn/ak 237
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Bumgardner, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO Number 5295. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.
Will the Clerk please call LCO five 5295, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A. Sn/ak 238
House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 5295, offered by Representative Bumgardner, Representative Parker et al.
Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, Representative Bumgardner, you may proceed with your summarization.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a bold collaborative amendment, an amendment that several stakeholders throughout our state, and our corner of the state in Southeastern Connecticut have worked on for many months. First, it establishes a tribal wildlife and fisheries advisory council, creating a formal structure for collaboration between tribal nations, state agencies, conservation groups, and stakeholders, so that tribal ecological knowledge and stewardship practices can help inform how we manage our natural resources moving forward. Sn/ak 239 Secondly, it ensures that enrolled members of federally and state-recognized tribes can obtain hunting and fishing licenses, issued by DEEP at no cost to the individual, while still being fully issued, tracked, and recorded within the existing system. And importantly, nothing in this bill changes seasons, bag limits, conservation rules, or safety requirements. Every safeguard remains fully intact. Instead, the bill uses an existing funding source, the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Fund to cover the cost of those licenses, ensuring full compliance with federal requirements and maintaining the integrity of our conservation programs. And lastly, the bill supports tribal food sovereignty and local economic development, prioritizing access to agricultural and agricultural resources. I would note that the bill was reported favorably out of the environment committee, was referred to the Appropriations Committee, where it also was reported favorably and included in the appropriations budget. With that, I move adoption.
Sn/ak 240 Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Callahan of the 108th? You have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you can see, my name is on the amendment, and I consider it a friendly amendment. I do not object to a voice vote, and then I will comment after the amendment is passed.
Thank you, Representative. Hearing no other objection to a voice vote, I will try your minds on the amendment. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Sn/ak 241 All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Callahan of the 108th?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of questions for the proponent, please.
Please proceed.
Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, will this affect any federally matching funds for fisheries and other wildlife funding operations in Connecticut? Through you.
Representative Bumgardner.
Sn/ak 242 Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. It does not. In fact, Section 3 does speak to that bill. We wanted to ensure that we would not sacrifice or put at risk any federal funding that is in place for specifically wildlife, and fishing and hunting licensing here in Connecticut. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Callahan.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Originally, last year, we had a similar bill, which I was against because of funding issues. As you can see on the amendment, the head of the Appropriations Committee is on there. There is some money in the budget for this, and the tribes have committed money as well. And what the byproduct of this is a relationship with Connecticut sportsman and the tribes. They were actually up there yesterday, meeting. And so there's this mutually beneficial agreement for conservationists and recreational hunters who put food on their table. Instead of Sn/ak 243 going to the store, they hunt, and they have this great new agreement and a great new conservation group. So this new relationship came about, which we didn't expect, and it's working out very well. So I am in favor of the bill. I think it's a good bill ought to pass.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mastrofrancesco of the 80th District, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of quick questions for clarification to the proponent of the bill, if I may.
Please proceed.
Sn/ak 244 Thank you. Through you, this is a new advisory council. Am I understanding that correctly? Through you.
Representative Bumgardner.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The advisory council consists of two members representing each state- recognized tribe in Connecticut. That would include the Mashantucket Pequot tribal nation, the Mohegan tribal nation, Eastern Pequots, Schaghticoke, as well as the Golden Hill Paugussett. Additionally, it will have representation on consisting of members of the Department of Energy Environmental Protection, several divisions within the agency, as well as stakeholders representing conservation, hunters, anglers, outdoors people in our state. Again, as the good ranking member stated, this is a collaborative advisory group bringing stakeholders from across the state that have different interests together. And as the Sn/ak 245 good ranking member has mentioned, this process has already created an environment where this engagement is happening. These discussions are happening. As the good ranking member stated, Mashantucket Pequots and the Mohegan's already meeting with the Connecticut sportsmen already about programming with youth. So this is what it's about ensuring that young people, especially tribal youth, have access to the outdoors to hunt, to learn how to hunt with a firearm, to learn how to hunt with a bow, to fish. This is foundational to our state and certainly to the sovereignty of our respective tribal nations here in Connecticut. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that. And so is the advisory council's focus only on tribal land? Through you.
Sn/ak 246 Representative Bumgardner.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. Explicitly not on tribal land. This is specific to land outside outside of tribal land. So state land as well as state waters. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And then the other question I have is a physical note. The members of this advisory council are not paid. It's volunteer work. Is that correct? Through you.
Representative Bumgardner.
Sn/ak 247 Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct.
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
Thank you. And I'm just looking at the fiscal note here, and I'm wondering, currently right now, there is a fee for fishing license. Correct? But in here, it says it requires Deepgram to give free hunting and fishing permits to any enrolled member of a federally or state-recognized tribe. And I was wondering why someone who is enrolled in a tribe would get a free fishing permit, and everybody else would have to pay. And I was wondering what's going on there. Through you.
Representative Bumgardner.
Sn/ak 248 Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. So the model that we're creating specifically for licensing, for example, fishing, and hunting licenses will be issued at no cost once at purchase. Endorsements, stamps, for example, like a turkey stamp, deer permit, all of those endorsements will be done through a reimbursement model where the tribal member will purchase that endorsement or stamp and then, through the funding mechanism as outlined in this amendment, would be covered. So, I do hope I've answered that question directly, and, if not, happy to entertain a follow-up.
Representative Mastrofrancesco
Thank you. Not quite. I'm wondering, does the general public still required to pay for their hunting and fishing permits, as opposed to the ones that are enrolled in a federally or state-recognized tribe would get it for free, but everyone Sn/ak 249 else would have to pay for that. Is that still the case? Through you.
Representative Bumgardner. Through you,
Mr. Speaker, for most individuals who possess a fishing or hunting license in the state, yes, absent of seniors. Here in Connecticut, seniors are issued free licenses. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Mastrofrancesco
Thank you. Thank you. I got half an answer. I'm just really curious why if you are not enrolled as a member of a federally or state-recognized tribe, you do not have to pay for a fishing or a hunting permit, and everyone else does. Sn/ak 250 I get that there could be discounts for seniors, but I'm trying to just understand why there is a preference to a different individual as opposed to blanket for everyone throughout the state. We put bills in every year to try to do away the passport to park fees because we get a lot of complaints, and everybody doesn't like that. But here, I would say putting people in buckets. If you are enrolled in a tribe or a federally or state recognized tribe, you don't have to pay for a fishing or a hunting permit. But if you are not, you have to pay for it. I'm just trying to understand why, Mr. Speaker? Through you.
Representative Bumgardner.
Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would note that our state-recognized tribes, all of those tribes were here, obviously, long before even our state constitution. And what is Sn/ak 251 foundational to their sovereignty is the right to fish and hunt on these lands. And I think that is something that we can all recognize. Especially, someone as I mentioned represent Groton, Mystic, and Stonington, in Southeastern Connecticut, where the tribal and many of those tribal nations set their villages thousands of years before, again, our country. We're celebrating the semiquincentennial this year, 250th, before our country began. So, again, this is a good faith, I think, commitment to our area tribal nations, that we are recognizing their eternal right to fish and hunt on these lands and, again, passing it on to the next generation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Mastrofrancesco
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, they have a right to hunt on their land, but I'm talking about -- it's outside of the tribe. Sn/ak 252 Do, currently, right now, if somebody was enrolled prior to this bill being passed, if they were enrolled in a tribal, what does it say here, recognized tribe, and they were to go purchase a fishing or a hunting license, would they have to pay for that permit right now? Through you.
Representative Bumgardner.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct. Additionally, in Section 4, you will see a section regarding private land deer permits issued by DEEP. Currently, the tribes actually have to pay DEEP to get issued deer permits on their own tribal lands. And we're talking sovereign tribal land. And so I just wanted to illustrate that, because even with your question, also speaking to the existing structure, for their lands, they're already paying the state. And I think that shows that again, they have sovereignty. We have many agreements with the tribes. Again, that go back hundreds of years, but I Sn/ak 253 think it is important to illustrate that historically, they have also contributed quite a bit to the state, as far as deer permits are concerned, on their own lands. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Mastrofrancesco
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure they have contributed greatly, just like every other resident in the state has contributed greatly. But what I'm talking about is the ability to hunt or fish not on their land. This is outside of that. Currently, they are paying for it. They will not have to pay for it in the future for a fishing or hunting license, but everybody else will that's where I have the issue with this. I understand what the intent of the bill is and I think it's fine, but this particular portion, I don't understand why we are treating one person different than another because of whether Sn/ak 254 they're in a tribe or not, and I think that's where my sticking point is. Everybody in this state contributes to our state and our land and our fishing and our hunting licenses, and they don't get an exemption. So that's where my concern is. I thank you for the dialogue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats, head to your portals. The machine will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.
Sn/ak 255 Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
House Bill 5523 as amended by House A: Total number voting 147 Necessary for passage 74 Those voting Yea 144 Those voting Nay 3 Absent not voting 4
The bill is amended (gavel) passes. Will the clerk please call Calendar 351?
Sn/ak 256 Page 26 Calendar 351, substitute for House Bill Number 5312, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CIVIL ACTION FOR THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF A SYNTHETICALLY CREATED INTIMATE IMAGE. Favorable report of Judiciary.
Representative Stafstrom of the 129th, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance to Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor.
Sn/ak 257 Mr. Speaker, the clerk has an amendment. It's LCO 4544. I ask it be called, then be granted leave to summarize.
Will the clerk please call LCO 4544, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.
House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 4544, offered by Representative Stafstrom, Senator Winfield, Representative Fishbein, and Senator Kissel.
Representative seeks to leave the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor to proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is artificial intelligence day here in the House of Sn/ak 258 Representatives. So I'm, I guess, be happy to know there's intelligence going on in the House of Representatives, I guess, sometimes artificial or otherwise, but be that as it may. No. All kidding aside. Mr. Speaker, this is actually a very serious bill, and it is one that seeks to deal with the rising problem we have, not just here in Connecticut, but frankly all over, regarding the creation and dissemination of AI-generated nonconsensual intimate images, sometimes commonly referred to as deepfake pornography. This bill establishes a private right of action for victims, and empowers the office of the attorney general to pursue civil injunctions and penalties against operators of electronic digital platforms who fail to take down these synthetically created intimate images when the operators knew or should have known that the dissemination would be unlawful. The bill creates, as I said, a private right of action, allows for the recovery of damages, including punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees to compensate a victim, and also creates a civil penalty. I want to thank, certainly, the office of the Attorney General for their work on this bill, as well as Sn/ak 259 the bipartisan leadership of the judiciary committee, and especially Representative Fishbein for working so diligently on the amendment. I move adoption.
Question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Fishbein of the 90th, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment, which will become the bill. So I'll save my comments for the bill as amended when that happens. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is there objection to a voice phone on the amendment? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Sn/ak 260
Opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Fishbein.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is Connecticut's version of the Take It Down Act. The Take It Down Act was actually signed May 19th, 2025, by President Trump. He actually had Melania sign it along with him. The genesis of the federal Take It Down Act came to my attention through listening to Ted Cruz's podcast, The Verdict, where he explained a very tragic story in Texas, where some young ladies were at, I believe, a picnic. A picture was taken, a very innocuous picture, and then it was manipulated to show them with nude bodies. And I believe they were 13 years old. Sn/ak 261 We see manipulated photographs almost every day on the internet. Sometimes they're funny. Somebody's got a long nose, something like that, some facial expression. Those are usually adults, but certainly, young ladies, when we manipulate them to show private body parts, and just one image on the Internet can be embarrassing, humiliating. There's a story in, I believe, it was state of Washington, where a young lady, something similar happened to her, and she couldn't deal with it. She killed herself. Should not be happening. The Take It Down Act here in Connecticut goes even further than the federal government did. Essentially, the federal government allows the FTC to bring an action, but does not allow the injured individual to bring an action in and of themself. Through this legislation, we do that. We allow the individual who is harmed to actually go after the platform, as well as the poster. We make it necessary that these platforms have very clear ways to contact them and to take down this offensive contact, and if they don't, there is a fine. The attorney general is empowered to go to court and to present evidence about notice, failure to take down, to ask a court to fine. Sn/ak 262 This has to stop. I think this is a great thing. I think Connecticut is leading the whole country here in Connecticut's version of the Take It Down Act, and I ask my colleagues to support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats. Head to your portals. The machine will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members of the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.
If all the members voted, will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the Sn/ak 263 members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the clerk will take a tally. Will the clerk please announce the tally?
House Bill 5312 is amended by House A: Total number voting 148 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 148 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 3
The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call calendar 163?
Sn/ak 264 Page 11 Calendar 163, substitute House Bill Number 5362, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAJORITY LEADER’S ROUNDTABLE, favorable report of Housing.
Representative Felipe of the 130th, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and the passage of the bill. Representative Felipe, you have the floor.
Sn/ak 265 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO five 5432. I ask the Clerk can call the amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.
Will the clerk please call LCO 5432, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.
House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 5432, offered by Representative Rojas, Representative Felipe, Senator Duff, Senator Marx.
Representative seeks leave the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, Representative Felipe, you have the floor.
Sn/ak 266 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment, in turn, becomes the bill itself. It talks about some extra awarded hue points for 20% AMI for middle housing, clarifies the length of Moratoria, talks about how we collect 8-30g records here in the state, pushes back some effective dates for some housing bills that we did over the special session, talks about how our housing growth plans, municipally and regionally, may conflict with certain other town plans and has various other fixes to some statutes that we have put in place last couple of years in housing. I urge adoption.
Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Scott of the 112th. You have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll speak after we pass the voice amendment here. That's totally fine for me.
Sn/ak 267 Thank you, Representative. Hearing no objection to a voice vote, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel). Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Scott of the 112th? You have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Yes. So, the majority of leaders' roundtable has met now for a couple years. It's been a few years that we've actually had a chance to talk and go through with experts across the state in many different avenues to come up with some ideas that will help affordable housing, but housing in general in the state of Connecticut. Sn/ak 268 And today, we have a bunch of different recommendations that have come out of it. There are also what I would think is a couple changes to the previous bill that we passed 8002 in November, I believe it was. There's might be a couple touches in that. We'll go through that here. There's a bunch of different sections that we'll talk about, but that's the main gist is what we're talking about is the majority of the roundtable. Some of these ideas that we've had to hopefully make it more incentives, and some changes to hopefully help with housing across the state. So let's start from the beginning, and we'll roll through this fairly quickly, I think, but we'll definitely ask some questions about some of these changes, as we started. Through you, Mr. Speaker. In the first couple sections, there are talks about some hue point changes, housing equivalent points, basically, that allow towns, municipalities to gain a moratorium. Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the good proponent talk about some of these changes in the hue point, either tears or points that are captured in Section 1. Sn/ak 269
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, when it comes to hue points, we do two big things. One is for units that are 20% area median income. We created additional awards. Now the awards for ownership of those are 2.75 points, and rental is 3.25 points. And we also did a bill a few years ago that had to do with middle housing. And that middle housing bill was supposed to be additive, meaning that the points that you already got for that middle housing, if they be deed restricted or already qualified, would only add. So now, instead of it being either you get them for building middle housing, or you get them for building affordable middle housing, you will get both sets of points at the same time. And that's the change that hue points. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 270
Representative Scott.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. So to be clear, this is an addition. Hue points are being added incrementally to what has already been existing, and making sure that there is truly an incentive out there to add more housing, for a lot of these municipalities to hopefully get closer to that moratorium as we go forward. So this section very good. Again, throwing that carrot out there and hopefully driving through and, again, making that one change in middle housing that we had not made a fix to, and that's in section one. The moratorium length, I do want to talk about that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is a moratorium whenever one municipality would gain that moratorium by gaining 2% or or enough few points over a certain period of time. Is that always a set length? It's always a set length? That moratorium or is it Sn/ak 271 vary? And in this bill specifically, what does that do? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always a set length of about four to five years. There was statute that we put in place that had talked about a three-year moratorium. It's something that we don't do. So we're just clarifying here that it'd be four to five years as a moratorium is. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
Thank you very much. Section two goes into 8-30g records collection. I'm just trying to understand the intent of this section. I don't recall this being discussed readily in the Sn/ak 272 majority leaders roundtable, but, again, we talked about a lot of different things. So specifically, the records collection, what are the municipalities being asked to collect and ultimately provide to the state? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And this conversation in the roundtable, I think, had started as trying to figure out what deed restrictions look like in certain towns when they were running out, things like that. But what we have here is instructing municipalities to compile a record of all affordable housing applications rejected or conditionally approved every six months, just so DOH has a record of those. Through you.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 273
Through you, Mr. Speaker, what is the DOH going to do with that information?
Representative Felipe.
I'm not sure of anything that is readily being discussed, as DOH is going to be doing this information. I think it's just so it's available in case we need to use it in the future. Through you.
Representative Scott.
That frustrates me a little bit as someone that who -- you're going to put a burden on every municipality that goes Sn/ak 274 across every municipality. Obviously, if there's not a 130G application, like city of Bridgeport wouldn't have one because they already over 10%, so they wouldn't get one. But the ones that don't potentially have this, and they it's an extra burden they're going to have to provide. And without the purpose of what they're doing and what they're going to do with it, it just seems like an extra burden that isn't I just want to know, has the DOH opined on this and talked to either testimony, or spoke at the majority rep leaders roundtable on this topic, and any inclination of what they're trying to do, or why they need that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that the US has given any direct testimony to this. I do know that in speaking with them, either in side conversations around the round table or in committee, this is also just a way to make sure that we're Sn/ak 275 tracking how much affordable housing is being built in the state, not necessarily trying to use it for any purpose, but just to be able to look at how much housing is being built. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
And one of the things is also the name of the developer needs to be provided. There's some information. Is there going to be any personal data that's going to be provided with this? I know we're going to have a bill later where there might be -- you have to have an ID for landlords. I just want to know what kind of information specifically does need to be given, as part of this directive in this bill? Through
Representative Felipe. Sn/ak 276
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if I can go through every single piece of information that's given out here. What I will say and what I know to be a fact is that any information that is not publicly collected by your town is not being shared here. It is only information that is collected by the town and would be compiled in one place. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
Great. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that information, and that does put me at ease a little bit on that idea. I would love to know what the DOH is intending to do with information, not just to have it in their pocket, but know what they're doing with it, because if not, it's just an extra step for everybody. It's extra for them to collect it, but also the municipalities to provide it. Okay. But I appreciate the Sn/ak 277 explanation where we're at. Moving to Section 3, there's a pushback in dates. Through you, Mr. Speaker, can you explain why the pushback in dates of this effective date for zoning. Through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think in the conversation that we've had since November, especially since the original legislation, obviously, we had gone through with in the regular session, was about six months earlier. Just giving the opportunity for municipalities to catch their breath and figure out what they're doing when it comes to these sections. So we wanted to push it back a full year. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 278
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And then specifically, what is getting pushed back? So, it's going from June 1st, 2026, which would be in about a month from now, actually, exactly a month from now, to June 1st, 2027. What specifically -- there was a lot in 8002, and this is some requirement that came out of that. What specifically is being pushed back that municipalities now have an extra year to abide by or follow. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are all of the zoning changes that were included in 8002. So anything in 8002 that affects our zoning statute 8-2. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 279
Would that count as the parking? I know we have parking was a big debate topic on that bill. Is that considered a zoning change, that parking requirement that they can or can't ask for, as part of reason why they reject it? Is that like a zoning issue that could fall under this? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. Parking is included in 8-2.
Representative Scott.
Sn/ak 280 Okay. Thank you. So again, a good for the municipality is good for everybody to get like you said, catch their breath to understand it was only passed in November, giving them a little bit more time than just the seven or eight months, to hopefully try to digest the 8002, which is fairly large in encompassing to give them another year to try to address those drastic changes to the municipalities. We'll jump to Section 4 then. This is one of the ones that I've heard a lot about over the last couple days is this amendment had to hit the system, and people are looking at this. So I do want to take a little bit of time in diving into this little section here, Section 4. It's talking about middle housing a lot, but also talks about some zoning and developments within, some commercial areas. So online number 221 of this amendment or not, the bill that is being amended. The word and is used or is being bracketed out and is being put in. Can you please talk to me about what the changes with that specifically? There's two tasks that were to happen is supposed to be an or the misspelled to do one or the other. And now it's going to be -- can you talk to me through that? Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 281
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, when we did this originally, obviously, you have hundreds of pages of bills trying to figure out how to make everything work. The original intention was that a municipality could do both if they would like to, be it an end, but there was an or in the legislation. So, just keeping in the negotiations that were made, obviously, between May and November, and the things that we talked to people like Connecticut Converse Municipalities about, the end was something that we felt was necessary to reimplement because it was intended in the first place. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
Sn/ak 282 Okay. So it was intended in the first place, but it wasn't in the bill 8002. They came out of 5002. Darn. What is that? June all the way to November, which is about, in my calculation, five months. I know it's one word, but it's a big word. It's like the difference between shall, may, or an and. So I want to dive into this. So, this section here starts on line 217. It talks about how developments of transit community, middle housing, and mixed-use developments of two to nine units can be subject to some review. Through you, Mr. Speaker. What is some review mean?
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some review is basically an expedited zoning process. Through you.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 283
Yes. We've heard the word as of right around here. I might not be exact same meeting, but it's very similar to as of right, meaning there is necessarily no public hearing. There is no planning, and zoning doesn't really have a say over that means it can happen without going through a lot of the rigor of a normal development happens. So in this case, is it true through you, Mr. Speaker, that if there is someone who wants to develop a place on, let's say, Main Street, Connecticut, that has a development. It could be commercial on the bottom and, like, let's say, two to nine units above because that's what says two to nine dwelling units above. Someone could do that as of right. But, also, I'll say some review, and without really any public hearing or planning and zoning review on that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Sn/ak 284 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I answer the question, just to clarify the difference between as of right and summary review. As of right is exactly what the representative is saying. It can be built without any interference from zoning, period. Summary review is a little bit different. Summary review, you would be correct in saying that there is no public hearing. You still must apply to your zoning board. They still must discuss the changes and approve it. So summary review skips the public hearing process, making it a little bit more expedited. However, it must still go through your planning and zoning through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
Thank you. Is this for a commercially zoned property or residential zone properties or both? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 285
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is for commercial and mixed use, not for anything that is zoned for purely residential. Through you.
Representative Scott.
All right. So, again, in Main Street, Connecticut town, Monroe, Connecticut, someone could come in and do this. And again, I'm just trying to get back to his work and online 221. So zoning regulations shall allow for this. So now municipalities' mishaps shall, so that means they have to. Their zoning regulations have to allow for someone to come in and do a transit community middle housing development, Sn/ak 286 and mixed-use developments. Going back to 8002, my frustration is we had a long time, many conversations about that bill. And I do believe this word, and I've heard -- believe me, I've got a lot of text in the last 24 to 48 hours on this specific word, about how it does physically change the idea of what came out of 8002. It changes the intent of this one part of what's allowed and what's not allowed. And I think it's something that we all need to consider. I know I've had a conversation with another couple good representatives here that will have a couple more conversations on the specific word in this specific section because it is a change. This is not something that is a tech change is what sometimes we call. This is a formal change. Anything like a shall, may, those kind of word changes, and that's where I think we're at on this section. It does put a lot of burden onto these municipalities to allow these things through summary review. And while there are certain things that are allowed to not necessarily allow these things to happen, safety, environment, there's public health, there's our real rules that will Sn/ak 287 potentially allow municipalities to reject these developments to come in. But summary review does allow it to be streamlined, and these regulations for these municipalities must now be consistent with this section and allow it to happen as summary view, something we really need to look at and understand that was not original intent of 8002. And now we are changing that after the fact. So, again, I just want to make it clear on the record. This is something that's being changed and something we need to address and understand that that's part of what's in this bill today and not part of the majority leaders' roundtable in any way, shape, or form. This is a fix to 8002. And when I would say a fix, and that word is used lightly around here about changing a bill to maybe help it, this is not necessarily changing a bill to help it. It is changing it to me a different meaning, a purely different meaning of what is happening. Through you, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple other sections within or a couple other paragraphs within Section 4 about clarifying things with middle housing. Is there anything else Sn/ak 288 specifically defining middle housing or anything else within this section? We're talking section four only about what middle housing and what these municipalities are need to be required to do besides that one topic that we just were addressing here before, in this section, Section 4. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The only other thing that this section does is just as the previous section does, it pushes back implementation from July 2026 to July 2027 to give town some breathing room and give me the ability to implement some of these changes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 289
Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Let's jump to sections five and six. We'll go to the council plan. We'll start on line 247 on that. Through you, Mr. Speaker. This talks about the Council on Housing Development. Can the good proponent talk about this specific section? What the Council on Housing Development is going to be doing or being taxed with or what changes specifically happening here, in this bill?
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This section specifically ensures that folks can be at ease that OPM is not making the final decision. The council is making the decision, and only the council can deny an affordable housing growth plan if it does not comply with the statute, and not for any other reason. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 290
Representative Scott.
And this was in 8002, Mr. Speaker. This section, previously, Mr. Speaker was on 8002.
Representative Felipe.
That is correct. The section was an 8002. We're only clarifying that there are no other reasons outside of the statue we provided in 8002 in which the council can deny an application. Through you.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 291
And can we remind -- because, again, 8002 was back in November. Can you remind the chamber what changes or what rights do this council have to reject a certain plan, if it was presented to them? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you. They can fully deny a plan, which denying a plan means that you wouldn't be eligible for housing growth funding if you were to violate the statute, but in no other way. And I also just to be clear on the floor, I want to thank my good colleagues to my right for making the suggestion, that we clarify this language. Through you.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 292
Thank you. Yes. Exactly. This was something that was been discussed, as this council that we built, that's new, or was new at the time when 8002 passed, and having them make sure they can make those changes. So just want to be very clear on that piece. Let's go ahead and jump to Section 7. We're moving some language here in Section 7. Sorry. Let me get to this section here. We're moving some language from around the DOH and some of the information they're potentially getting. Can the good proponent talk about what specifically is changing and what specifically the DOH is maybe not going to be responsible for anymore? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're actually making DOH more responsible for certain things here. There is a statute that was put in place a few years ago called Affirmatively Furthering Sn/ak 293 Fair Housing, and it made sure that certain departments had to give out information based on the agency's programs. What this would do is remove language that exempts DOAs from reporting requirements related to household demographics for their agency services. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And what specific demographics are we looking to get? Are we getting looking at age, race, sex, or what information are they trying to pull out of that information? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Sn/ak 294 Thank you. And if you just give me a second to ensure that I have the right lines in front of me. It analyzes income group, households served by housing construction, substantial rehabilitation, purchase, and rental assistance programs. Each report should analyze the household serves by race. Yes. I think income groups and race are the two things that I see here. Through you.
Representative Scott.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, another good thing I think that's in this bill in terms of making sure we're gathering this data. All data is good when we have it, then we just got to use it the right way and understand and learn from it. So the more data we can collect, it should be better for, our learnings and hopefully building it as we continue on in the future. Going to Section 8 in this bill, we're talking now line 326 of this amendment. Sn/ak 295 The municipal housing growth plan is a new plan that was established in 8002, that is now taking the lead. It also, in some ways, sometimes conflicts with some other pieces of housing growth or other things that are happening through the different municipalities and potentially what they're locally doing in their own municipalities and their own rules. Through you, Mr. Speaker, what does this section really do in terms of clarifying what the municipal housing growth plan does and what the new requirements for municipalities are? If there's any through this? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to do this one and also skip ahead because this is municipal growth plans, and the next section is regional growth plans. What happens in both of these is that it's clarifying that those plans include policies adopted to reduce barriers to all types of housing growth. But what it also ensures is that a municipality has the option. Sn/ak 296 We are not mandating municipalities do this, but a municipality has a locally approved or required plans that they think restricts housing growth. They can ignore those plans in favor of their housing growth plan, but the municipality makes that decision themselves. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
Appreciate it. Thank you very much. And then even skipping down to the POCD, which is then Section 10. Again, we have more conflicts. Where does this housing growth -- when you look at the housing growth plan, and then you look at what currently the POCD does in the state of Connecticut, and it's a mandate for towns to do that, I believe, every five years. Where do you see them coexisting, and where do they combat each other now? And what are we trying to do to correct that? Through you, Mr. Speaker?
Sn/ak 297 Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I'll be honest. I have a hard time thinking of where a plan of conservation development might conflict with the housing growth plan. But in the case that they do that, what we wanted to ensure is that once again, municipalities have the option to let their housing growth plan supersede, as long as it is through their municipal planning commission. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
So then, through you, Mr. Speaker, will there still be a requirement to have the POCD if they're allowing the housing growth plan to supersede it through you? Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 298 Representative Felipe.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. The only thing that supersedes the POCD at this point would be that statute. Through you.
Representative Scott.
Okay. I just want to clarify this piece. Is there a requirement for the municipality submit a POCD? I think it's every five years, might be ten years. Is there a requirement for that currently? Through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Felipe.
Sn/ak 299 Three, Mr. Speaker. That is correct. And it is every ten years. Through you.
Representative Scott.
Thank you for that. If the municipality chooses to say the housing growth plan supersedes that, then that is not a requirement anymore for that specific municipality. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is not quite correct. Municipalities must have both plans. However, in the case that they conflict, the housing growth plan is allowed to supersede the POCD, but they must both be adopted. Through you. Sn/ak 300
Representative Scott.
Okay. So adding another plan in which we knew about before back in November when this passed through and that things that came out of the POCD that people take every 10 years and take this huge document and spend a lot of time on tends to then -- can be put to the side and whatever comes out of the housing growth plan could be the one that actually leads the path and leads the momentum on understanding what that specific municipality wants to do and how they want to proceed with their municipality on the housing growth plan. Okay. It just seems counterintuitive to have a requirement for something that basically we are acknowledging that this other plan is more important of it. It could be. And then we are going to now still make you go do this plan as a law. It's got something you have to do every 10 years. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is there a plan to eliminate the POCD in the Sn/ak 301 requirements for municipalities on the horizon? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you. I don't know if there's such a plan in place. I would say that because housing growth plans are every five years and POCs are every ten years, this is a good opportunity to not have to wait five years to make certain changes. However, maybe if we wanted to make them concurrent or eliminate one, that's a conversation we can have in future sessions. Through you.
Representative Scott.
Sn/ak 302 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We talked about the parking piece already before. Section 11 does go into the fix. There was some quirky terminology that we use in, I believe, 8002 that left a gap in terms of parking issue and the change that we have. Can you talk to us a little bit about Section 11 and how that parking piece has changed? Through you, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And what this section does basically is when we did the bill originally, it said fewer than 16 parking units. What we're doing now is 16 or fewer because that one number in between, that 16, was not included. So now we're just including it. Through you.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 303
Thank you. A piece of the bill that we did not like, a lot of people did not like that voted against it. But, yes, this is truly just a fix of that. So not a massive change. This is closing a gap. And again, I would truly call this a fix to that piece. Well, again, a section I'm not a very big fan of. It is only a fix in this scenario here that we're looking at today. Let's jump to Section 12. It's called cottage cluster middle housing. Can you talk to me through you, Mr. Speaker? The definition changed, and now we're calling for cottage cluster and middle housing.
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just read the definition. We just wanted to add cottage clusters to the middle housing definition already put in the transit-oriented communities, Sn/ak 304 because it was meant to be there in the first place. And it's a cottage cluster as defined in Section 8-1A, containing not less than four dwelling units, but not more than nine dwelling units. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Scott.
Thank you. Again, just a definition change. Again, not an issue here. It's something that is totally fine. It's something we should move on with fairly quickly on. Section 13, religious property, that's going to happen with the TODs. Through you, Mr. Speaker, you talk about the language change that happens specifically around these religious properties, on the TODs, so that we can clarify what the changes specifically in this bill.
Representative Felipe? Sn/ak 305
Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, this just amends the language regarding developments that are permitted on land owned by religious organizations to now include that at least one third of those are derestricted units at 80% area median income. Through you.
Representative Scott.
And then, through you, Mr. Speaker, what was it originally? So it's now one third, 80%. What was it previously that now is making that change?
Mr. Chairman?
Sn/ak 306 Originally, I think it was 100% and 60%.
Representative Scott?
So it was a 100% at 60%. So a 100% of those units need to be at 60% AMI. Now third of those only need to be 80% AMI. What about the other 67%? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
They could be market rate. They could be lower. Through you.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 307
Thank you. Okay. I just want to make sure it's clear that the rest wasn't still at the other 60%. That's how I just want to make clarity on that. Section 14, majority leaders roundtable disbandment. We're talking about ending the majority leaders roundtable. Sorry, Mr. Majority Leader. But it looks like June 30th, 2026. Is that correct? Through you,
Representative Felipe?
Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. And before I pass it on, I just want to say thank you very much to our good majority leader for all the work we've done over the past couple of years. A task force we passed a couple of days ago will probably be the next step in that. Through you.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 308
So we'll be all meeting again. It'll be a fun little group together to get. It was called a different name. That's all. Two more sections here, really quick, Mr. Speaker. We have a round table appointments. Can we talk about the housing development appointments and how this little tweak has been made now on the appointments here. Through you.
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 8002, we had the council on housing development, and those chairs were chosen by the chairs of the majority leaders roundtable. Now that it's being disbanded, those appointments will now go to the speaker and the
Thank you. Representative Scott. Sn/ak 309
Thank you. And one more question here on Section 16 here. The stormwater and waste management topic. Can you walk in? This is not our area. This is not our area of expertise in the housing committee, but this is in the bill. Can you please explain the change here that we are talking about with stormwater and stuff like that in this specific section?
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were funds that were awarded to cogs and in the language did not clarify whether you could use it for both stormwater and waste management. We're making sure that you can use it for both now. Through you.
Representative Scott. Sn/ak 310
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that takes us through the bill for the most part here. I want to relate the changes. Again, 90% of these changes are stuff that we worked on together, got through, had multiple conversations with many different people on the majority leaders roundtable, and very supportive of. The one section in Section 4, I do have a little problem with the wording. I don't love the word changing or to, and I think it's an added requirement for that. I think we're going to have some other people here. It's going to talk about that specific section on that. But overall, I am supportive of the bill. I'm supportive of the changes, and I appreciate the work that the majority leader has done. I look forward to the next whatever roundtable we have. That'll be a part of the going to help
Thank you, Representative Scott. Representative O'Day of the 25th from New Canaan, you have the floor, sir. Sn/ak 311
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I do appreciate the good responses. I was listening intently. I do have a couple questions on section four, just to drill down.
Mr. Chairman, please ready yourself, sir. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The intent of this legislation in 8002, that we passed initially, when it was an or. Specifically, I know that good ranking of housing went through this change of an or to the and. There is still a choice, though, that can be made as to whether or not we're going to be using the mixed-use or the two to nine dwelling units. Correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Mister chairman? Sn/ak 312
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Let me try to make this fun real quick. Just think about having a bag of Skittles. And I say, hey. In a bag of Skittles, you can have red, or you can have purple, or you can have orange. Doesn't require you to eat them all at the same time. Same thing with your municipalities. You can have one or the other. You do not need to adopt all three at the same time. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't much like Skittles personally, but appreciate the example. Representative O'Dea.
I agree with the speaker. I'm not a Skittles guy. Alright. And what was the reason why the or needed to be changed to an and if the good chair knows the reason for the change?
Mr. Chairman. Sn/ak 313
Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, just to give municipalities the option, if they wanted to have all three, they could, but you are not required to have all three. Through you.
Representative O'Dea.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I don't have any further questions for the good housing chair. I did have a good conversation with a good majority leader. He gave me a hearing on my right of first refusal bill that had a few testimonies in opposition, and that's the understatement of the session. But I am appreciative of our conversations on trying to work forward on that legislation because I do believe that is a fix that we could do going forward. I don't think I have the votes here in the chamber to do it on this bill to fix 8002, but I am looking forward to if the good residents of the 125th do Sn/ak 314 reelect me to work with the good majority leader and the good chair of housing to get a right of first refusal option that is amenable to both those that had opposed it this year and those in support of it so that we actually do get more affordable housing. Because, Mr. Speaker, I will say, 8-30g has not worked in New Canaan, in particular, or Darien, because what ultimately happens in the good ranking our chair and good majority leader through his working group found out what was happening was these builders were proposing affordable housing, and then it was getting negotiated out. So there was actually none. And there's been no affordable housing built privately in New Canaan for decades, because of that problem with 8-30g, but the right of first refusal, my legislation that I proposed in the good chair and majority leader helped get a hearing on, would guarantee more building of affordable housing, in our respective communities, particularly in Lower Fife County. I look forward to working with the leaders on the other side of the aisle to get that going next year. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 315
Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Representative Allie- Brennan of the second from Bethel.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not to belabor the good chair, but I just have a few questions about the bill.
Please ready yourself, Mr. Chairman. He seems ready.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, under this change in Section 4, would municipalities still have the authority to require ground-floor commercial or retail space as part of developments in commercially zoned areas?
Representative Felipe. Sn/ak 316
Madam Speaker, through you. Yes.
Representative Allie-Brennan.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, through you, could this change create a situation where developers argue they cannot be required to include commercial space because the statute now reads and instead of or. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Sn/ak 317 Through you, Madam Speaker, that is not my interpretation of the bill in front of us.
Representative Allie-Brennan.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I appreciate the work that's gone into this bill. However, I do have concerns with the section Bethel. We're already using the law as it currently stands to balance housing while preserving our main streets. And I just have a concern that this changing will create ambiguity and open the door to interpretations and weaken the town's ability to require mixed use. And I just wanted to express that, to the good chair, and I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark the bill as amended? Representative Courpas of the 149th district. You have a floor. Sn/ak 318
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to belabor that one word in the bill that everyone's been talking about. And thank you for explaining it by way of example to the good chair. So, before in 8002, a town could elect to either allow housing or mixed-use residential development on their main streets. And now in the new bill, it says a town shall allow housing and mixed-use developments on its main streets. So what the good chair was saying is that does not mean that a town is required to allow both of those things? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
That is my understanding. They're not required to do both of those, but they can. Through you.
Representative Courpas. Sn/ak 319
So if there is a developer looking at a parcel of land that is in or on a main street, that developer does not have the option to tell the town, I am putting housing here in your retail area. If the town has elected only to have mixed use in that retail area? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
That's the way I understand it. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Courpas.
Okay. Because the worry here is that -- it's been stated before. I think that the worry has been well articulated, but I Sn/ak 320 still read it the way that opens the door for it to move from the town's discretion to the developer's discretion. The only other section I had a question on was the section that talks about the plan of conservation and development. So that is in, I believe, lines 343 to 348 of the bill. So my understanding is that the plans of conservation and development of the towns include a significant amount of public input. Public hearings are required. The views of stakeholders are taken into account. Is that a correct understanding? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
That is correct. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Courpas. Sn/ak 321
Thank you. By contrast, the municipal growth plan of each town is something which does not require that kind of public input. Is that right? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
That is correct, Madam Speaker. But I would note that here, it only allows your municipal planning commission to then allow these plan to supersede the other one. It's not that it supersedes it automatically. It's if your municipal planning commission decides it does. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Courpas.
Sn/ak 322 Okay. So it is left to the discretion of the towns, but if a town so chose, they could -- can't imagine they would, but a town could completely disregard the plan of conservation development, which may incorporate environmental concerns that the municipal housing growth plan does not include, and just go with development and disregard conservation. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Madam Speaker, it is only if those parts of the plan of conservation and development conflict with the housing growth plan. If there's no conflict, then you would still have to follow the rest of the POCD. Through you.
Representative Courpas. Sn/ak 323
Thank you. It's my recollection from the bill we passed in November, that was passed in November that a town had a choice to go it alone through a municipal growth plan or to work through the cogs and develop a plan that way. Is my recollection correct? Through you, Madam Speaker?
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you. Yes. That is correct. That is a Section 9 and 10 are both mirrored sections. One deals with municipal growth plans and the other deals with regional growth plans, which are both still included. Through you.
Representative Courpas. Sn/ak 324
Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. That was helpful. So if it's happening at the cog level, that is, if a municipality has gone through the cogs to be part of a regional housing growth plan, how does that work, and how does the relationship between that plan and the local plan of conservation development work? Through you, Madam Speaker?
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And it's my understanding that the municipalities that are included in that regional plan must consent municipally to superseding the POCD. Otherwise, it would still be intact. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Courpas. Sn/ak 325
Okay. So if, say, there are 10 municipalities left in the COG, say it's West COG, which has nineteen and nine have dropped out, and there are 10 left. So the 10 remaining decide to go forward with a regional plan of housing growth. If a few of those decide to override their plan of conservation development and others don't, what happens? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And for POCD specifically, the way I see it is that those four towns would be able to override, while the other six would not. But this up to you simply because it's your municipal plan. Through you. Madam Speaker.
Representative Courpas. Sn/ak 326
I think that concludes my questions. I have reservations about the bill because I view the and/or question that we've discussed here today was clear in 8002. And while through this dialogue, it has been said that that hasn't changed. The word has changed. And so, I need to think about and listen to the debate further. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and to the good chair.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before on the bill as amended? Representative Weir of the 55th District? Okay. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Dubitsky of the 47th District. You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. A few questions for the proponent, if I may. Sn/ak 327
Please proceed.
Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, what is an affordable housing unit?
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. It depends on the statute that you're referring to. There are many different statutes that have different definitions of affordable housing. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Sn/ak 328 Thank you, Madam Speaker. So in this bill, there are multiple definitions for the same defined term. Is that correct? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
If I understand the good representative's questions, Madam Chair, yes. In different sections, there are different definitions that are laid out for affordable housing in the underlying Public Act that we are trying to amend. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, why are there multiple definitions for the same defined term? Through you. Sn/ak 329
Representative Felipe.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I don't mean to be repeating answers, but because there are many statutes we refer to that have different definitions of affordable housing depending on what statute we took it from. We took that section from, and we applied it to be it a dash two or others. We use their definition of affordable housing. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand why there are multiple definitions in this bill because it's referring to multiple definitions in the statutes. But why are there multiple definitions of affordable housing unit in the statutes? Through you. Sn/ak 330
Representative Felipe.
Madam Speaker, I don't know if I have a clear answer. I obviously wasn't here for all these statutes. Some of these are over 40, 50 years old. It's just how it went over the last couple of decades, and we're trying to make sense of it all. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is it fair to say that under the definitions that are referred to in this bill, there's a commonality of definition in the statutes to which it refers, which is that affordable housing unit is a housing unit that is deed-restricted that must be either sold or rented to a low- income person or family? Through you. Sn/ak 331
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That is correct, but I would add to deed-restricted subsidized by public entities, be it state or municipality. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologize. So it's a publicly subsidized low-income deed-restricted unit. Is that correct? Through you.
Representative Felipe. Sn/ak 332
Madam chair, just to clarify, publicly subsidized or deed- restricted. Through you.
Representative Dubinsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, the definition of affordable housing unit, strike that, the low-income people who live in these units, it seems to indicate that it's either a low-income person or a low-income family. Do I have that right? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
That is correct. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 333
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So let's say a low-income family lives in a deed-restricted low-income subsidized housing unit, and one of the family members gets a better job, and is no longer low-income, does the family get evicted? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
No. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Sn/ak 334 Thank you, Madam Speaker. So what if all of the family members get better jobs and they are all no longer low income? Do they get evicted? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Madam Speaker, no. They do not get evicted, but because that unit would actually become -- will be no longer referred to as affordable, the next unit that that housing provider puts on the market that must be affordable. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So a unit that rents for, let's say, $500 a month, and it's got a family in it that is low Sn/ak 335 income, and it is deed-restricted, and it is considered an affordable unit because it is a low-income, deed-restricted, subsidized housing unit, and the family starts making more money, it's still deed-restricted, It's still subsidized, but it's no longer an affordable unit? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Usually, you'll have a situation where the unit itself is not really what's deed-restricted. It's the percentage of the building that's deed-restricted, which is why they would have to make the next available unit in that building affordable, because they would have to keep that percentage. But the unit itself is what's deed-restricted is the percentage of those units. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky. Sn/ak 336
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So that assumes that unit is within a development of a multi-unit development. Aren't some of these affordable units, these low-income housing units, stand- alone houses? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
That is correct. Those families would not be evicted. Those units would still continue to be deed-restricted. I assume that they would also still be counted towards your moratorium, but I was more referring to multifamily. I think you might be correct on single-family. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Sn/ak 337 Thank you, Madam Speaker. So we've got a family living in a house, a single-family house, deed-restricted for low-income people, subsidized by the taxpayers of this state, they get better jobs. They're no longer low-income. They are now living in deed-restricted, low-income subsidized by your tax dollars, and they're no longer low-income. Am I missing something? That doesn't sound like a reasonable scenario to me. Is that, in fact, a possibility under this bill? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Madam Speaker, none of that is contemplated in this bill. That is already how it would currently happen, but I would just decouple saying deed-restricted and publicly subsidized. If you have a publicly subsidized unit, that unit in turn would be usually under your housing authority, and they would move those families who are making more money onto different housing accommodations after that. Publicly subsidized Sn/ak 338 housing does not keep people who are at these higher incomes indefinitely. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
So if there's a housing authority that owns the building and the family starts making more money, the housing authority will evict them. Is that right? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
That is unchanged in the bill. I don't think they necessarily evict them, but they help them work on securing other housing that is not within the housing authority's jurisdiction. Through you. Sn/ak 339
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sounds like an eviction to me. Through you, Madam Speaker, why does Connecticut need more low- income housing? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
It's a fairly broad question. I would answer because we have a housing shortage in the state of Connecticut. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky. Sn/ak 340
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Under what statistics and what research shows that there is a housing shortage in Connecticut? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
I can give you one off the top of my head. We are one of the lowest states in building permits per capita in the last 15 to 25 years? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Sn/ak 341 Thank you, Madam Speaker. The lowest building permits per capita, how does that establish that there's a housing shortage? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Madam Speaker, because we continue to have the same population. We've had the increase in number of homeless families over the last few years. There might be units that are vacant, but those units are not readily available for people to rent, and we have not built. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Through you, Madam Speaker, how many new low-income housing units do we need in Connecticut? Sn/ak 342
Representative Felipe.
That is not contemplated in this bill, but the reason that we are collecting 8-30g records is so we can eventually have that on a DOA database, and I'd be able to get that to you a little bit more easily. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The good proponent indicated that the population has remained steady. Is the good proponent aware that from 2021 to 2022, the state lost 13,500 residents? Through you.
Sn/ak 343 Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm aware. I'm not sure what percentage that is. That might be somewhere, south of 5%. That's stagnant to me. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And is the good proponent aware that, between 2024 and 2025, the state lost another 6,000 residents? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
Sn/ak 344 Madam Speaker, don't want to continue debating things that are not contemplated in the bill. However, I am aware of that. Still doesn't get that number up anywhere north of 5%. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I guess my point is the state is losing population. It's losing by pretty good clip. By the statistics I've seen, somewhere between six and 14000 people are leaving this state every year. Yet we're building like we are attracting people in droves. We're not. We're chasing them away. It doesn't make any sense that we need all these low-income housing units all over the state when we're losing population. Through you, Madam Speaker, in the calculation of determining whether we need additional low-income housing units, are illegal aliens calculated into the mix? Through you. Sn/ak 345
Representative Felipe.
That is not contemplating this bill. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
That is correct. That's not contemplated in the bill. That's why I'm asking if it were in the bill I could read it. So I'm asking, are they calculated into the need for more low- income housing? Through you.
Representative Felipe. Sn/ak 346
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And the underlying statute that we are speaking of, that is also not contemplated. Therefore, I think the answer would be no, but I refuse to engage further. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, have there been any studies done to determine the financial burden to the towns of each low-income housing unit? Through you.
Representative Felipe.
Sn/ak 347 Through you, Madam Speaker. I'm sure there have been. I don't have any of them in front of me, but yes. Through you.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the good proponent happen to have any range of what the burden is from each low-income housing unit on a given town? Through you?
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Madam Speaker, I would reflect back on Section 2. This is why we're collecting 8-30g records to see how many low-income housing units are in each municipality. But, obviously, as has been contemplated whenever we discuss these Sn/ak 348 bills, each municipality is different. Therefore, the impact is different. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And the good proponent indicates that each town is different. So, towns that have no sewer, no water, no police, no social services, the impact on those towns would be significantly more than fully developed towns that have all those facilities and services. Wouldn't there? Through you?
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Madam Speaker, depending on the rate of building, that would most likely be correct. Sn/ak 349
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm at a loss as to really why these low-income housing units are being forced into every nook and cranny of this state. The beauty of our state, which is different from every other state in the nation, is that we have town representation. We don't have county government. Virtually every other state in the nation has county government where you have multiple towns in a county, and you have a county-level government that runs that county, and then there's the state above it. We don't have that. We have individual municipalities that control what goes on within their borders. And that makes our state so unique and so diverse and so beautiful. And what this push to cram more and more deed- restricted low-income housing into every corner of this state what it's doing is it is going to ruin that diversity. It's going to make everything look the same. Sn/ak 350 It puts an incredible burden on those small towns, those wonderful small farming towns that everybody likes to look at in the postcards and drive through and stop and look at the animals on the side of the road when they look at the cows in the bucolic fields. They're going away. This bill and the underlying statute that this bill sits on top of are literally destroying this state. And without any reason, without any reason at all, there are certainly places where intense low-income development is appropriate. But it's not in every single one of our 169 very, very different towns. I remember when this low-income housing, this so-called affordable housing push started. It was about, I don't know, five, six, seven years ago. We had all of the mayors of the big cities come out and testify on the original bill. And they all started out their testimonies saying how great it was. This low- income housing was going to create incredible job opportunities for everybody. Was going to generate economic development and make all these towns and cities wealthy. And I remember being baffled and questioning them on it. And then every single one of them Sn/ak 351 eventually admitted. These developments are an incredible burden on the municipalities. Financial burden, social burden, they tax the police, they tax the social services, they tax the schools, they drive up the mill rate, and they didn't want them in their cities anymore. They want to push them out into the suburbs. And I guess they convinced more than half of the people in this chamber and upstairs, that that's what this state was going to do. We are going down a very slippery slope in my view. This is one of the things that I really think is going to destroy the character of this state. We're no longer going to have the diverse, unique municipalities that we've had in the We're going to have town after town with these monstrosities of low-income housing developments. And what does it do? You force housing units to be rented at below market value. All right. Well, either they're subsidized by the taxpayers, or a developer artificially reduces the price. Well, what does that do? That artificially inflates the price of every other unit. So if you've got a housing development, let's say you've got 100 units and a third of them Sn/ak 352 are low income, and a third of them have artificially low rents, well, then the other two-thirds are going to have artificially high rents to make up for it. That drives up the rent and the cost of living throughout the entire state. We're not helping anybody. We're making this state more and more unaffordable. And we are destroying what's left of our small towns. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark the bill as amended? Representative Ackert of the 8th District, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, a couple questions to the proponent of the bill as amended.
Please proceed. Sn/ak 353
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just for clarity, right now, we have in our town a regulation per se. I'm just looking at section four again, and I just see that. I believe I read that section, maybe as the good chair, is understanding it as well, that it is an option. You can do a multifamily building in those areas, as specified by the amount of units. But also, you have the option, right, to do maybe commercial first level and apartment second floor. Is that the way the intention of that section reads. Through you, Madam Speaker?
Representative Felipe.
Through you, Madam Speaker. Yes. That is correct. And just for the record, as we have this conversation, and you read that section, let it not be lost that we read it similarly to the way that you do. But that's the reason we have these debates, and we Sn/ak 354 make sure that we clarify legislative intent, and legislative intent is just that. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the sections, I'm not sure if we fall under a transit community middle housing area, but give you an example. We just had a shop close-up on Main Street. A small shop, nail salon, actually closed up. And the owner went to the town and said, oh, I would like to make that an apartment. And they said, our regulations don't allow that. So they want to have that commercial space to have it be a downtown rather than it just be a housing area. Through you, Madam Speaker, does any of this regulation then, this document, would that say to my community, that no longer is allowed that you can oppose an apartment from moving on the lower level. And I think we call it village, zoned. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 355
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. They have to allow it to be mixed-use. So in this case, it would most likely be 1st Floor commercial, 2nd Floor apartment, not first floor apartment. Through you.
Representative Ackert.
And that is exactly what we've done just to help those building owners in our community, to be able to rent the 2nd Floor. We weren't allowed. It was a commercial space. They said, hey, in the village zone to help out, for two things, housing, but also the ability to renting out 2nd Floor commercial space is not that -- market's just not there, so in an older building. So they said, hey, you are allowed to make that into apartments, Sn/ak 356 but the 1st Floor has to stay, commercial. So this doesn't sound like that affects the existing zoning that we have. Through you. Right. And that's correct. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Felipe.
That is correct. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you. If perchance they opened up a lot and a new developer came in and said, hey, I want to do a housing unit there. Even though the village zone doesn't allow it, would this speak to them, saying, well, you probably can do all housing in, say, a 14-unit fill facility, or can they still maintain their village zoning? Through you, Madam Speaker? Sn/ak 357
Representative Felipe.
They'd be able to maintain. Through you.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you. That was the only pause I had in that section of -- if our local and then, again, we're very rural, so it's not like we have a lot of transit anyways in our community. If the good gentleman, the good chair of housing, I did see a lot of opposition for multiple reasons in testimony. Mostly, looks like from some developers that were actually concerned that we were walking back on 8-30g. Were there concerns resolved with this amendment, or is there still concerns that they want to have maintained? The developers want Sn/ak 358 to -- they want to do this work. So, through you, Madam Speaker, were those concerns taken care of in the document that I have in front
Representative Felipe.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Those concerns were generally resolved here, and some sections were also taken out of the original legislation. Through you.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the good gentleman for his answers, and thank you for the time.
Sn/ak 359 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chair. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? Already locked it the clerk will take the tally, and the clerk will announce the tally. Sn/ak 360
House Bill 5562, as amended by House A: Total number voting 147 Necessary for passage 74 Those voting Yea 89 Those voting Nay 58 Absent not voting 4
The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Stand at ease. The chamber will come back. Will the clerk please call calendar number 433?
On page 33, Calendar 433, substitute for House Bill Number 5447, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TRANSFORMING CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE AND Sn/ak 361 CONCERNING TEMPORARY FAMILY ASSISTANCE BENEFITS. Favorable report of Appropriations.
Representative Exum, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and the passage of the bill. Representative Exum, you have the floor.
Madam Speaker, the clerk has an amendment, LCO 5638. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize. Sn/ak 362
Will the Clerk please call LCO 5638, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A?
House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 5638, offered by Representative Walker, Senator Osten, Representative Exum.
The Representative seeks leave of chamber to summarize the amendment. Are there objections to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none. Representative Exum, you may proceed with summarization.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today is the beginning of Mental Health Month, which is why so many of us have on the color green. And this is also a bit of a full-circle moment in that we committed as a chamber in 2022 to House Bill 5001, which was for Sn/ak 363 children's behavioral health. And that was our top priority at that time, and we've continued to build on that work. This bill seeks to look at eating disorders and disordered eating, and it also looks at providing psychiatric facilities for children with intellectual disabilities, and also surveys around eating disorders at school-based health centers. I move adoption.
The question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Nuccio of the 53rd, you have the floor, please.
Madam Speaker, I move to accept the amendment, and then I will talk on the underlying bill, please.
Sn/ak 364 If not, is there objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Nuccio, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And before I actually start commenting on the bill, I would be remiss to not recognize that this is probably the last bill Representative Exum is going to take out. And having been her very close partner on 5001 all those years ago, I just would like to say how much I have Sn/ak 365 enjoyed working with her to try to improve the mental health of our children in the state. It has been an honor to work on the TCB and to work with her to continue to try to make things better for our kids. So, in regard to this amendment here, I just wanted to go over the couple sections of the bill, if that is okay, ma'am. Through you.
Please proceed.
Thank you so much. So in the first section of this bill, we're actually creating a work group. Let's see. For the treatment of eating disorders. The majority of this bill is all regarding eating disorders, and this is an exit with the Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, and Equity and Opportunity. I was wondering if the good proponent could just give us a high-level of what we're going to be doing, in Section 1, ma'am. Through you. Sn/ak 366
Representative Exum.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So section one really seeks to ensure that export -- we will be establishing working groups for disordered eating, and it would ensure that experts are convened to create the guidance and materials needed to progress on combating eating disorders and promoting access to adequate food and nutrition education. Through you, Madam Chair.
Representative Nuccio.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. In Section 2, I really like this part because here we're actually saying the committee shall have to annually review the progress of the working groups concerning eating disorders in food education and nutrition. All too often, we put a lot of working groups in here. I'm not going to go back Sn/ak 367 to one of my predecessors who counted all of them, but if I did, I'm pretty sure it would be a pretty high number. So the fact that we have language in here that's saying that it has to annually review what these working groups are doing, I think, is very positive and is something that we should probably do with even more working groups. And then in the third section, the commissioner of social services is working with commissioner in Children and Family Developmental Services and Mental Health Addiction, and the behavioral health advocate to study the feasibility of an inpatient facility. I believe we have a severe shortage of beds, inpatient beds for children who are requiring psychiatric treatment and services. So I would like to give the good proponent an opportunity to speak on that if that's okay for you, ma'am.
Representative Exum.
Sn/ak 368 Thank you, Madam Chair. In Connecticut, children with intellectual and developmental disabilities with co-occurring behavioral health needs are often denied service, due to current services not being available or not having the proper facilities and resources that would meet their needs. And we want to see the feasibility of establishing facilities and services in order to address that particular population. Through you, Madam Chair.
Representative Nuccio.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And then the last section here is important because we have a lot of children, and a lot of -- especially the cities and the bigger towns that have school- based health centers. And this is going to be requiring evidence-based screening tools for identifying disordered eating behaviors, early. And I think that is really important because this is something that we're seeing a lot in our youth. And having these Sn/ak 369 screening tools and having them being evidence-based, I think, is going to help us identify a lot of children earlier than we normally are if they have disordered eating behaviors. So I stand in strong support of the underlying bill, the amendment here. And I hope we see green across the board. Last thing for Representative Exum, good bill ought to pass.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the Members please take care of seats? The machine will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members of the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber.
Sn/ak 370 Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted? Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the clerk will take a tally. And the clerk, please announce the tally.
H.B. 5447, as amended by House "A": Total number voting 144 Necessary for passage 73 Those voting Yea 144 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 7
The bill as amended passes. (gavel) And the Chamber will stand at ease. The Chamber will come back. Will the clerk please call Calendar No. 459? Sn/ak 371
On Page 36, S.B. No. 156, as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 3650, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF INFANTS. Favorable Report, Committee on Children.
Representative McGee, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill, in concurrence with the Senate.
The question before the Chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report, the passage of the bill as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 3650. Representative McGee, you have the floor. Sn/ak 372
Madam Speaker, this bill is to establish a task force to study the policy and procedures of voluntary surrender of infants to identify areas in need of improvement. The clerk has an amendment, LCO 3650. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of Chamber to summarize. Madam Speaker, the amendment strikes line 34 for a technical change. And after line 34, we wanted to be more inclusive of this group, of this task force. And so we added in the Chief Public Defender and the Chief Public Defender's Designee. And line 35 is also a technical change. I move adoption.
We'll stand at ease. The Chamber will come back to order. Representative McGee, you may comment on the amendment.
Madam Speaker, this year marks the 26th anniversary of the safe haven voluntary surrendering of infants. And 48 hours ago, Sn/ak 373 a baby was surrendered to Yale New Haven Hospital. So I really truly believe that right now, more than ever, it is important to look into more equitable solutions for the voluntary surrendering of infants. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Dauphinais of the 44th District.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I accept the amendment, and I will like to speak on the underlying bill. Or this is now the underlying bill? Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I fully support this bill. And as the good Representative described, we have safe haven laws right now, and the goal is to save newborn children that women are either distressed and can't take care of them. There's a variety of reasons why women might want to have this as an option. We've also looked at other options like the baby box bill, which is kind of a weird title, but it was Sn/ak 374 another opportunity for women to be able to surrender their babies. And so it's the hope that this bill and this study will look at all opportunities and make them all offer optional for women in the state. And I fully support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Will your remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Ackert of the 8th District, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the good proponent of the bill for bringing this task force out because one of the things that we had at the press conference that the good proponent had brought forth. And the stories that were told that there was 59 infants that were saved for the good work of this policy. Through you, Madam Speaker, she heard my comments, I believe, at the press conference. In here, Madam Speaker, is there ability to promote and establish a way that more people Sn/ak 375 can hear about it in some way, through you, Madam Speaker? I don't see that in the language, but would that be part of the consideration?
Representative McGee.
Through you, Madam Speaker. Can you please repeat the question?
Absolutely.
Representative Ackert, please repeat the question.
Sn/ak 376 Thank you. We do a lot of good work here. We do. Not always. Not always. But we sometimes do some good work here. And we've done good work regarding the program, the Safe Haven Program that allowed for that mom that was not in a position to care for that child, and they decided to bring it to a place to have somebody that could actually raise that child and take care of it. But I don't think we promote that good work that we've done in here enough. And so, the concern that I have and what I brought up at the press conferences, is there a consideration in this language that we can find a way to tell more people about this policy? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative McGee.
Through you, Madam Speaker. This task force will look into creating a community awareness campaign, rather than marketing a Sn/ak 377 community awareness campaign, to enlighten the community on the safe haven task force. Through you.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I appreciate that, because that's an important component that when we have policies like this, that if nobody knows about it, they won't make that decision, that correct decision. I have said over and over, we have these billboards that we have on the roads. And unfortunately, they're federally-funded billboards that tell us about how many people died on the highway. So, as I wake up in the morning and I'm joyful and ready to go to the Capitol here and do our good work, I have to read about how many people have died on the highways. And my excitement level, and my depression starts to set in. Maybe we use that for the good work that we do here, but I found out that that's probably not going to be the way. Sn/ak 378 But we do have a lot of State Department of Transportation opportunity to promote the some of the good things that we do here. And I think if that's part of this legislation, I appreciate that, and I'm in strong support of this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Paris of the 145th District, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to say that this was a conversation and certainly, a topic that drew very many points of view within our committee, but certainly, we were all committed to making sure that we did update the laws because they have not been updated in almost two decades, and also looked at other avenues and other practices that could help us to be able to provide an alternative to many families out there. Sn/ak 379 And so I just want to commend both the Senate Co-Chair of Children's, Representative McGee, the proponent of the bill, and also our good ranking member, for their work on this task force. I look forward to the findings that they'll come, as they look and seek to update these laws moving forward. I urge all my colleagues across the aisle, on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark for them the bill as amended? Representative Nolan of the 39th District, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I have a question and a statement, if I may.
Please proceed. Sn/ak 380
Through you to the component of the bill, could you share with us, I didn't catch it, what is going to be the makeup of the task force?
Representative McGee.
Through you, Madam Speaker. We want to ensure that we choose experts in the field of social work, the hospitals, as well as the Chief Public Defender's office. We've had many advocates come before us and tell us how important this piece of legislation is, especially because one of the things that my good colleague mentioned across the aisle there, there does have to be more community awareness around what safe haven laws are. And so, we will ensure that experts are in place to choose more equitable solutions of a voluntary surrendering of infants. Through you, Madam Speaker. Sn/ak 381
Representative Nolan.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I'll just make a statement real quick. I'm really happy to hear that we're going to be putting some work in for this really important conversation to make sure that there's a safe way for our families to have the needed assistance for when it comes to situational experiences. I really believe that this will be something that really benefits our community. And I look forward to the data that they come back with, because I really think that this is something that we can do to better our communities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the Members please take your seats? The machine will be open. Sn/ak 382
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber.
Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted? Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the clerk would take a tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.
S.B. 156, in concurrence with the Senate, as amended by Total number voting 144 Necessary for passage 73 Those voting Yea 144 Those voting Nay 0 Sn/ak 383 Absent not voting 7
The bill passes, in concurrence with the Senate. (gavel) We'll stand at ease.
Chamber will come back to order. (gavel) Clerk, please call Calendar 271.
On Page 18, Calendar 271, H.B. No. 5340, AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION. Favorable Report of Energy and Technology.
Representative Steinberg of the 136th. Pause. Representative Stewart of the 51st, for what purpose do you rise? Sn/ak 384
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Out of abundance of caution, I ask that I recuse myself for this vote.
Understood. The Chamber will stand at ease.
The Chamber will come back to order. Representative Steinberg, please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
Question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, you have the floor. Sn/ak 385
Mr. Speaker, it seems only appropriate as the last rays of the sun stream through the window that we talk solar tonight. As you may recall, a couple years ago, this legislature instructed PURA to do a review of our existing solar incentive programs, programs that were championed by my predecessor, David Arconti, who's now a PURA commissioner, in order to set Connecticut on his future path with renewable energy. And it makes eminent sense for PURA to do this analysis. In the first place, these programs are starting to expire in the coming year. And in the second place, we have enough data now to really do a deep dive and understand how we might improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the programs. Back then, we asked them to look at what we would call successor programs to succeed the current ones. But I find that a very apt label in the sense that these programs have indeed succeeded. They have done wonders for Connecticut. We have created over 470 megawatts of energy, which, in the aggregate, really does move the needle on the web. Why is solar so important to us right now? Well, let's look at the world as it is today. Even if Sn/ak 386 I'm reluctantly, I subscribe to the governor's approach of all the above when it comes to generation. But as our energy demand needs increase, where are we going to get this energy from? Unfortunately, I don't see anyone building a new natural gas pipeline that's going to bring additional energy to the state of Connecticut. I'm a big fan of nuclear, and we're eager to maintain our relationship with Millstone into the foreseeable future. But the prospect of getting a new nuclear facility is probably at least a decade away. And then there's offshore wind. Thankfully to the efforts of Attorney General Tong, we were able to overcome the objections of the federal government, and we now have our offshore wind project generating electricity for citizens throughout New England. But, unfortunately, because of federal policies, that entire effort of offshore wind is probably going to be retarded for a decade or more. It's really unfortunate. And now you throw into it volatility and instability in the world, things we don't control. The one thing we do control is the introduction of more solar. Solar gives us agency, solar gives us control, solar gives homeowners the capability of Sn/ak 387 reducing their energy bills and leveraging the sun. So, to my mind, this is a critically important bill. We need to come up with something to extend our current programs, and continue along this path, and secure our energy future. Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment. It's LCO 5450. I ask that it be called. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the clerk please call LCO 5450, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A"?
House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 5450, offered by Representative Steinberg.
Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, Representative Steinberg, you may proceed with your summarization. Sn/ak 388
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I should best start with a quick review of the existing solar incentive programs for those who may not have been here when we initiated them. We have a Residential Solar Program, or what we call our RRES. We have a Non-Residential Solar Program, which are for more commercial type buildings. We have a Shared Clean Energy Program, which, as you'll hear shortly, is really going to be focused on low-income customers. So, not just wealthy people can access solar. And then we have a newer program, our Energy Storage Program, initially sponsored by the Green Bank, which looks at the potential of storage to deal with not only the intermittency of renewable energy, but also to have other benefits to consumers and to the grid. These programs, according to the legislation we hope to pass, would extend these programs through 2035. However, this is not the old programs exactly. Under the former program, we had hard budget caps for the NRES and the SCEF program, and not an RRES. Our new form is to have an umbrella budget target across the four programs that PURA would administer. They're the logical ones to do it. They've been doing this for the past number of years, they have Sn/ak 389 the data, and we're giving them the tools that they can use to make sure that these programs are effective, and we give them the agility to make corrections during the course as market conditions change or we learn more. This is not a rigid program that doesn't change until its expiration of 2035. It is a flexible dynamic program, which means that we can change as the world changes around us. There are three critical elements to this bill, and we just talked about one of them. One is affordability. We are cognizant of the fact that as successful as these programs had been, we have a fiscal responsibility to ratepayers, not to put extra burdens on them. And with this budget target format, our expectation is that we'll actually reduce the public benefits charge that has been so much our attention in recent years. We also are talking about simplicity. We're trying to do things that make the process better. One of the charges we made to PURA, how do we make the process better? How do we avoid stranded projects? But it also includes things like a new solar application that would streamline permitting, making it easier and more predictable to get through the systems, it can be customized by Sn/ak 390 municipalities, but this is a product offered to us free by the Department of Energy. So, this is something that hopefully will help us in the future. We also have affordability benefits by focusing on low-income customers in a way that we didn't. And the third element is a matter of safety. You will see several sections of this bill that address growing concerns with safety. We not only assure that there are proper controls in place, that fire marshals get appropriate training, that the facilities have somebody 24/7 who can be reached, but we also created a task force to look at safety, and we are tasking the Department of Consumer Protection with coming up with a pamphlet that will help consumers understand safety issues. There are a few other elements of this bill as well, which are outside that of the successor programs. We have a section on everybody's most popular topic these days, plug-in solar, something that has been going on in Germany for many years, a number of states have adopted it, and now we are looking into facilitating this in a timely manner once the safety standards are well established. We're going to be doing a task force on agrivoltaics. We believe we can help farmers keep their farms by offering them Sn/ak 391 options to combine their farms with a limited amount of solar energy, and we're going to do a task force looking into that. I mentioned the permanent. Okay. Anything I haven't mentioned? I think that pretty much covers it for now. I just want to focus on one more thing. You heard me mention storage at the beginning. One of the priority focuses we have going forward is to pair solar with storage, because storage enables the full valuation of solar. Because when you store energy, you can use it on your own or where it can be actually directed back to the grid in times of use to level off the peaks at certain times, and to make energy available when we need it. So, we have asked the Green Bank to do a pilot, basically with their own appropriations that would allow us to really evaluate the opportunity for solar customers to add storage to their systems. And by doing that, we're going to have an analysis of something we call RIM, or Ratepayer Impact Metric. And that is basically analyzing the impact, not for the solar customers, but for everybody else. How does this have a positive impact on the grid in terms of system benefits and avoided costs? Sn/ak 392 And we're confident that this metric, if it's greater than one, indicates we're getting more value than we're putting in, will really make solar come into its own. So that's also why solar plus storage is exempted from the budget targets because that's our focus going forward. I move adoption.
Question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Marra of the 141st, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Since this is a strike-all, I will wait for the amendment to become the bill.
Thank you, Representative. Is there objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying, Aye. Sn/ak 393 (ALL MEMBERS): Aye.
Those opposed, Nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Representative Marra.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I am sure everybody's getting a little whiplash today with, I think we're going to be talking about solar, I think we're not going to be talking about solar. I think maybe it's on the board, and maybe it's not on the board. And one of the things that we've been looking for is the fiscal analysis to be done. So through you, Mr. Speaker, could the good Chair of Energy please tell us what the fiscal analysis is on this bill?
Representative Steinberg. Sn/ak 394
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the good Representative for helping us get this out of the way right in the beginning. We had an earlier fiscal note that was based upon an earlier version of this bill. We've been through a number of versions of this bill. And in that case, it was referencing a section of the solar permitting bill that was taken out. Explicitly, it was to have the government develop its own app at great expense according to OFA. That's not in the bill. We're using the Department of Energy's off the shelf app, which can be customized for municipal use, and there is now a fiscal note of zero. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. And that is fabulous that it seems like this bill costs $0 when, I think, in actuality, that is not the case. Earlier in this session at the beginning Sn/ak 395 of our committee, I actually put forward a bill that would require each bill we contemplated here on the floor of the House to actually have ratepayer analysis. And I was told specifically in committee that we don't need to do that because it actually is in language, which is amazing that I didn't think that that was being done, but sure enough, it is in language. And even as we look at the bill that we have before us has had changes along the way, and there are sections that are added, and we know that there is a possibility for ratepayers to be affected by this bill, and as well as the many programs that we have in this bill as it is. I mean, we can see the amount. We've already talked about the target amount of the $85 million a year. That $85 million doesn't just come at zero cost. Right? Someone's paying for that somewhere. And so, Mr. Speaker, if this is passed, this bill will have financial impact on ratepayers of the state. Therefore, I raise a point of order that this bill is not properly before the Chamber because it does not have a ratepayer impact statement as required by subsection (b) of section 2-24a of our statutes. Sn/ak 396
Chamber will stand at ease. Representative Marra, your point of order was well taken. Would you yield the floor to the Majority Leader?
Yes, I'll yield the floor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Rojas, the Majority Leader from the 9th District.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move we pass this bill temporarily.
So moved. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar 311? Sn/ak 397
On Page 22, Calendar 311, H.B. No. 5482, AN ACT CONCERNING TWELVE-MONTH COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION AND HORMONE THERAPY. Favorable Report of Human Services.
Representative Gilchrest of the 18th, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
Question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Gilchrest, you have the floor.
Sn/ak 398 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The clerk has an amendment, LCO 5206. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and that I'd be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize.
Will the clerk please call LCO 5206, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A"?
House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 5206, offered by Representative Gilchrest.
Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. I don't hear any objection. Representative Gilchrest, you may proceed with the summarization.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill strikes one section from the original underlying bill, and what remains is 12-month Sn/ak 399 coverage of contraception under the Medicaid program, which brings us in line with state law for private insurance. And it brings in a piece from another bill we heard in Human Services, but recognizes more needs to be understood. And so this plans for a fertility working group to cover that under Medicaid. I move adoption.
Question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further on the amendment? How about a voice vote on the amendment if there's no objection? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying, Aye. (ALL MEMBERS): Aye.
Sn/ak 400 Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment's adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Case of the 63rd, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the things we do in Human Services take a little more time. And this one happens to put a task force in place so we can look at some other things, but to take care of some business that we need to do with the state. I move adoption.
Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Seeing none, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats, head to your portals. The machine will be open.
Sn/ak 401 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber.
Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted? Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? All the Members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the clerk will take a tally. And will the clerk please announce the tally?
H.B. 5482 as amended by House "A": Total number voting 141 Necessary for passage 71 Those voting Yea 129 Those voting Nay 12 Absent not voting 10 Sn/ak 402
The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar 363?
Page 27, Calendar 363, substitute for H.B. No. 5518, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING VARIOUS REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND DRINKING WATER STATUTES. Favorable Report of Public Health.
Representative McCarthy Vahey of the 133rd.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
Sn/ak 403 Question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative McCarthy Vahey, you have the floor.
Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 5666. I ask that the amendment be called, and I'd be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize.
Will the clerk please call LCO 5666, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A"?
House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 5666, offered by Representative McCarthy Vahey, Senator Anwar.
Sn/ak 404 Representative seeks leave of the chain to summarize this amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative McCarthy Vahey, you have the floor.
Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us includes H.B. 5518. It also includes H.B. 5519. And I'll walk through the sections briefly, if I may. The first sections of the bill deal with regulating bottled water sources. This clarifies terms for the Department of Public Health and authority and codifies current practices for the department. In section 7 of the bill, this regulates the environmental laboratories. Sections 8 through 16 deal with cleanup language for our asbestos statutes, making technical changes and clarifying changes. Section 17 to 18 adds language relating to the allowing of alkaline hydrolysis in funeral homes or locations that are not at least 20 acres or 500 feet away. In other words, we will be allowing this to happen. There are technical changes that happen in the next two sections in section 21. Sn/ak 405 We have a new category of workforce, new naming of subsurface sewerage enforcement officers. This creates a workforce training pathway, and allows us to effectively regulate this, along with our local health districts. Sections 22 and 23 address this new workforce as well, specifies that there will be no separate professional boards for those. And sections 24 and 25 also deal as well. Section 26 creates a water operator in training and apprentice position. And in section 27, this is a repealer related to those asbestos statutes that I referenced earlier. Mr. Speaker, I will say that this is a very technical bill in nature, and I appreciate working together with the good ranking member, as well as our policy teams to make sure that we had references in the bill that were really workable for our local health districts, given especially with some of the federal references are. And in addition, that allows us again to codify what current best practice is. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
Sn/ak 406 Question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Seeing no objection to a voice vote, all those in favor, please signify by saying, Aye. (ALL MEMBERS): Aye.
Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, (gavel) and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Klarides-Ditria of the 105th, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know I wanted to talk before I did. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I have a couple questions to the good Chair of the Public Health Committee.
Please proceed. Sn/ak 407
Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, under sections 1 through 6, that's the bottled water oversight section. Can you just remind us that, to clarify, DPH monitors water sources and who monitors everything else? Through you.
Representative McCarthy Vahey.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Water regulation is certainly a complex issue. The Department of Public Health and this section deals with source water. So, the water as it's coming from the ground, once it goes into a bottle, that water is then monitored and followed by the Department of Consumer Protection, a different committee. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Klarides-Ditria. Sn/ak 408
Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, in section 7, the out-of-state environmental labs, can you clarify what authority DPH will have on the out of state environmental labs?
Representative McCarthy Vahey.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what we want to make sure is that those out-of-state environmental labs that are operating service or collection centers here in the state are achieving certification and are properly being monitored so that we are all having the same standard, whether it's a lab here in Connecticut or out of state. Through you.
Representative Klarides-Ditria.
Sn/ak 409 Thank you. And the asbestos licensing changes in sections 8 through 16, does this section clarify who may become a licensed asbestos consultant?
Representative McCarthy Vahey.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And, yes, it does. It effectively provides what we might refer to in public health as title protection. Through you.
Representative Klarides-Ditria.
Thank you. And, Mr. Speaker, continuing on in the good Representative's favorite part of the bill, sections 7 and 18, a crematorium exception. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, can you Sn/ak 410 give us a quick, just to clarify the difference between the alkaline hydrolysis and standard cremation? Through you.
Representative McCarthy Vahey, good luck.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this time, I don't thank the good Representative for her question. And in all seriousness, cremation, which is the process which is at a crematory, essentially, the burning of the remains of a human body, is something that's done in a facility that needs to be at least 500 feet away, or I believe it's 20 acres. Alkaline hydrolysis is a different process, what some would say a greener process for addressing the human remains. And it is able to be done now in this bill within essentially a funeral home that might be less than 500 feet away from another facility, and not on those 20 acres. And this process uses heat and liquid to then have remains that are dealt with that way. Sn/ak 411 So, yes, it might not be my favorite section of the bill, and it is a difficult topic to talk about. But for those, including some in our own Chamber who address this issue on a regular basis, this will allow an alternative option to burial or traditional cremation. Through you.
Representative Klarides-Ditria.
Thank you for the explanation. We could also say that for ease and our fourth grade level, traditional cremation is like a very hot fire reducing a body quickly, and that alkaline hydrolysis is speeding up the natural process by breaking it down in water. And through you, Mr. Speaker, section 21, under the new certification structure, can you tell us, will this help with some workforce shortages?
Representative McCarthy Vahey. Sn/ak 412
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, just making sure in my notes, in the new workforce structure, yes, we do expect that this will help with some workforce shortage areas, and it also will, I think, clarify for our local health departments this particular role. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Department of Public Health for outlining this, for all their work on this bill, and all the other bills that we've worked on together this year. But, yes, the answer to the good Representative's question is yes.
Representative Klarides-Ditria.
Thank you. And I'd also like to thank the Department of Public Health for their work on this and especially the certification renewal every three years. I think that's important. And the water operator apprenticeship, I think those Sn/ak 413 are really important sections in this bill. And, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mastrofrancesco of the 80th, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just had just a quick question to the proponent of the bill.
Please proceed.
Thank you. We get many bills before us, and every single bill that we've received is a strike-all amendment. So you try to look at the bill analysis to figure out what it is, then you see a strike-all amendment. And I really do the best I can to Sn/ak 414 read every bill. But when I opened up this one for the amendment, I really had to stop at line 52, to the good chairwoman of the committee. I was reading it, I don't know what I was reading. If she wouldn't mind telling me exactly what that is. And if anybody's curious, go to line 52 of the bill and see if you can read lines 52 to 57. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative McCarthy Vahey. Good luck again.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, I thank the good Representative very much for this question because, indeed, this is not a fourth grade word right here. This one is one I will not try to pronounce, but what we all commonly refer to as PFAS. And this is why we work in partnership with our chairs and ranking members, with our experts and leaders in Public Health. Sn/ak 415 So, this is related to PFAS in drinking water. And this reference is actually federal regulations and is something that we passed legislation previously in this Chamber. And I expect that we will pass legislation again in this Chamber. But this language right here in this section really helps to clean up references related to previous statutory language that we had passed, I believe, in 2021. And that's why that is there as part of a cleanup and definition and, again, reference to those federal regulations. Through you.
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just curious. Is this a substance that is in the drinking water that is bad for you that we are trying to correct? Through you.
Representative McCarthy Vahey. Sn/ak 416
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the good Representative for that question. We joke in Public Health that we keep a whiteboard list of all the things we will need to continue to work on in the coming years. This is one of those issues. PFAS is, though I'm not an expert on this, but what I do know is what's called a forever chemical. It is in so many of the things that we wear. It's in water. It's in many things. And we are still, both at the state and federal level, I would say, learning what we can do. And we know that is not something that is good for us as humans, and we definitely need to regulate it. I know the good Representative from the 61st District has addressed this issue related to firefighting foam. And so this has been something that we have addressed in many different ways. Again, the reference here is really more technical in nature and clean-up language, though, again, it is a difficult bill to read, it's pretty technical, but it's really important that these references that we get it right, and we're reflecting proper practice and best practices. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 417
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the good chairwoman of the committee. Yes, this bill is quite technical, and I appreciate the clarification on that section. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Thank you, Representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Anderson of the 62nd, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple questions to the proponent.
Sn/ak 418 Please proceed.
So, line 762 to 766 tells about the commissioner may adopt regulations and establish technical standards for the use of alkaline hydrolysis and other chemical processes for cremation. Did this portion receive a public hearing?
Representative McCarthy Vahey.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you, it's my understanding that this would go through the typical regulatory review process, which would be our standard process, again, including our own Regs Review Committee, yes, which does include a public process and hearing. Through you.
Representative Anderson. Sn/ak 419
The proponent correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that this did not receive a public hearing, this section. Is this the process that's also known as terramation, Mr. Speaker? Through you.
Representative McCarthy Vahey.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the good Representative for the opportunity to clarify. Yes, this section of the bill did receive a public hearing this year in the Public Health Committee. No, this is not terramation. This is a different process. I'm not an expert or probably going to be able to say much about terramation, but the alkaline hydrolysis portion of the bill was heard through our committee Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 420 Representative Anderson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No more questions. This sounds like a process called terramation that's received a hearing several years in the Environment Committee. And I do believe it's dehumanizing. And in memory of the late Stephen Mendelson, I'll be opposing the bill because of this section. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats, head to the portal. The machine will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber. Sn/ak 421
Have all the Members voted? Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the clerk will take a tally. And the clerk, please announce the tally.
H.B. 5518 as amended by House "A": Total number voting 142 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 132 Those voting Nay 10 Absent not voting 9
The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar 197? Sn/ak 422
On Page 12, Calendar 197, substitute for H.B. No. 5373, AN ACT CONCERNING THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS TO THE INSURANCE STATUTES. Favorable Report of Insurance.
Representative Wood of the 29th District, you have the floor, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of bill.
Question before the Chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Wood, you have the floor.
Sn/ak 423 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The clerk has LCO 5109. I ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize.
Will the clerk please call LCO 5109, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A"?
House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 5109, offered by Representative Wood, Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection to summarization, Representative Wood, you may proceed with that summarization.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the Connecticut Insurance Department's agency bill. There's a lot of technical changes, aa Sn/ak 424 lot of date changes, some saving of money in NAIC model act implementation in here, and lots of other good stuff, and I urge adoption.
Question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Pavalock-D'Amato of the 77th.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will reserve my comments after the amendment is passed. Thank you.
Is there objection to a voice vote on the amendment? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying, Aye. (ALL MEMBERS): Aye. Sn/ak 425
Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, (gavel) and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to start by asking about -- we'll start with section 1. How about that? What is service of process, and what is being changed in this bill? Through you.
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's when the commissioner delivers a civil action, and we are allowing for electronic delivery. And it's important to note that we are not just saying that the commissioner can all of a sudden start use electronic delivery. Electronic delivery has already been established between the department and the receiver. Through you. Sn/ak 426
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And for everybody in the Chamber, I do want to say that my biggest concerns were with this section. When an agent, let's say, I did have a constituent who was going to lose or did lose his license to be an insurance agent. And that individual did not receive notice of it, or he didn't think that he did. In this case, and in this situation, an individual is possibly losing their license to make a living, right, as an insurance agent. And to me, I wanted to make sure that that person receives that notice. We had extensive conversations with the department and also with a couple of agents who reassured me that everything that they do is via email. Also, there is language in here that the email of the agent is actually given and registered with the department. And so, if no email is given, let's say it's an older agent, then they would be receiving such notice by registered Sn/ak 427 mail. Therefore, I don't have any further concerns with that section. With that being said, let's move on to section 2 and 3, and I believe they go together. So, what change is happening in these two sections? Through you.
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These sections have a similar change regarding license suspensions. And if you have an established email with the Connecticut Insurance Department, they would send it to you electronically. And if you didn't, they would send it to you via registered or certified mail. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Sn/ak 428 Thank you for that answer. And is there a fiscal note for these changes? Through you.
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is actually a savings to the Connecticut Insurance Department between $30,000 and $40,000 annually. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I like savings. Let's move on to section 4. It relates to the health and wellness fee. What is being changed here? Through you.
Sn/ak 429 Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This section is making sure the health and wellness fee aligns with other assessments in terms of time line, so it's just a change to timelines. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato..
Section 5 looks like we are doing some simple date changes. Are there any other major changes in this section? Through you.
Representative Wood.
Sn/ak 430 Yes. Actually, this change, this section is also including the office of behavioral health advocate to the insurance fund for assessments. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Section 6, why are we removing terrorism insurance requirements from common interest ownership communities, otherwise known as HOAs or condo associations? Through you.
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is another area where we are going to see people have a savings. In the past, the Insurance Department mandated that condo common interest ownership Sn/ak 431 communities had terrorism insurance coverage. Now, those condo associations can decide if they would like that coverage or not. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I used to work for an insurance agency in Miami Beach, and I can see why down in Downtown Miami, terrorism insurance probably would be still needed and utilized, but I do not think anybody is going to terrorize my mother's condo in the state of Connecticut. So that will definitely be a savings for individuals throughout the state, which is great. Section 7, it looks like we have, some simple changes here, like allowing electronic communication. Are there any other changes to highlight in this section? Through you.
Representative Wood. Sn/ak 432
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an interesting section. We're actually allowing insurers to give a reasonable extra explanation for premium increases. And if the insured would like additional information, that contact information would also be included. So it's really interesting to see. I know a lot of us sometimes say, why did that increase go up? Well, this gives the insured the ability to understand that information further. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
I thank you for that answer. Sections 8 and 9. This is an important section which provides more transparency to policyholders. I believe it makes technical changes to a provision on settlement amounts to total vehicles by replacing a reference to the National Automobile Dealers Association to JD Power's guide. Why is that? Through you. Sn/ak 433
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This reflects JD Power acquisition of the National Automobile Dealers Association, and this section also has a minor tweak regarding eliminating the requirement for annual reporting. Why? Because that information is available on industry websites. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Thank you. And, again, I, at first, had concerns about that when we picked certain organizations over others. But, of course, considering that JD Powers took over the National Automobile Dealers Association site, then that makes sense. Section 10 is on viatical settlement reporting, which is the sale of life insurance policies to a third-party by a terminally Sn/ak 434 ill insured person. I did not know that existed either until recently. What changes are being made in this section? Through you.
Representative Wood.
This eliminates the requirement that Viaticle insurers need to provide and maintain this information -- I'm sorry. It eliminates the annual report requirement. Why this was done is because that information needs to be provided to the commissioner anyway upon ask. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Sn/ak 435 Thank you for that explanation. Section 11, we are moving on to formulary changes. What changes have been made here? Through you.
you? Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is another great consumer benefit, which means that when a prescription drug is being removed from a formulary, it requires that the covered person and their treating physician must be notified within 90 days before removing a drug from a formulary. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Thank you for that answer. Sections 12 and 13, very technical. They're about independent review organizations and Sn/ak 436 changes to deadlines. I believe also section 14 has technical changes about reporting agent terminations, and it also looks like there is a timeline change in this language. Can you verify that, and explain a little? Through you.
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is when an agent is terminated that the requirement for reporting must be done within 30 days. And, again, this gives the Department of Insurance further information about that termination. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Sn/ak 437 Great. Sections 15 and 16 have changes around third party administrators, which we refer to on insurance as TPAs in their insurance department. So what are those changes? Through you.
Representative Wood.
This ensures that service continues even if an insurer is in receivership or goes insolvent. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Great. Thank you for that answer. And I know we did have a recent insurer that became insolvent, so I think that portion is important. Section 17. This section allows the insurance commission to establish continuing education requirements for licenses of casualty claims adjusters. This sounds like a great Sn/ak 438 idea, but can you tell the Chamber what a casualty claims adjuster is and what they do? Thank you.
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Casualty claims adjuster investigate and settle losses. They handle claims around third- party liability and bodily injury and property damage and also automobile accidents. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Thank you for that answer. Section 18 through 20. These sections are discussing the Insurance Guarantys Association from my review of the bill. It looks like what we're doing here is Sn/ak 439 adding cybersecurity insurance policies. Is that correct? Can you clarify? Through you.
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are definitely adding cybersecurity insurance policies to the Guaranty Fund. We are also increasing the limit for first party claims from $500,000 to $1 million. Why are we doing this? Because the cost to replace a home has increased dramatically. So, we are raising the limit here, and we did ask if this will mean additional cost to insured, and it will not. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato..
Sn/ak 440 Thank you for that answer. And you did answer my next question, so I don't need to ask that anymore. Sections 21 and 22 looks to provide guarantee association coverage for policyholders whose policies were assumed by an insurer, not licensed in Connecticut when the policies were first written. And this is called assumption reassurance. Is that correct?
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, that is correct. We learned that assumption insurance is when the first carrier may have been in business since the '50s or '60s, and then there is a second carrier that assumes that coverage. So that is what we are talking about when we are modernizing the statutes around assumption insurance. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. Sn/ak 441
Great. And the next sections are implementing the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Assumption Reinsurance Model Law. Can you further explain that to the Chamber? Through you.
Representative Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This model law includes notice requirements, policyholder rights, and includes the insurance commissioner's discretion when an insured is in a hazardous financial condition. We have implemented the complete NAIC model law into the statutes. Through you.
Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.
Sn/ak 442 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's great to know. Lastly, section 24 revisits changes we made last session to the surplus lines brokers and their maintenance of records. We heard a lot of positive testimony regarding these changes, and have worked closely with brokers in the surplus lines market to make Connecticut a less cumbersome place to do business. I think section 24 is probably the best section of this bill, and I do urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members take your seats, head to your portals. The machine will be open.
The House of Representatives voting by roll, Members of the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members of the Chamber.
Sn/ak 443 Have all the Members voted? Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the clerk will take a tally. And will the clerk, please announce the tally?
H.B. 5373, as amended by House "A": Total number voting 141 Necessary for passage 71 Those voting Yea 141 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 10
The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar 271? Sn/ak 444
On Page 18, Calendar 271, H.B. 5340, as amended by House "A", AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION. Favorable Report of Energy and Technology.
Representative Steinberg of the 136th, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think when we last left our heroes, there was a conversation about the fiscal note. I move adoption.
Like the normal routine, as amended.
As amended. Sn/ak 445
I move for acceptance of the Joint --
I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report as amended and acceptance of the bill. Close enough?
Question before the Chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, you have the floor.
Thank you. As we last left, there was some question about the fiscal note. If you look at the file copy now, you will note that the reference to ratepayer impact, which is actually to the benefit of ratepayers, if anything, which was in the earlier version of the bill and was left out of this current version, has been restored. Sn/ak 446 So, I believe we've answered the good representative's question. It is not definitive. Obviously, the outlines of the program will define the degree to which there may be ratepayer savings, but OFA has indicated that if anything, it should be beneficial. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra of the 141st.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. So I find it really hard to believe that we don't have a ratepayer impact on this bill. I'm just looking at what we have from past years and how that impacts our bill. And we know at least for one year, we have changed language to allow it to continue as it is for at least one year. So we know there had to be an impact at least for that one year in those rates, because when I look at the RIM filings from our utility companies, we see those charges. Matter of fact, this last year for our RRES, we have those charges right on the RIM filing. So I'm not sure exactly how we Sn/ak 447 can say that this doesn't have an impact even with the addition of our last section, section 18, which is one of the reasons why I asked for this to be redone is that we are actually putting a rebate for natural gas on the public benefits charge. So, how exactly does a rebate that goes on the public benefit charge not actually affect our ratepayers? But I will move on. It's not something clearly I agree with. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe if the good Chair of Energy wouldn't mind, maybe we can just take a time. This is obviously something that is -- well, maybe it's not obvious because of the ratepayer impact statement that just came back. But clearly, this is going to be something that affects the bills of everyone across the state of Connecticut. When we have been hearing from customers everywhere, "Please lower our rates, please lower our rates," this is not what we contemplated here. We're contemplating putting more on. We're contemplating continuing some of these programs that we know have been expensive. But let's just move through this, please, if you don't mind. I would like to start with section 1. We talk about the new RRES program. Through you, Mr. Speaker, one of the definitions Sn/ak 448 in there is on the low-income customer. Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the good chair talk about how the low income customer is going to be decided? Through you.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the question, because we did spend a lot of time wrestling with the best way to help lower income consumers benefit from the solar programs we've had. One of the criticisms has been it's been easier for people with means to access these programs than lower income people. So we put a lot of focus on trying to do that. Our SCEF program, our Shared Clean Energy Program, is now exclusively focused on that. We also talk about distressed communities in other contexts. So what you're seeing here is a consistent emphasis on low-income consumers so they, too, can get the full benefits cause they're the ones who really are feeling it the most. So this definition is the result of our Sn/ak 449 conversations and how best to accomplish that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. So, do the utility companies already have a set defined person for the low-income customer? Through you.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. Could the Representative repeat the question? I didn't hear the question of it.
Sn/ak 450 Please, Representative Marra.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. And I think also I didn't state the question quite as I meant to. Do the utility companies already have easy access to a level, and do they already know who the low-income customers are? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, this is something that we've been working on for many years. This actually dates back eight years to when we were actually trying to assemble the data that would allow them to be able to do that. And we went through that entire process, and indeed, we're in a better place today than we were then. We're now much more able to identify who exactly those customers are so that they can be appropriately approached. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 451
Representative Marra.
Thank you so much. So, if we already know, we've already identified through who are some of the low-income are, are we aware if may be they're already receiving subsidies on their electricity? Through you.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, it could be possible that they're eligible for other programs, but we have not cross- correlated with any other. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra. Sn/ak 452
Okay. Thank you so much. I think that's one of the concerns that I have when we add separate programs for low-income on top of separate programs to make sure we have a piece of the pie that we like to spread out as much as we can to as many people as we can. And so when we talk about the low-income customer, we want to be as helpful as we can for people being able to get energy in their house. But my concern is that we're not always looking at maybe this customer actually has sufficient help through something like LIHEAP or through this program, and maybe these dollars should be spread to other people. And I realized that that has not been looked at yet, but that would be something that I would like to see in the future to make sure that if we know a customer is at a level where they don't necessarily need added benefits, that we're able to use those funds for other customers that do not. Through you, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I believed is still in this bill, but I've had a couple renditions, but I think it's still in this one, is that the low-income, it would Sn/ak 453 also be for environmental justice communities as well that could get this. Is this true? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, indeed. Earlier on, we did discuss focusing on environmental justice communities as well. The latest version really does focus on low-income, and in other cases, distressed communities, and a little bit less on environmental justice, because we really do believe we're going to be capturing a lot of those same people anyway. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Sn/ak 454 Okay. Thank you. Thank you for correcting me on my terminology here. You're right. It's a distressed municipality that we're focusing on here. One of the things that when you think about, again, that piece of the pie that you're trying to make spread as far as you can, can someone that lives in a distressed municipality, say, maybe like Bridgeport, but maybe they live in, like, Blackwater, some an area that is a wealthier area of the town, would they also qualify for these rates? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, that's something we did discuss at some length. By focusing on distressed communities, it's easier to approach them because we know the borders in such communities. But to the good Representative's point, yes, indeed, there are people in those communities who may not be necessarily low-income who would still be eligible. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 455
Representative Marra.
Okay. Thank you. Again, I think that's something that I would like to continue to look at to make sure that when we have these benefits or incentives that we're trying to provide for people, that they actually get to the people that really do need them and not just anyone. As we contemplate looking at RRES moving forward, it looks like we will be continuing on with offering tariffs for 20 years. Through you, Mr. Speaker, why 20 years?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 20 years is pretty much the standard when it comes to these kind of arrangements. Obviously, you want a certain amount of predictability or virtually Sn/ak 456 certainty, and 20 years affords that. We are not making up something new here. This is pretty much standard practice. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you. I agree we're not making up something new here, and I think we should be making up something new here. I think we know that moving forward, that we will be getting better technology. And so I feel like coming in with these 20-year contracts, maybe is not the best move forward. Maybe we should be looking at a 10-year contract with an option for another 10 years, as we look at changing prices for solar, changing prices for batteries, changing efficiencies. I think that we could be having a better service to the state of Connecticut by maybe altering some of these contracts a little bit. Because as it is now, when we enter into this power agreement with these residential solars, we're in there for 20 Sn/ak 457 years. And whatever we've offered them, it just is what it is. And now the ratepayers have to pay for that. One of the things that we look at in this bill also is allowing PURA to actually set the rates. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I know that we've given a lot of leeway for PURA to be able to contemplate the rates. Could the good chair just go through how PURA is going to be able to set these rates, and what they will be considering?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate this question because it gets at the heart on how this program is actually going to work a little differently than the existing programs. What we are doing is we are requiring PURA to monitor the progress of these programs in real time. We are requiring the utilities to provide them with data on a timely basis, so they can see how it's progressing during the year. Sn/ak 458 So, that if it's a matter of approaching the budget target, they're in position to send signals to the utilities and through them to the developers, the likelihood of approaching the end of the budget target period and how some projects may not be able to get in that particular given year. But beyond that, we are also asking PURA to evaluate these programs. And on an annual basis, this is not, again, not a rigid program for 2035, they can make adjustments to the incentives and to the allocations such that it honors the intent of the legislature to honor the budget targets and to move things forward. And ultimately, beyond that, we also require a peer to come back to us after a period of years with a report where we can have another bite of the apple and consider further tweaks to the program if necessary. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra
Sn/ak 459 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that we have several different studies that can be looked at when PURA is contemplating these rates. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if the good chair would like to comment on the significance of any of these studies.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the good Representative heard earlier, I put particular focus on the pilot program that the Green Bank will be doing, because that will help us solidify our confidence in the combination of solar and storage going forward, and will trigger a working group to evaluate the storage program going forward. I think that's perhaps the one that I find most innovative and that will lead to some real positive changes for ratepayers down the road. But as the good Representative says, there are several different elements to this bill in the calculation. Sn/ak 460 Again, we're putting tremendous faith and trust in PURA to do this work, but they've done it in the past. And they have the data from the past programs which will guide them going forward. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you so much. And I quite agree with what the chair is talking about. I think having these studies and having these numbers available and giving PURA the ability to look through the data to really understand how to set rates, I think, is very important. And it's also important for them to be able to have access to the data so they've got the information in front of them when they set the rates. So, there's several studies that we have asked to be completed through many of our legislative sessions. One of them is the integrated resource plan. This is supposed to be done every two years. Unfortunately, it has not been completed since Sn/ak 461 2020. The comprehensive energy strategy. This is supposed to be done every four years, but it has not been completed since 2018. Then we have the system efficiency and utilization goal established, we put this in last year, and that was due April 1st of this year, and we have not received this, either. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, are we going to ask PURA to actually set tariffs based on this old data?
Representative Steinberg.
We ask a lot of DEEP in terms of generating key strategic analyses. And I'll just say it straight, they're under- resourced. And often, when other things happen, like COVID and the like, they fall a little bit behind. And I've indeed addressed this question to DEEP. First of all, I've been assured that the IRP is just about done, and we should have that in a matter of months. Sections of the CES, I'm sure, are pretty well-developed. Sn/ak 462 And I think the important point is, even without necessarily a final version, there's constant conversation between PURA and DEEP. The intent and the strategy will be very clear. So, I'm really pretty confident that the key elements that the Representative alluded to, which will form PURA's opinion, that information will be available on a timely basis. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you so much. I would like to hope that they do have all the data in front of them. As many people who have been in committees with me before, I've always said, I want to see the data, I want to understand the data before we move forward. So, Mr. Speaker, the clerk actually has an amendment. It is LCO 5350. Would you please ask the clerk to call it, and I'd be allowed to summarize?
Sn/ak 463 Will the clerk please call LCO 5350, which will be designated as House Amendment Schedule "B"?
House Amendment Schedule "B", LCO No. 5350, offered by Representative Marra.
Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Marra, you may proceed with the summarization.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. What this amendment does is it requires that these studies actually be completed before any of these programs are implemented. So, yes, I move for adoption.
Sn/ak 464 Question before the Chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule "B". Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this amendment is well-intentioned, and these are critical documents. And going forward, they will form an important point of what we do here. But given the fact that the IRP will be available shortly, the CES is in the works, I don't see a dramatic seismic change from where the CES was previously. I believe that DEEP will be able to provide the most relevant information to PURA as they need it. And this is really not necessary. So I would urge my colleagues to vote against it. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Piscopo of the 76th, you have the floor, sir.
Sn/ak 465 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes a whole lot of sense, and we really should adopt it. Reading this bill, and I really feel for our friends over at the Office of Fiscal Analysis because in the public hearing, we had such a controversy over how to figure out exactly what this was going to cost us, what the rates are going to be, and it was quite two different tales on, will this save rate payers, will it not, what's going to happen with these tariffs. So, my thoughts go out to our friends over at OFA, and I can understand why I am so confused with this fiscal note, why they had a hard time with a rate impact statement. So, all we want to do is try and get a handle on what this is going to cost us. This is a public benefit. We don't want to be adopting any huge public benefit right now. This amendment is just asking, let's just see what the rates are going to be. Going forward, the next 20 years, we're committing ourselves. So, let's take a look at what this is going to cost us. I think we should all should be in favor of this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 466 Thank you, Representative Piscopo. Will you remark further on the proposed amendment, Amendment "B"? Representative Yaccarino of the 87th, you have the floor, sir.
Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Speaker. I support the amendment mainly because I missed part of the public hearing the day we had because I'm Ranking in Exec Noms. I was in and out all day. But when I read the bill and I read tariffs and I read $85 million or whatever the floor might be, I'm totally against tariffs, no matter what the federally or statewide, to me, tariffs is a tax or a fee levied on somebody. And that somebody, I would guess, I don't think you need to be a genius, that somebody's going to be the ratepayer. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good proponent of the amendment, will we be looking at or having, I would prefer PURA to look at this before DEEP, to be perfectly honest here, the potential rate increase or potential cost? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 467 Representative Marra.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate the question. PURA will be looking at the rate, but the point of this is to say that PURA needs to have all the data in front of them. If we're asking them to contemplate rates for these programs, and and you're right, there'll be rates for the next 20 years. So, whatever rate they're going to decide this year, and then they may change the rate next year, that's fine. But whatever they put out for the first year, that's a 20- year commitment for those programs. 20 years at that rate. We want them to have the best information moving forward. And this is nothing new. We've asked for these studies to be done. Some of them have been partially done. This is information that we should have.
Representative Yaccarino. Sn/ak 468
I appreciate that. I really think we owe that to the ratepayer. I'm not going to mention names, not this session, last year, summoning Energy Committee when we run the campaign trail, people were so upset about the public benefits and how they can't afford it or they complain to us. And the response to me, I think, or maybe Representative from the 76, was it doesn't matter, we won the election anyway. So, what's the difference? Well, the difference is it's people's money in their pocket. We're trying to give them property tax relief now. We're trying to give education cost-sharing relief because of the cost of our state, and I'm not blaming anybody here, but the fact is it's so expensive to live here. And, potentially, to get into a 20-year deal, if you're Jerry Buss, the past owner of the Lakers in 1980, he had a 20-year deal with Magic Johnson at $5 million a year, that was a great deal, because nobody realized that salaries would go up to $30 million a year. But if you're in a 20-year deal and you're paying every year 5% more, you're in trouble. And you know who's in trouble? The ratepayer. So I don't see any harm in looking at this and studying this for the ratepayer, the taxpayer, and the citizens Sn/ak 469 of the state of Connecticut. And we all want solar, and there was a comment about natural gas. It's on our border. It is at the border of New York, and this legislative body and the governor has not done anything to work with the governor of New York to bring natural gas to the state. That is a fact. And the sun, I wish it's shine all day. It just doesn't. We're lucky if we get 15% to 18% of good enough sun for solar. So, I wish it was there, we're there, but I do support this amendment. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Yaccarino. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule "B"? Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to add to this wonderful debate. In the first place, we must remember that PURA just completed the analysis for these successor studies. They have a lot of data that brought them to this point, so they're Sn/ak 470 already pretty clued in. Additionally, we give PURA 18 months, roughly, to actually do the promulgation of the rules. I'm pretty confident that all the relevant data and strategy that the good Representative alludes to will be available in plenty of time for them to complete this in a timely manner. So, there really isn't going to be a gap here of any consequence. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the House Amendment Schedule "B"? Representative Yaccarino for the second time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the second time. Just for the delay of implementing this, what was the time frame? Though you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent.
Representative Marra. Sn/ak 471
The delay will be until the studies are completed. So if, like the good chair is saying, if the studies are completed, as he's saying, in time, this really shouldn't be a big deal. This is just absolutely ensuring that it does happen, and this may light a fire under any of the agencies that have not completed it so that they get done so that PURA has all the information that they need to make these really important rates. Through you.
Representative Yaccarino.
I appreciate that answer. My question was -- and I appreciate that. I guess I knew the answer, which is for shame on me, but they're working on this now. And if it takes six months or three months, and we save ratepayer dollars, all we know the actual cost, it's only fair to the public. Forgive me, Sn/ak 472 I shouldn't have done it that way, but I wasn't sure. We owe this to the public, Mr. Speaker. They can only afford so much. And, of course, we all want the cleanest air, the best solar, the best energy, but the fact is we have to also think of the ratepayer. So, thank you for the second time.
Thank you, Representative Yaccarino. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule "B"? Representative Marra, how would you like the vote taken?
I would like to be taken by roll. Thank you.
Representative Delnicki of the 14th, you have the floor, sir.
Sn/ak 473 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the biggest complaints I hear day in and day out is the cost of energy. Now, we haven't even heard what the fiscal note is tonight. We know there is one, but not what it is. And upon public benefit charge, how is that going to be applied to these projects? I think we need to take a step back. I think we need to take a look at what we're doing, how we're paying for it, and how it's impacting our constituents, each and every one of them, whether it be a homeowner or a commercial enterprise. There's a huge impact there, and we're pricing ourselves quite high. So, I rise in support, wholehearted support on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative Delnicki. Will staff and guests, please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats and head to your portals. The machine will be open.
Sn/ak 474 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber.
Have all the Members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
Amendment Scheduled "B": Total number voting 139 Necessary for passage 70 Those voting Yea 49 Those voting Nay 90 Absent not voting 12 Sn/ak 475
House Amendment B fails. (gavel) Representative Marra.
Thank you so much. It's too bad that failed, but I am a little bit assured by the chairs mentioned that he does believe these studies are going to be completed, and I do trust that that is his intent. We have had a very good, honest, working relationship thus far, and I have no doubt that that is his intent that this will be occurring. When establishing this RES, this is in Section C, and I'm digging a little bit more kind of on the RRES because the rest of the programs are similar, really. So it'll be a little bit heavy in this section, but it talks about how, in Section C, establishing the RES will be based on electric system benefits received by all ratepayers, and it also talks about time of production and equitable distribution, participant benefits. I mean, particularly, we talk about equitable distribution of participant benefits, but if the chair would like to comment on any of those sections, I certainly would appreciate, kind of his thoughts on how this is going to be implemented, through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 476
Representative Steinberg. Chamber will stand at ease. Chamber will come back to order. Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just wanted to find the right section. We have a particular focus on the projects that should be eligible for this program, particularly Distributed Energy Resources or DERs, as we currently call it. So specifically, as under existing law, Distributed Energy Resources are customer or grid side of distribution resources that generate energy from either class one or class three of the RPS. Our customer side distributed resources that reduce energy demand, including conservation and loan management, or energy storage. These are standard aspects of how we've been doing this for a while. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra. Sn/ak 477
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize. I'm not sure I quite understand. How exactly is the equitable distribution of the participant benefits implemented? Through you.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is part of the tariff analysis and determination that we're asking for you to do, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Sn/ak 478 Okay. Thank you. I want to move on to when we are dealing with multifamily, housing, and developments, it looks like there was one tariff that would be offered for the full premises of the development. So, just through you, Mr. Speaker, who decides, or how is it decided that who gets to decide or pick this one tariff, through you?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is a critical section because we thought a lot about one of the most challenging groups of people that we have, which are multifamily housing. They're often hard to appropriately target. So it can be a single-family house, it can be a multi-family of two to four units. And if it's more than two to four, five and more. There are other income definitions that apply. So our goal is to really do something for all of them, but in an equitable way. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 479
Representative Marra.
Thank you. I appreciate this is a very tricky part. So I just kinda want to clarify some thoughts or get some understanding on this. Certainly, in the town that I live in, the town of Darien, all of our multifamily housing, because we have inclusionary zoning in Darien, and 14% of all of our multifamily housing units actually have low-income units in it. So would the whole multifamily unit qualify for a low-income discount? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, if I understand the question, there is a distinction between four and fewer units, Sn/ak 480 which have no explicit income requirements, and five and more. Does that answer your question, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Marra.
That may have clarified it. If so, you're saying if we have five or more, and maybe I misread this. If you have five or more, do you just individually charge each of the people in the multifamily housing unit, through you? Maybe I misunderstood.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do believe you have to have an arrangement with each householder. I'm not exactly sure precisely how it works. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 481
Representative Marra.
Okay. Yeah. I appreciate that. I mean, certainly, one would hope that if we have, and many multifamily units are housing is they're doing this where there's a portion of the housing that is low-income housing, and then there's another portion that is just at market value. So striking the right balance to where maybe the whole multifamily unit is not getting a discount rate, and they're paying what they should be paying, and it's just the percentage that actually require it would get the benefit. And I'm hoping that that's kind of -- that's the thought that what we're doing here, through you, Mr. Speaker, if that sounds right.
Representative Steinberg.
Sn/ak 482 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that as well. Through you.
Representative Marra.
Okay. Thank you. I think that's probably to be continued. I just want to move on to Section F in this bill, and I believe that's still the same section. This talks about where the cost can be prudently and reasonably incurred by the electric companies or utilities. Through you, Mr. Speaker, where will there be -- where will we be collecting these costs?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We explicitly state that this would be captured in the non-bypassable charge on the bill, which is what we've used in the past. Through you, Mr. Speaker? Sn/ak 483
Representative Marra.
Okay. Thank you. So there will be a charge in the non- bypassable public benefits charge, which is, I think, what we are discussing all along, that we know that there will be a charge for this, and this is where it's going to be collected. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think it'd be a good time now, maybe, to move on to some of the battery storage. And give me just a second. In Section G, we're talking about, like, the energy storage systems and the benefits. How are these benefits decided when you have, so you have -- we have solar, so let me back everybody up. So right now, many of our programs, they are residential solar, so this is just solar on top of your roof, or non-residential. So if you have a commercial building, this can be solar on top of your roof, or the SCEF programs. We've done quite a bit at that. What we're seeing now in the state of Connecticut, and many states that are doing this, we used to have a peak for energy supply in the middle of the Sn/ak 484 day. And now, because we have solar, you can see solar actually doesn't come off of the grid. Right? So this is not coming off of your wires. This is you not using energy. So during the day, the transmission is not happening. Not -- if you have solar, it's not coming into your house because you have your own solar there. So there's -- actually, we see a drop in what we need for energy across the state. And then when everybody comes home at the end of the day, and they're turning on their lights, well, we're not going to be going home. But as you can see, the sun is coming down when maybe we should have been going home, and we should be turning on our lights and maybe having dinner with our families, but we are here. So there's a lot of extra energy usage, and there's no -- and there's no sun. So all of a sudden, there's this ramp up of energy now at the end of the day. So it is in this time right here when we're ramping up at the end of the day when we don't have that solar that we're seeing an increase in in cost of energy because to ramp up that quickly, when you go home and you turn on your lights, if it's not sunny outside and you don't have solar panels, you still want your lights to turn on. Right? Sn/ak 485 So there are times when we have, like, peaker plants. These are the plants that can turn on really quick, but they're not the cleanest energy out there. So one of the things we've been contemplating, and one of the things that I do like, is the addition of batteries to solar. And what that does is it collects during the day when we have the solar, and your rates are down, it collects. And then at the end of the day, instead of you going and turning on your power and needing to ramp up, you've got your battery there. So it does something that we call peak shaving. So it keeps us from turn -- keeps us from requiring a huge spike of energy. But trying to figure out exactly how beneficial that is, we don't necessarily know. And I realize that is one of the things that we're contemplating in this bill, but I thought I would give the good chair a chance to talk a little bit about that, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Sn/ak 486 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate your focusing on this. Storage is such a key component of the difference of this program versus what we had before, but I will say that we do have some good data. The energy storage program we've had in place has already provided results. And you heard me reference earlier, the RIM, the ratepayer impact measurement. And, according to analysis, the RIM score for the storage program to date is 1.69. Now, if you recall, anything over one means there's even additional benefits to ratepayers beyond that of the solar itself caused by the storage. And one of the reasons why we have agreed to the Green Bank's pilot study of storage is to confirm that in a variety of contexts, their pilot program will be looking at a variety of communities and instances, which will help us better understand how important storage can be going forward. So, to the good representative's point, this is exactly the kind of analysis we need to do, but we already have good data indicating the storage is the key to unlocking the full value of solar. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 487 Representative Marra.
Thank you so much. And I realized with this discussion, I knew this was going to happen, that we will be skiping a little bit between this and the Green Bank, which is actually Section 7 but my concern about the numbers as they are now, and maybe the good chair can help me, what study -- who actually did the study to figure out this 1.6 factor for the RIM, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. PURA, through you.
Representative Marra. Sn/ak 488
Okay. It was my understanding that this was done by solar companies before. As many of you know, I've spent a lot of time with my schooling, kind of looking at studies and talking about how to do a proper study, how you can eliminate bias from a study? And it bothers me a little bit that we are putting the study in Green Bank's hands, where Green Bank clearly has a bias to make the battery stores look really good. And maybe I'm wrong, actually. Through you, Mr. Speaker, will Green Bank be doing this study themselves, or will they actually use a consulting company that will have a non-biased approach to this study? Through you.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I feel compelled to respond and object to the characterization of bias in the Green Bank. My experience with the Green Bank is, they only care about Sn/ak 489 one thing, forging good solutions for the ratepayers of the state of Connecticut. And virtually all their programs, some of them quite innovative, have achieved that goal. So I simply don't see evidence of bias. Oftentimes, they call in expert resources to help them with the task. I have the utmost confidence in the Green Bank's ability to run this pilot in an equitable, fair fashion and to present the results and recommendations without bias. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
I think the chair and I will have to differ on this opinion. I think that bias is inherent when you have someone that wants to see a result. And, I'm not necessarily questioning the Green Bank's ethics per se, but when we're looking at something like this, that's how you run a good study. You to make sure that your controls are there. And they want to have a good study run, I believe that they need to have an outside consulting company do it. And while I appreciate that the Green Sn/ak 490 Bank is focusing on efficiency here for the state of Connecticut. But guess what? Have you looked at our bills lately? So excuse me if I have just a little bit of questioning going on on what has been going on with these studies already. Not that I'm questioning them. There's lots of reasons for our bill being high, but it doesn't look like we have a lot of efficiency benefits that are coming off of our bill right now. So, let's move on then to some of the NRES programming. Through you. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to talk about with the in res, I was a little confused about it looks like there is, so these are the these are the commercial buildings. So we have the residential solar, and this is the non-residential, so commercial solar. So these are businesses that are utilizing these programs. And there seems to be kind of one rule for everybody, and then maybe a little bit of a different rule for state, municipal, or agriculture. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the good chair can talk about the carve-out for state, municipal, and agriculture, and some of their benefits through the INRES program, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 491 Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the good representative for highlighting an aspect. It's really an element of the existing programs we created because those three areas were separate but important areas of focus. Obviously, we want to lead by example through state programs, and we have done that in the past. The good representative focus on agricultural. We like to do things that help our farmers be successful, which is one reason why we're doing the task force on agrivoltaics, because we believe in the right context that solar can be part of the solution, a revenue stream for farmers, if that's something they want to do. Our goal is to help them. And with municipalities, similar along lines of the state, we'd like to help our municipalities take advantage of these programs on their buildings. So these were the three areas. They're sort of carryovers from the existing program, but they remain important to us going forward. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 492
Representative Marra.
Thank you. It looks like each of them, unit -- either municipal, state, or agriculture can have five accounts on a single NRES program, is my understanding through reading this, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. That's my understanding. I really can't recall how we arrived at that back in the day, but it was to give them some flexibility. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra. Sn/ak 493
Thank you too. So my concern is, will PURA have some sort of efficacy standards when they look at where the state can put some of these voltaic programs? Like, here's what I -- I'm trying to come up with, like, different examples. For instance, we know that the state owns roadways. Right? So could the state conceivably put solar panels on the side of a roadway? Because my understanding is it doesn't actually -- for the state, municipal, or agricultural accounts, it doesn't actually have to be on the premises. So could they conceivably put it like solar panels on the roadways and put enough of those solar panels to cover, say, the Capitol Building, the LOB, a prison, or five accounts, through you?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this question. I've been to Massachusetts along their highways. They've got solar Sn/ak 494 panels along. It's been suggested to DOT over the years. It hasn't really happened yet. And to your point about how many panels will be necessary to sort of qualify, I'm not sure. But I like the idea, and I would think we should encourage DOT going forward to reconsider. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Oh, boy. I might regret saying this. Okay. Through you, Mr. Speaker, what my question really is, too is, does it make -- is it efficient also? Like, if they pick a roadway, will PURA take into account that maybe the transmission line is not good there for interconnection along the roadway? Will PURA then come and say, hey. If these are the five premises -- areas that you want, these are the five accounts that you want, really. It makes better sense for you to put it on top of this correctional facility, or is it just kinda dealer's choice, through you?
Sn/ak 495 Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This touches on another important point that we haven't discussed enough. We have provided PURA with a number of criteria they should be considering. They're required to consider in making these decisions. And certainly matters of efficiency and ratepayer impact, and system benefits all enter into that. They have the data and the tools, but also the mandate to look at all these different factors, rendering their decisions. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you. And I really hope so. I hope that PURA is able to kind of put their foot down and say, this is what makes the most sense. This is how we can get kind of the most bang for the buck. This is where your interconnections are actually going to Sn/ak 496 be, best. And again, because these are 20-year contracts that we're putting out. Right? So this year, we're going to get this amount of contracts, and next year, on top of it, we'll have that much more. And these will all go out for 20 years. So it really behoves us to get this right. Will renewable energy certificates be given with each of these?
Representative Steinberg.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, RECs are not involved here. Through you.
Representative Marra.
Okay. Through you, Mr. Speaker. If I could just point to lines 184 and 185, this might be an old one. I do believe that Sn/ak 497 renewable energy certificates are generated with each of these, through you, Mr. Speaker. If I could just kind of clarify. I wasn't trying to get a gotcha on that one.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If there are RECs involved, that's through the RPS process and not explicitly through this program, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Okay. So this is where the fun begins. So if anybody is interested and you want to pull out your computer and you want to look at how much renewable energy certificates cost the state of Connecticut, feel free to do that. The other thing that might Sn/ak 498 be really fun if you are interested, because these RECs -- this is one of the ways that we actually offset the payment. So you've got part of these payments that you're going to see in the public benefits. But for every megawatt that you are producing on solar, there is a REC that goes with it. And so one of the ways that this is funded is through the sell of these RECs. So if you all have looked at how much the RECs are, that's one of the ways that we fund it. But, just so people are aware that this is also in the process, and who purchases these RECs? And that is our generators. Because for many years now, we have had a Renewable Portfolio Standard. This is how we're trying to get to net zero in the state of Connecticut, and this is how many states do it. You require Renewable Portfolio Standards. Please look this up. Please understand this is part of the place where you actually pay money, and that is through the generation. Because we know we have -- our generation is reliant heavily on natural gas here in the state of Connecticut. So how we make that eventually zero, because we're not going to get to eventually zero, is by the purchase of these RECs. Sn/ak 499 And that cost, you don't necessarily see in the public benefit. This actually increases your supply cost. This is one of the reasons why we have high rates here in the state of Connecticut. Now, what happens if we actually don't have enough renewable energy certificates to sell? And that does happen because we don't technically have enough renewable energy certificates to sell to our generators that need to purchase these. This is kind of the real kicker, and I hope people are listening because if they can't purchase a renewable energy certificate, what they do is they send it back to the public benefit, and it's actually a benefit to it. So it helps bring it down. Right? So by allowing us to do this more, we're not getting that benefit back to us in the public benefits charge through these ACP charges. We're having to pay them out through these RECs or through the renewable portfolio. And like I said, that's not contemplated in this bill, but what is contemplated is we are going to be increasing the amount of RECs that are on there. And so the more RECs that are on there, the less we're going to see coming back to benefit us and the public benefits charge. So those charges will likely be higher. Sn/ak 500 Through you, Mr. Speaker, the NRES program, it does talk about -- it does allow for -- it seemed I was a little bit confused because it does say that there is a, you can have your full rooftop for the commercial. Is there a discussion on, like, a cap of the amount that you can use over what you use within that building, if that makes sense, like the excess energy? Is there a cap on that? I was a little bit confused because it looked like in one portion, it said only to the amount that you normally use. And then another session kinda looked like it was the full rooftop. And I'm not trying to do a gotcha. I'm just curious if the chair is aware of this. Through you.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Representative knows, we did spend a bit of time talking about rooftops and how many panels to fit on, but we have not made any changes here that are different than what we've done in the past. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 501
Representative Marra.
Okay. Thank you. I will move on to Section 3. And, please, I hope everybody understands that these first kind of 3, 4-ish sections are, in my mind, kind of the more important that I want to go through here tonight. I won't be as detailed on any of the others. But number three, this is our old what we call our SCEF program. This is a community, and is now called a community solar program. So what this does is provides larger solar that low-income people can subscribe into to utilize it. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is it only low-income customers that can subscribe to this solar program?
Representative Steinberg.
Sn/ak 502 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad we referred to this program. This is something that existed, but now it is exclusively focused on those who have not been able to access it previously. Before, it was really kind of more of a name. Now it's a shall. So this program is explicitly focused on those who would find it difficult to take advantage of solar otherwise. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you so much. So this might be one that I like better than the others, and I will explain why. If we have something where you've got solar, whether it's on like on top of parking garages, or and the connections are more centralized. Instead of our residential program, which every time they make a residential rooftop solar, they're basically making a mini generator on each house. So having it altogether, so you don't have those huge connection charges, I think makes more sense. Is there a reason why we only are doing this for low-income? It Sn/ak 503 seems to me like this is a better way to go than many of the residential programs where so many people can't actually put, they live in a tree area, and they can't actually put solar on top of their roof. It seems like a better solution to actually move more to community solar. Through you, Mr. Speaker, has this been contemplated?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Indeed. We had many discussions about whether we should broaden some of these programs, particularly for the middle class. We're not as worried about people of means who can do it on their own. We decided, though, that we really -- was important for us to focus on lower-income people now, at this point in the game. There are other programs in which other income consumers can benefit, but this was really important to us. We really wanted to make sure they had an opportunity to access. These are the people who are feeling the impact of affordability most acutely. So, we stand Sn/ak 504 by focusing on them, at least for the time being. Is a good representative who would like to contemplate bills in the future that expand it? I'm sure we'd be interested. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you. Since you're asking, I'd like to get rid of the residential altogether and move all to community solar. I think that would be a better, more efficient use of our money. So, yes, I think that is something I would like to contemplate in the future. I think we might actually see some efficiency with a program that's all compact. And, again, I just want to point out that in Section E, it says costs were prudently and reasonably incurred will be through your non-bypassable fully reconciled component on your public benefits charge. So it is right here in the bill that this will be going on your public benefits charge. Moving on to Section 4. If the good Sn/ak 505 chair wouldn't mind kinda going through, I know there were some discussions on whether there should be a cap, which I like the word cap a little bit better. Seems like instead they landed on target, but if the good representative can go through Section 4 and just talk about the thoughts behind the target pricing on this, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question. I spent a lot of time on trying to figure out how best to do this. The key factor for us was to give PURA the flexibility to best figure out how, that we could do this in an equitable fashion. The idea of a budget target was predicated on our analysis of what the costs have been in prior years. And it was important to us to set this target below that sort of run rate. And, obviously, there are certain caveats and assumptions at any given year as to what caused that particular amount to be spent. Sn/ak 506 For example, in 2025, the RRES program was greatly affected by the expiration of the federal tax credits at the 2025. So there was a lot of adoption in that year. So we did the best we could to sort of smooth out the assumptions. And we arrived at the 85 million, which is roughly equivalent to 180 megawatts as the basis for moving forward that would assure that if PURA did a good job of adhering to these targets that it would be a reduction to ratepayers somewhere in the 8% to 10% range. Through you.
Representative Marra.
Okay. Thank you. I mean, I hear you that it sounds like there seems to be a discussion of a reduction from what I've heard from the utilities. This is kind of about where they land already, and I am just looking up our current cost, but these are gosh. I'm not going to be able to look at these big numbers. But we can see certainly on from what we have been doing Sn/ak 507 already, we can see that we have charges on our public benefits from solar. And I already explained to everyone about where else you can see those charges through your RPS, through the RECs. And there's been also a discussion, and I've heard many people say that this is a decrease. And I would like to explain to people why this is absolutely not a decrease. These are new programs. So already, let's say, and I kinda used this the other day. Let's say you buy a subscription like Netflix. You buy Netflix, you're going to have Netflix all the time for the next 20 years, and you're going to pay X amount of dollars for it. Next year, you're going to get Hulu. So now you've got Netflix and Hulu, and you're going to have Hulu for the next 20 years. So you've only got nineteen years more of Netflix, but okay. The next year, you're going to get Disney+. So now, you got Disney+, Hulu, and Netflix, and you're paying for them all. And you're going to have Disney+ for 20 years, you're going to have Hulu for 19 years, and you're going to have Netflix for one less. Right? I think everybody understands what I'm saying. This is what we've already been doing, and now, here, this is going to be offered until the year 2035. So we have currently, which we haven't gotten into this Sn/ak 508 which I won't necessarily go into. I'll just tell you that we've already extended our current program. So we've extended our current program until this new program comes into play. So we already have so many years of 20-year contracts that we had started with. So we have all these subscriptions already, and every year, we're adding a new subscription on top of it. So when we talk about a decrease, that is not what this is. Now, if they want to talk about benefit which -- the rate impact statement says is a benefit, I would like for them to explain how that actually happens, and have they also considered the RECs? Did they also consider the renewable portfolio? I mean, I got that impact statement back in, what, like, 15 minutes? I mean, I'm pretty decent at math, but that would take me a while to do that. I mean, that came a little bit fast to say that it was a benefit to our ratepayers. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure -- I hope that everyone in here understands what we're doing to our ratepayers. And I hope that PURA understands, too. I mean, we have a new set of commissioners in PURA. And one of the things that we did, we tasked them to do is say, please look at ratepayer benefits. But Sn/ak 509 we've said that before, and this is where we are. How are we number two across the nation if they've been looking out for ratepayers? But I hope that PURA does come back, and they do find ways that we can benefit ratepayers. And, gosh, I am not against solar. Matter of fact, I have said several times, and I've given softballs up to the good chair and kudos to the good chair for talking about the benefits of battery with solar. And you're not going to hear me say anything wrong about there's a program in here I'm not even using with my calculations when I say, and maybe I even haven't said, because if you talk about $85 million a year, you get a procure until the 2035. So right. And then for -- so that's 10 years. You count this year. It's maybe even be more this year because this is the old program. And then you take all of those programs times 20 years. That is $17 billion. $17 billion. And I'm not even making this up. Right? We're looking at it. 85 million a year times 10 years times 20 years. Get your calculator out. That's what I'm saying. This is easy math. I'm going to move on to some of the others, and I'll kind of quickly touch through some of the others because I think that there are some good things in here. And maybe actually, there'll Sn/ak 510 be other people that'll be speaking on some of the other issues. Let's talk a little bit about portable solar generation. I like this, Mr. Speaker. And I know the good chair likes it too, so this will be a place that we come together. Happy so, through you, Mr. Speaker, would the good chair like to talk a little bit about solar, portable solar generation?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Indeed, I would like to talk about that, but I also feel compelled to state my categorical support for streaming services. I'm up to season seven of Homeland, and I'm hoping to get back to that after session is over. But with regard to plug-in solar, this is the hottest populous trend that we're seeing across the country. As I stated earlier, Germany's been doing this for a while. Now they have a different wiring system, but they've been able to do it quite safely, and it's provided average people with the ability to Sn/ak 511 actually take advantage of some solar. We're not as advanced here in the US. We do have a different electrical system. So even the states like Utah and Maine and other states are considering it, we're all taking a very steady, deliberate approach to making sure we do this in a safe manner. We, for example, are all adhering to the UL standard which is in the process of being promulgated explicitly for this kind of product, because even though it has solar panels involved, it's fundamentally different than a typical solar array. So, effectively, we've stated to facilitate this that the utilities can't forbid it, but really it's very hard to take advantage of it until a product is approved, is available in the marketplace, and you've availed yourself of all the safety requirements the UL is currently considering. For example, it's quite likely you may have to have your plug-in solar on a separate circuit with a separate breaker, and it would have to be installed by an electrician or appropriate person to make sure it's done in the right way. One of our great fears is, a lot of older houses aren't wired all that well, and we don't want to create any bad circumstances. We also have gone further than other states and required that the building Sn/ak 512 department be involved to make sure that those kind of safeguards are also there. So, we've really gone out of our way, but I also want to throw in one caveat. There is no charge for this, you can do it on your own, but if you want to get the full value of plug-in solar, you may have to get yourself a meter so that you don't get charged for anything that goes back to the grid. I know that as a measure of cost to the program. But again, if you want to get the full value plug-ins solar, you're going to probably have to get a meter at some point. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the good chair for the PSA there. What we do know is certainly -- in Germany, the maximum amount that they have is 800 watts. We have heard from some of our utilities that there's a concern that many of the apartments that we have across the state, if they got the amount that we're allowing here, which is 1,200 watts, Sn/ak 513 that they could actually produce more than they require. And here's the kicker. And we do say this in the bill that if you actually produce more than you require, the energy is going to flow back to the grid. The strange thing is your meter doesn't understand when the energy flows that way. That is not -- that is a benefit. So you're going to be charged for it. So, this was one of the things that, and I'm not going to be bringing for this amendment, but I have discussed this with the chair. I did originally have an amendment to require the use of advanced metering system. So this would be a meter that actually looks at the charge and which way the charge goes, whether it's coming into your house or out of your house, so that it doesn't actually charge you if you make just a little bit more. I think the utilities are concerned that that's going to be an issue. So this is your PSA for all five people out there that are listening to us at 08:23 on a Friday night before the Kentucky Derby. But, nonetheless, this is something that, and I won't speak for my caucus, but this is something that we like. Why? State of Connecticut doesn't have to pay for it. Right? This is like, you can just do this, and that is just a good thing. So I'm very Sn/ak 514 excited to see that that made it in the bill. There was a little concern at one point that it might end up being a study, so I'm really happy to see that here. I'm going to -- I'm hoping that we may have a couple people kinda speak up against, or for, some of the renewable safety issues. I know that certainly we have towns across the state of -- not across the state of Connecticut. Quite frankly, it's in a very specific part of the state of Connecticut that has more solar than the rest of us. And they've had some issues with safety, and they have wanted those to be recognized and dealt with. And so we have several sections here that deal with renewable safety. And I know these are very well thought-out sections of this bill, and I certainly appreciate -- I appreciate the process which that occurred. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk a little bit about the solar and storage permit approval. If the good chair can just confirm that this solar permitting approval process that will be offered to the municipalities to help with their approval process. This is not a mandate to our municipalities. Is that true, through you?
Sn/ak 515 Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's not a mandate, but we are strongly encouraging every municipality to adopt a streamlined permitting process. And if they choose not to take advantage of the Department of Energy app, which was intended for this purpose, we ask them to come back to us with a plan on how they're going to streamline further. We think that's in everybody's interest. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Thank you. But this is also my understanding that this app will be offered with no charge to the municipality. Is that true, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Sn/ak 516 Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct. Through you.
Representative Marra.
Okay. Thank you. And then the last section that I will -- I'm going to skip over to Section 18 to talk about. This seemed to be like a little bit of a newer section that popped in here. And this is about a rebate to gas customers. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if the good chair could just talk a little bit about this rebate and what this does and why we're putting this in this bill? Through you.
Representative Steinberg. Sn/ak 517
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You notice that doesn't seem to be explicitly about solar. The reason this bill is in here because it actually has a net benefit to electric ratepayers. But we're talking here about gas customers, and this is intended to address an anomaly in the statutes that we've written over the years to make eligible a limited number of gas customers, typically fuel cells that were not eligible for a discount on distribution costs. We feel we're remedying the situation here. And again, as I said, it has a benefit for electric ratepayers. Through you.
Representative Marra.
Okay. And, through you, Mr. Speaker. So, will the rebate be in the form of a charge on the public benefit charge on the electric customer? Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker? Sn/ak 518
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, that's roughly my understanding. The mechanism, I'm not exactly sure, but for electric repairs, yes, it would be reflected in a reduction. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
Sorry. I think I misunderstood. For the electric customer, will there be a charge on the electric customer's public benefit in order to give a rebate to the natural gas customer? Through you. New Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 519 Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the key point here is that, up to this point, in many cases, we were really making electric ratepayers responsible for fuel cells, which use gas. And so we are remedying that situation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
So then now I'm even more confused. Where is the charge going to be? Will it be on the electric bill or will it be a new public benefit on your gas bill? Through you.
Representative Steinberg.
Sn/ak 520 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I understand correctly, the charge will be on the retail charge to gas customers who may pay a little bit more, but correspondingly, there'll be reduction for electric customers, through you.
Representative Marra.
Okay. So it will be an added public benefit. Although I don't know that it's called a public benefit on the natural gas. It'll be an added charge now to the public benefit of the natural gas customer, but maybe not on the electric company. Will it be an even change, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Steinberg.
Sn/ak 521 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Roughly, an even exchange. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Marra.
But possibly separate customers. Is that right? Through you.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, it's conceivable that a customer is both a gas and an electric customer, so it could be the same. But it's also possible they could be different. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 522 Representative Marra.
Okay. Thank you so much. I have no more questions for the chair at this time. I hope that we've -- I mean, I imagine that we have some other people that have questions, but I hope that we've kind of we've gone through a little bit about what we're doing here. I hope everyone had a chance to kind of research and look things up as we were talking. I got to be honest with you. I don't agree with the ratepayer impact statement. And if we were able to have gotten another amendment through, I would have put an amendment in. This is what I actually -- I came to the committee at the beginning of this session, and I said, we really need to have ratepayer impact statements. Like, everyone needs to know if something's going to happen to your rates, what it is. And I went a step further with this bill, and I said if this ratepayer impact statement is wrong by something like, I don't know, 20%, 30%, 50%. Because at that point, I'd gone back and I looked at, like, 20 years of legislation, and you could see so many of them said no impact. No impact. No fiscal impact. No fiscal impact. No fiscal impact. Sn/ak 523 But yet, you can follow each of those bills here, there, and these line items of the public benefits charge, and you can see the impact. But I was told, and rightly so as we learned today that, that it is in statute that we're supposed to contemplate, and we're supposed to let people know what the impact is to our ratepayer. And the reason why that's important is because honestly, it's a bit like a tax. Right? These are things that we're voting on here legislatively. And in my opinion, I think that these are things that we should be putting in our budget, but we're not. We're putting these incentives on the backs of ratepayers. And as we have done this along the way, we could see that we had gaps and problems. We had people that had solar and weren't paying for any of the public benefits charges or any of the incentives in which they had solar. Not everybody. Right? These are just some of the netting customers that was a problem. And I do hope that moving forward, I do know that we have learned our lesson, and we had great discussions in the committee that this was a problem. So I am hoping that moving forward that some of that will be looked at. So there won't be such a discrepancy between Sn/ak 524 people that have solar, people that don't have solar, but it's going to be something. Like, you don't do $85 million and add on $85 million and add on $85 million and have 20-year contracts and say that there's no fiscal impact. How does that make sense? Does anybody believe that? Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to consider your constituents that are speaking to you every day about your rates and realizing that while solar may be a good thing, doing it like this on the back of ratepayers is not what we should be doing in the state of Connecticut when we have the second highest electric rates in the country. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Jensen.
Hello, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. And I do have a few questions for the good chair.
Sn/ak 525 Please proceed.
Thank you. So I'd like to start back on line 67, where it says the authority shall assess whether incorporating time- varying rates and other dynamic pricing methods. Does this require advanced metering? Is that correct, through you, Mr. Chair?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the representative who's been listening all the time in the Energy Committee, and for paying attention to this because this matters to me a lot. I want smart meters. I want smart meters for over 10 years. And I hope that I will see them in my lifetime. But to answer your question, no. It does not require it. You can do Sn/ak 526 time-of-use pricing without smart meters, but it's a lot better and more efficient with them. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
So the existing meters then can do this dynamic pricing, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand the question correctly. In the true definition of dynamic pricing, you would really need the smart meters to be able to make changes in real time. A time-of-use structure would be to some degree, arbitrary. So we really do need to get to the point where we have smart meters, through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 527
Representative Jensen.
Okay. Thank you for that. And then is there an additional cost then for these smart meters to you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. There is the rub. In fact, the cost of this program in the 10 years since I've been advocating for it, I think, has almost tripled. And, obviously, this is significant. But to your point, I can't think of a better investment. Again, ratepayers will pay, but what it will provide by way of benefits in terms of giving homeowners control over usage and making decisions in real time, whether to be buying or selling electrons, if you will, particularly if they have batteries in their home, is a game changer. That's where we need Sn/ak 528 to be. I am eager for the state of Connecticut to get there, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Okay. Thank you for that also. And where would this -- where would the cost of this go? Would that go on to the public benefits charge or somewhere else? Through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not exactly sure which line it would be, but regulators would probably pay virtually all the burden on this. And that's kinda one of the reasons we haven't gotten it done yet. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 529
Representative Jensen. Okay.
Okay. Thank you. So I think I understand that the metering. Next, I want to just move on to line 97, and it says, in order to be eligible participate in the program, distributed energy resource shall be sized not to exceed the annual load of the customer's individual meter. And my question for you is, what if it does? What if there is a -- what if one of these systems exceeds the current user's load? I mean, I could think of many reasons why this could happen. You could have overzealous salesperson. You could have an overzealous buyer who says I want a big system. Alright? So then what happens? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Sn/ak 530 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is an important understanding for the person who might be interested in getting solar. There is a process for you to be approved. We look at usage data, and they're only going to approve a certain amount of panels to represent a certain amount of wattage. And, they're not going to approve something that's significantly beyond what you've currently been using. Could a given day that happen? Yeah. Sure. But the goal is to make that available, the incentive available for your use, not to export back to the grid. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Okay. Thank you for that. So now I'm going to move on to Section 4, and this is about the money. So my first question to you, Mr. Speaker, is we're looking at $85 million a year. Now I've heard 10 years and 20 years here. So is it 85 million times 10 years for a $850 million total investment? Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker? Sn/ak 531
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you could repeat the question. So, total investment, through you.
Yeah. I see I see $85 million per year. Is that for 10 years or is that for 20 years? I'm hearing both, and I'm not sure which it is, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me see if I can clarify on your behalf. This program is intended to run through 2035. So those are the years in which the 85 million would apply. And actually, Sn/ak 532 that doesn't start until after we start the program, after PURA has promulgated the rules. So that's a couple years out from now as it is. With regard to the 20 years, that has to do with the contract terms, which also relates to the life of the solar panels themselves. So the 20 years is really about the contract. The 85 million applies to the given year, not the entire length. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Alright. I'm sorry. I think I'm still confused. So, it's $85 million per year for 20 years. No. Through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Steinberg.
Sn/ak 533 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me try again. Okay. This program is slated to run through 2035. The budget target that relates to that runs through 2035. Let me also throw out the caveat. We're giving pure discretion. They could lower that budget target if warranted or change the incentives. So, again, I want to emphasize this is a more flexible program than our current program. PURE is in the position with the data to make those kind of decisions. The 20 years is with regard to the contract terms. So this is not for 20 years, but the contract once signed would last for 20 years, and the tariff rate for that contract would last for that entire time. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
So just so I'm sure I have this right, so the total, say, capital outlay would be $850 million, $85 million times 10 years. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 534
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Roughly the case. That's our objective at least. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Okay. Thank you very much. Next, I'd like to move on. So we had an amendment that talked about three authority documents that are cited in the bill here. And I have one of them here in front of me. I have the comprehensive energy strategy. And in the comprehensive energy strategy on page 37, DEEP recommends an annual investment of $35 million per year for distributed generation. And it goes on further, a few page later, to talk about three separate programs, is split into three separate categories, very similar to the three separate programs that Sn/ak 535 we're looking at in our bill here today. So my question for the proponent of the bill, through you, Mr. Speaker, is, why are we now looking at almost two and a half times as much per year as DEEP as recommended in the comprehensive energy strategy?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could you provide me a line reference so that could be on the same page as you, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Jensen.
Thank you. I am on page 37. It's the last paragraph of page 37 of the Connecticut comprehensive energy study -- strategy, not study. Do you, Mr. Speaker? Sn/ak 536
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the CS handy. I'm sure that you're quoting the references. Correct? God, for a clumped for a minute. I think it's what's most important is that currently, DEEP is working on the new CES. And, to your point, that's a bit dated. It doesn't reflect current market conditions, and certainly did not enter into our calculation of the budget target. Obviously, PURA is going to look at the numbers both from the former CES and the strategy for the new one in making determinations. I don't think that's going to be a problem. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Sn/ak 537 Alright. So thank you for that. I'd now like to maybe just take a little step back and talk about solar subsidies. Alright? So in 1978, we had our first solar subsidy as a federal tax credit for solar. At the time, that subsidy was to help a developing industry that was a fledgling industry just get just getting started. At that time, the cost of solar was a staggering $50 a watt. Today, it's less than $0.25 a watt. That's a 200-fold decrease in the cost. So these federal subsidies and the successive -- and the also the state subsidies have been very successful in developing solar energy. It's now very inexpensive. So I want to look at where we are today. A typical solar system in Connecticut is about eight kilowatts. The cost of that is about $23,000. So the output of that is about 10 megawatt a year with a lifetime of 25 years, it comes out to an unsubsidized cost of about a $100 per megawatt. So I pulled out my last Eversource bill, and I used 0.74 megawatts and my cost was $226. If you do the math, that comes out to $302 a megawatt. So, unsubsidized solar now is about a $100 a megawatt, where Eversource is charging 300. So it's one-third the price of what Sn/ak 538 Eversource is charging. So solar is now a mature technology. It's affordable, it's reliable, it's safe. We don't need to subsidize it to the tune of $850 million over the next 10 years. So that being said, I'd like to move on to line 393, and we're going to talk about battery storage now. And so the goal is 580 megawatts of storage. I'm just wondering, through you, Mr. Speaker, where that figure came from.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The storage goal is something we actually established in legislation a number of years ago as a target. We have not changed that. And I also would like to comment with regard to your discussion about solar subsidies because it is an important point. Let me respond by saying, first of all, renewable energy is our future. And I'm pleased that the price of solar is coming down, and it will come down more with greater innovation and with greater adoption. And I Sn/ak 539 promise you, I will advocate for removing solar incentives the day in which we remove incentives for fossil fuel exploration and hold them fully accountable for the pollution harms they create. When we get to that day, I'll talk to you then. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Alright. Thank you for that. And I was expecting the fossil fuel. I hear it every time, so thank you. Alright. So if we move on in our bill here, it then moves on to -- alright. My next question was around 9th line. 399 ratepayer impact measurement test. Now this is the one that we had discussed before that Green Bank is going to be working on, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg. Sn/ak 540
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The RIM analysis is something that's commonly used in assessing the value of solar plus storage, but we've explicitly asked the Green Bank to make sure that they make that assessment is probably the best way to measure the value of the combination. So, yes, we made it explicit in the pilot study, but we also expect when we reform the storage program, based upon the results of that pilot, that RIM will be an important factor in determining how best to make an effective, efficient program. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Okay. Thank you for that. And then if I'm going to move on to line 403, and we are still on energy storage, and it says there that it shall not be counted by the authority towards the megawatt procurement or budgetary targets set forth in this Sn/ak 541 subsection. Does that mean that there's no cap on the spending for battery storage, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We did that intentionally. We had a lot of conversation about it because we believe that combination is the key to Connecticut's energy security going forward. So that's where we made that exception. Storage alone is under the target. Solar -- residential solar alone is under the target, but not in combination. Because, as we discussed with the RIM, we typically get more value than we spend. That's why we emphasize that, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Sn/ak 542 Yes. Thank you. And I would be very interested in seeing the calculations on these, the REM study. I mean, I've seen the conclusion but not the numbers, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Was that a question?
Alright. So now I'm going to move on to Section 7, and this is the Green Bank that's going to establish the pilot program. Again, we're looking at $2 million, and I'm just wondering how that is going to be funded, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a conversation we had with the Green Bank as soon as we started talking about the pilot. Sn/ak 543 They have available resources to apply for the specific case, no impact on ratepayers. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Yes. Thank you. I thought that had been covered, but I just wanted to be sure, and I am now going to move on to our portable solar devices. So I totally agree that this is an emerging technology, we should be taking advantage of it, we should allow it here in the state. The question that I have, though, is Section 9 provides for us to -- allows us to use these devices, but when you move to Section 10, what we have is we have the state building inspectors, the code standards, and the state fire marshals all reviewing these devices to make sure that they're safe. I'm just wondering are we putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't we do the review before we say, yeah, let's everybody use them? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 544 Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Really good point. Something we discussed, some would have preferred to study, but we're really in the same place as a lot of other states. We are enabling this to happen, but don't expect it to happen in any sizable way until you all promulgates the standards. But what we've seen in their preliminary investigation to date is they're going in the same direction we are. They want to assure safety. We already indicated that they're likely to require a separate breaker for this and a separate circuit as well. And they're the ones who are telling us, you better have an electrician or somebody who knows what they're doing help you with this. Just don't try to plug it into your wall socket. Something might go wrong. So, we've gone further by indicating that, really, the fire marshal and the building department should be in a position to help you determine whether you're taking any additional risk. Because I don't know about you, when I bought my house, the people who had owned it before, they had extension cords running all over the place, and who knows what was going on in the Sn/ak 545 breaker box. We had to replace a lot of that. You don't want to be taking those risks, and that's why we're taking a slow but steady approach, just not so slow as just to do a study. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jensen.
Okay. And again, thank you for answering those questions. I think that's all the questions that I have. I would just like to conclude by saying that solar power is safe, clean, efficient, and cost-effective. I totally support its use. However, as I've discussed, subsidies are not necessary. We do not need to add $850 million to our public benefits charge so that people installing solar systems can save even more money. I also believe that storage is a key to our energy future. However, I can't support a blank check for energy storage. So, because of those two reasons, I won't be supporting this bill today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 546
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mushinsky, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank Representative Steinberg for his great work on it. Want to tell you the experience of my constituent, Jason's Andree, who is a computer geek in my district, a former counselor, and he decided to put a complete solar system in his house. It would have cost $50,000. But at the time, he put it in the federal incentive program was in place. So it only cost him 34,000. And in four years, he has not paid a single dollar for energy, not for heating or cooling or hot water or transportation or cutting his grass or snow blowing his entire system is electric. And so his initial investment has paid off every year. It's now the fourth year, and I am estimating that he is making 1,400 per year in his fourth year, and it will get even better as he goes on. But he is completely electric. He has a six people in Sn/ak 547 the house, and this is not theoretical. This is lived experience. It demonstrates what is possible when people get help with the installation and then the benefits rolling afterwards. He testified in front of our committee in Energy and Technology, and he said he wanted more Connecticut residents and families to have access to the opportunities that he did. And solar should not be limited just to people with his income, but should be accessible to all incomes. And the plug-in solar systems that are in this bill are essential if we want to give more households the opportunity of all incomes the opportunity to save money in their electric bill. So this bill, among many of its features, will give families and businesses the tools they need to participate in this transition to clean energy and more affordable energy. There's some control now in the families on their energy bills. I agree with both Representative Steinberg and Representative Marra that the smartest thing to do is to match up solar with a battery so that the peak collection of energy can then be redistributed to the house at the end of the day when people come home from work, and it is most needed that makes the most sense. Sn/ak 548 So based on my constituents' experience, I'm encouraging you to vote yes on this bill. It's a new way forward. We can give Connecticut families of all incomes access to an opportunity to reduce their rates and move forward into clean energy. So I urge your support for this bill. And I want to thank the Energy Committee for all the work on this as we go forward. Thank you, Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Dubitsky?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few questions, if I may.
Please proceed.
Sn/ak 549 I am looking at section 11, starting at line 674. And I believe, I know there was an amendment, but I don't think that affected this. So I think I'm still looking at the correct language. This appears, and I read it a couple times, it appears to encourage solar on farmland. And if you wouldn't mind, through you, Mr. Speaker, if you would just speak to that a little about whether indeed this section does encourage eating up farmland with solar panels. And if so, the reason why? Thank you.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if I'd used the words eating up, but, indeed, this is to afford farmers the opportunity to take a portion of the land, perhaps land that's not arable, and potentially create a new revenue source through the use of solar panels. I would also like to encourage the good representative to perhaps direct this as well to my colleague Sn/ak 550 Representative Foster, with a lot to do with the writing of this section. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If Representative Foster has a better answer, I'd be glad to hear it. Thank you.
Representative Foster.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good representative of the 47th District, I represent a municipality that has nearly 10% of its land mass as grid-scale solar. So I think the good representative knows that I, more than most, am concerned about this balancing act as we move forward. The Connecticut Farm Bureau, for the last decade or so, has actually refused to take Sn/ak 551 a position on the balancing of farmland preservation and the development of farmland into solar panels because, of course, a land owner has the right to choose what they do with their land. The point of agrivoltaics is to encourage a diversified farm's revenue stream or a farm that's a monocrop, for example, to be more financially viable moving forward. There is a problem, though, with the use of the term agrivoltaics. When folks consider their farm dual use, there are occasions where people plop a beehive on a farm and on a solar array, and they call it agrivoltaics. You and I, representing the districts that we do, know that a simple beehive, which I could have in my residential neighborhood, does not make a farm. And so what this is looking for is to develop a true standard to incentivize what is truly dual use, what is truly agrivoltaics, something that maintains the rurality and bucolic nature of our communities, but also allows farmers economic viability as they move forward. I have a dairy farm in my district, for example, that had 13 acres of rooftop that they wanted to be solar. And that is, of course, a wonderful example of agrivoltaics. And so, through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe the goal of this legislation is to Sn/ak 552 move forward for a strong and robust definition of agrivoltaics that maintains agriculture and communities like yours and mine, but also helps with the economic viability of farms moving forward. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I very much appreciate that answer. I'm a little hesitant, though, and I'll explain why. You know, certainly it is a balancing act. There are many farmers in this state who are quite old, and many of them are -- don't have a pot to piss in other than the fact that they have an expensive piece of land. They don't have anything to give to their kids. All they have is this land. And they've been working it their whole lives, and it has been good, productive land for generations, and now somebody comes and offers them a ton of money and says I will use your land for the next 30 years, you don't even have to sell it to me. I'll lease it from you, and Sn/ak 553 you'll make more money per acre than you would growing corn or growing anything or having animals. It's hard to look a farmer like that in the eye and say, don't do it. But on the other hand, our farmland is getting eaten up all over this state. I'm sure many of you have driven by places that used to be farms and now they're just covered in solar panels. Some very profitable and well-run farms in Connecticut over the last 10 years have now been closed and covered in solar panels. A few years ago, we passed a bill that is now law, that requires solar developers to post the bond when they build solar developments on agricultural land, prime and important agricultural land restoration bond. I like to hope that law and their requirement for those bonds has helped to some extent. That at some point, when the useful life of those solar panels has been reached, maybe that land will be turned back into agricultural land. But I worry that programs like this actually encourage more development of prime and important agricultural lands into solar fields. And I'm looking through here in Section 11, and I don't see any consideration to preserve that agricultural land. I do see where there is a incentive to preserve forest land that's on Sn/ak 554 line 687 and 688. But unless I miss it, I don't see anything here that encourages farmers and encourages this group of DEEP and DOAG to preserve prime and important agricultural land. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is there any such provision that perhaps I'm just missing? Through you.
Representative Foster.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, there are actually two studies outlined in this program. And in lines 1049, there's the goal of preserving farmland soils, in consideration of what is cited and the concentration and density by community. What I will also tell you is that the Department of Agriculture already has a standing initiative to preserve prime and important farmland, and there are a variety of farmland preservation programs run through the Department of Agriculture and DEEP. But I think you draw attention to a very real and existing rub that exists in communities like ours that, of course, the economic viability of renewable energy, which is also something incentivized by the Sn/ak 555 Connecticut state government, is in direct conflict with the Department of Agriculture's goals and objectives of preserving open space and farmland. And so, the latter section that I've outlined in Section C, starting on lines 1035 that gets, I think, more clearly at your concern here, which is that we have conflicting state initiatives and priorities at this moment, and our hope is to clarify how to adjust those conflicting priorities moving forward. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Dubitsky.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate that. I did see that section. Not sure it fully resolves my concerns. My feeling is that we should be encouraging or developing programs that encourage development of solar in places that are not farmland, such as on rooftops and on the sides of roads, and in places where we are not -- where there isn't this conflict between Sn/ak 556 preserving farmland and preserving active agriculture and building solar. So in my own, in one of my towns, there is currently a project planned where they're going to eat up a whole bunch of farmland with solar panels, and half a mile away is an enormous new warehouse. The thing has got to be 15 acres of warehouse with a big old flat roof, not a single solar panel on it. And when the developer came to me and wanted my support in eating up all this farmland to build solar panels. I said, well, why don't you -- here's the guy's phone number. Call him up. Put your panels on the roof. Why do you have to eat up all this farmland? And actually, I know the guy who leased that farmland, and he no longer has a place. He's just lost quite a bit of acreage from his farming operation because the owner of the land now is leasing it to a developer. So I know we're moving forward with alternative energy, but we really need to do it in a smart way without destroying the few remaining acres of productive farmland in this state. So I'll go through this bill one more time, and I will listen to the rest of the debate, but I just think it encourages the wrong part of that conflict, and it should be encouraging use of Sn/ak 557 rooftops and roadsides and things like that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank the good representatives for their responses. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Ackert.
At least I got some exercise in today, running up the stairs. Of course, my computer shut up. Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, probably start with some comments. First and foremost, a shout-out to both the chair of Energy and Technology and the ranking member. The dialogue that they just took was very informative. And if you have never been Energy and Technology Committee, the acronyms, all the information that is there is amazing. I was put on Energy and Technology a number of years ago because I had an electrical background. I didn't have a hedge fund background, though, and understanding that it's literally about money than it is anything else. Sn/ak 558 I'd like to start with the plug-in. I wish the plug-in component, the plug-in solo, I'd like to start with that. I wish the good ranking member ran that amendment because I thought it was a very good amendment. Somebody that is concerned about somebody putting a little extra energy into maybe an older circuit. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, is the wattage still capacity for that plug-in for that at 1.2 Kw or 1,200 watts, through you, Mr. Speaker?
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's my understanding, through you.
Representative Ackert.
Sn/ak 559 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In a typical household circuit is 1,800 watts. And so that's more than 50% of it, so it shall be a dedicated circuit. So if someone's going to do that, that should be something that we think about and maybe go back to that, making sure it's a lesser wattage for those that are going to be on a circuit. Because the circuit is going to be on with other loads. And granted it's a inflow, but it's still on the same wiring component. So I think that would have been a safety concern that we should have addressed. Start lower and then move up rather than start high and move in the other direction. I'm going to come at this probably in a little different direction than the others. We, as a state, invest in energy production. That's what we do. We buy energy. We buy energy from Millstone at a tune of $50 a megawatt, and we have to purchase 50% of the 2,100 megawatts produced. Is that correct to you, Mr. Speaker, to the good chair of Energy and Technology?
Representative Steinberg.
Sn/ak 560 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. That is the agreement we came to some years ago when we were acting independently of the other ISO states. As the good representative knows, we're currently in negotiation with Dominion, the owner of Millstone, and that is only being done on a multistate basis because we never wanted to be in the situation we were before. And the available supply will benefit all the ISO New England states. I'm not sure I necessarily answered your question, but that is what it was. What it will be is not exactly clear yet, through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Ackert.
That investment was a key investment for us to make sure that we had a solid energy source here in Connecticut. But the bigger factor of that was the jobs that we were retaining at the time. That was about 400 jobs, I believe, without even the ancillary amount of work around that plant. So it was a really - - we are investing not just in an energy source, but we were Sn/ak 561 saying, hey. This is an investment in our employees in Connecticut and the surrounding areas to what would have happened if that plant closed? State of Connecticut right now has 2,400 solar workers. 2,400 solar workers now in the state of Connecticut. When we invest in solar production in the state of Connecticut, we're also investing in jobs, good-paying jobs. When I talked to my solar installer, a large solar installer, another one located right in the district next to mine. In those two businesses, it's 200 jobs right there. 200 jobs. And these installers are doing just what we do. They are creating an energy source in the state of Connecticut, producing right back into the grid. Zero-emission power. Zero-emission power. And the new technology that was brought up in this bill about the batteries, the battery storage. I had a good friend of mine that worked at a peaker plant. What a peaker plant is say, hey, we need power. Fire up that peaker plant. So it barely runs all month, this plant. But you're paying for all the jobs, you're paying for the maintenance. You're paying for the -- its electric bill to keep going. And then when it's called upon, it may run for a day or Sn/ak 562 two. And we're paying for that kilowatt in the hundreds of dollars of kilowatt, per kilowatt hour. The load -- the battery component of this is creating just like a peaker plant. So when that sun is down and that battery kicks in, in the dark, we are taking that peak power. And when it starts to drop, we're taking that and creating that to be a balanced power production in the hours of night when we typically use most of our energy. That is a huge part of what we're investing in in this bill. Another component when I asked is, and when we had looked at this bill, there wasn't a lot on the fuel cells. Fuel cells create an enormous amount of power, can run small communities, large plants, hospitals. I stood see the piece on the end of this that is going to help with that generation, and that's another key component. We need local power here in Connecticut. We're doing that with the last section of this bill with our fuel cells. We're doing that with solar that we have localized solar generation right here in Connecticut. We're not relying on a main Quebec power supply coming all the way through here on power lines. So I look at this a little bit differently. We are not adding to the public benefit charge as it stands now. Are we Sn/ak 563 continuing that investment? We are. We are continuing the investment. We're continuing the investment that we have for the solar installation in the state of Connecticut, backing that up now with a battery component and its localized storage. We're even getting better. Our investments are getting better. So I look at that as an investment. What is broken is how we pay for it. I've got that nice 4,000 square foot house. I don't have that. I have an apartment. So I should say I did have a bigger house at a later time. And I got that solar up on the roof. Right? I got that solar up on the roof. I invested in that solar, and I got a break because I had an incentive. So I got a 10,000-watt solar on the top of my roof, and I get an electric bill like $30. $30. And my public benefit charge is like nothing because I pay on usage. But I drive by the senior housing next to me, going down the senior housing, and it's a 900 square foot inefficient electric heat house apartment. Their electric bills $500, and their public benefits that they're getting nothing of. They're getting zero benefit from the public benefit is probably a $150 to $200 a month. The person with the solar took advantage of a Sn/ak 564 program that we have, offset the cost to put the solar. We're billing it wrong. We are billing it wrong. Folks, we can look at this as incentives as we had in the past and other sessions. Yes. I know the wild, wild world is the public benefits right now. And I do appreciate the good ranking member's comments about this, the work that she has done on this, and the chair's work. We may have to look at this. We may look at this a little bit differently. We invest in millstone. We invest in solar. We invest in battery storage. These are sometimes considered investments. So I will wait and listen for more of the dialogue. Thank you for the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the good chair and the ranking member's dialogue on this bill. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Winter.
Sn/ak 565 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the bill as amended, and I have a couple questions for the proponent of the bill.
Please proceed.
I would like to ask how the bill helps ensure that solar and store -- solar and storage is installed and operated safely.
Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the good representative wouldn't mind, I would suggest he addresses the question to Representative Foster, who in this case, was instrumental in the writing of the safety sections of this bill, which I'm glad we're finally focusing on, through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 566
Representative Foster.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the people in the chamber, the inspiration of this legislation came from incidents in my district, and in the good representative of the 50th Districts responses where our fire departments had to respond to incidences on solar arrays. What we learned is there appears to have been a blind spot. I've been talking about it as the green halo, where we were not holding renewable energies to the same sort of safety standards that we applied to our traditional combustion, fuel generation facilities or energy generation facilities. So what these sections do, Sections 12 and 13, is they define standards for the types of incidences that might occur at a renewable generation or storage facility, and it requires the facilities to have a safety plan. It allows the Connecticut Siting Council to require the developer to create training to train a fire department in an existing district to know that Sn/ak 567 they could respond appropriately to an incident if it were to recur at the facility. And I think for me, given incidents that have occurred in my district, the part of this that's most important is that it requires for upon siting for a facility, to designate an appropriate response contact who must be available to respond in the occasion that an incident may happen, though infrequent, may happen. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Winter.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the good representative's response. I have another question for the proponent of the bill, Mr. Speaker. Through you, can the proponent describe whether this investments we're currently making through the state's energy storage program deliver a net benefit to all ratepayers?
Sn/ak 568 Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. I believe I alluded to it earlier. The energy storage program, the ESS Program, is not as mature as some of the other programs we've been talking about today, so we have relatively less data. But, the analysis to this point of the energy storage program using that RIM metric, the ratepayer impact metric, is 1.69. That's like an extra $0.69 for every dollar that we invest. You get your money back and $0.69, and that is the standard metric used to evaluate storage in this context. We have every expectation we will have a positive score again when the Green Bank completes its pilot program. Through you.
Representative Winter.
Sn/ak 569 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that's a really key point that's worth emphasizing here, and it helps explain why we should be satisfied with the fiscal note that's attached to the bill. There's been a lot of discussion this evening about the fiscal note, about the potential cost of the program, the $85 million budgetary target. But these programs can be designed in such a way that they yield a net benefit to all ratepayers. So not only a benefit to the person who's putting solar on their roof, but the other ratepayers who live near that ratepayer or in that utility service territory. The fiscal note says that this would reduce rates to electric customers, and the amount is determined on how the programs are rolled out. So it's important to stress that there's a lot that PURA will need to do in order to set the appropriate rate for energy that solar panels export to the grid. But if it's set in the right way, we can deliver positive benefits. So for each dollar we invest in solar, we're getting more than a dollar back. And that is what has the potential to reduce rates, not only for the person who has solar on their roof, but for their neighbors. And the key to that is by reducing the export rate from what it is currently, we're Sn/ak 570 incentivizing battery storage, and that allows for all the benefits that we've heard about tonight, but in particular, peak shaving. Right now, we have a big peak in the morning. It dips down during the day and then a really large peak in the evening. And if we can lower that peak, we have a huge avoided cost of supply. In addition to the avoided costs of distribution and transmission that come with siting solar on residential, commercial, industrial rooftops. So I just think that's really key because we're talking a lot about the potential cost of this program, but we have really clear evidence that the most similar program the state of Connecticut currently has authorized is delivering almost two-to-one benefits from pairing storage with our electric grid. The other point I'd like to emphasize, just going back to what my colleague from the 8th District said about job creation. 45,000 clean energy jobs are supported by the state's clean energy program. So these dollars are not only producing benefits for all ratepayers, but also have the potential to continue job growth here in Connecticut. Beyond that, I think it's important Sn/ak 571 to stress that there's elements of this bill which have the potential to drive down the overall cost of solar. So, to put a solar panel on a roof in the United States cost three to four times as much as it costs in Australia. Same solar panels, same wiring, same equipment. What Australia has done is they have a uniform system for permitting, inspection, and interconnection. That really reduces the soft costs involved in solar beyond the physical costs of panels and wiring. This bill has an important program to provide a uniform digital platform for solar permitting across the state, and that has the potential to bring down the cost of solar overall as we make these important investments. The last point, which I think everybody, the good ranking member, the good chair, and it seems like everybody on the committee is enthusiastic about, is plug-in solar. And I think this is a really big opportunity for people who haven't been able to afford or connect solar to the grid, people who are renting apartments, who might be able to put solar on their balcony or hanging out their window. We see this very commonly in Europe. This really has the potential to democratize access to clean energy and help people who haven't been able to Sn/ak 572 participate in the financial benefits of clean energy, directly to be able to literally plug in and reduce their electric bills. So with that, I urge support. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Piscopo, quick first step there.
Sorry about that. Apologies to the chamber. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate it. We've been in the news a lot, so I'll just try and just make a few comments on this. First of all, my friend from the 47th District mentioned the farmlands, and he was worried about it. And in the public hearing, we had real strong testimony opposed to this bill from the Working Lands Alliance. Connecticut has 170,000 acres of prime farmland. That sounds like a lot, but that's not a lot at all. It's about 5% of our state. Half of that is what we call prime farmland soil. So when you look at it that way, where we are pretty limited. Sn/ak 573 Connecticut is about the 39% of Connecticut is developed, and 4% of it, we're fourth most dense state in the union. So we are pretty crowded state. We should really look to preserve our farmland. This bill doesn't go anywhere toward that. In fact, it makes it a little hard or worse in my opinion. We mentioned subsidies. Here we are. This bill could easily better policy of a clean net metering bill. Get back to net metering. Paid, when you're not using the power, you charge the -- your power goes on the grid. We pay you the wholesale price of whatever the wholesale price of the electricity is. Wholesale price right now, I've got ISO up. It's running about 3.05 cents a kilowatt hour. So that would be a clean bill instead of this layered tariff method that we have try -- that we're going to try and then accomplish. It heavily subsidizes the solar industry. And whenever you talk about subsidies, they always bring fossil fuels like fossil -- well, we subsidized fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, the only subsidies we really do with them, except for land grant is whatever you spend on like any other business, whatever you spend on your business, you write off. They're counting that as subsidies as a criticism. You pay for your Sn/ak 574 employees, you pay for your equipment, you just write it off. It's not a subsidy. You're just writing that off your taxes. So that's all they really get, our fossil fuel industry. In fact, they're punished. We charge them for their use of carbon. Connecticut's actually engaged in a carbon cap and trade. The Green Bank makes a lot of money on every one of our electricity bills because they were paying a percentage of carbon. Carbon cap and trade is passed on to the consumer. So, the Green Bank makes most of its revenue on the carbon cap and trade that Connecticut is involved in. This bill heavily subsidizes -- heavily subsidizes our solar cost. It says solar is clean energy. Okay. Well, no one has a problem with putting solar on your roof. So solar is clean energy when it's on the roof, pumping clean juice into the grid. You got to look at the whole nine yards. Most of the solar panels are from China. It's a huge industrial effort to make a solar panel. There's precious metals in those solar panels. They've polluted -- the solar plants in China polluted a river the size of the Ohio River. If you ever been to Cincinnati or Ohio, they polluted a huge river. The farmers in there had a huge protest because of the solar Sn/ak 575 production facilities ruined all their farmland in China. So all the capital for solar really comes from China. So we got to look at the whole picture here. It's not a clean energy. It's very dirty energy. So that's all I have to say. And this bill is, I said I'd be brief. I don't want to get -- I have got three pages of notes. I'm not going to get into one of them. So I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Marra.
Thank you for the second time. I just wanted to make it abundantly clear. I thought I did throughout my testimony, but I wanted to make it abundantly clear for my colleagues that there are sections I do like. And as the good representative just talked about battery, battery plus solar doesn't come under this $85 million target. I am not talking about that. I agree. That can do great things for shaving our peak. That is a good thing. That is not what we're talking about when we talk about the Sn/ak 576 target. So I want to go through one more time just to make sure everybody understands just because one of my colleagues had some questions. 85 million a year procurement. That is the subscription kind of thing that you get in. So you get that. The next year, it's 85 plus another 85 more that you're getting in. So that's 170 million, and those subscriptions last for 20 years. You do that for 10 years. Every year, you add 85 million more, and each one of those gets 20 years. That's how I come up with the 17 billion. It's not rocket science. This does not include the RIM number, which may be inflated, but I do agree it is a benefit. This doesn't include that. This is only solar that we know does not have that RIM number. And then the last thing that I will mention is that Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, if you look in the bill, all say through a non-bypassable. That is the key phrase for public benefit, through a non-bypassable. In Sections 1, Sections 2, and Sections 3. The other point I want to make is our energy storage that is also on our public benefit. Again, I'm all for energy storage. I think that can do good things, but that charge is also there. So I want to make it abundantly clear why I do not Sn/ak 577 support this bill. It is an added charge to the residents of the state of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Steinberg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to address one section of the bill that we have yet not discussed. This relates to what we call the pause, whereby we will be taking a one-year break from new solar projects in certain circumstances. And I want to be clear that this pause will not impact projects that have already been approved by the signing council and will not take place in a municipality that has a 5.5% solar by land mass or a town contiguous to the north of that that has at least 2% solar by land mass. I want to make sure that everybody understands our legislative intent that those are the only circumstances in which a pause on solar development will be allowed. Sn/ak 578 Additionally, I want to take this opportunity to thank a few people. I'll do it as quickly as I can. I want to thank my co-chair for humoring me through this entire process. I very much appreciate it. And one of my greatest regrets in leaving this place will not be working with Senator Needleman on a daily basis as we have in the past, though I do expect to get phone calls from him that will last hours. I also want to thank my good ranking member, Representative Marra, who's been very patient with us, very forbearing. And as has been stated here, the dialogue we have in the debate, I think, has been very informative and helpful. And I want to thank her again for going through this tough process in a very tough area. I obviously want to thank all those who contributed to this. Our partners at OCC, DEEP, PURA, the developers, the utilities all made this bill significantly better than it would have been otherwise. And I want to single out Representative Foster, who, as you could see here tonight, had a central role in key aspects of this bill, particularly the safety section. Sn/ak 579 She may have the greatest passion for it because of an unfortunate incident, but what she's doing will benefit all solar arrays across the state. And I think will put us on a solid footing. I also want to thank Representative Winter for his consulting capacity and help me in a lot of ways. And I'll end by thanking two people. One is our LCO, [John Porzic], who has gone through so many versions of this bill. I've lost count. And he has maintained his sense of humor and esprit de corps through all of it. I'm not sure there are many lawyers on the planet, let alone LCOs in Hartford, who would have put up with us in such a kind way and added so much value beyond simply writing legislative language in helping us make this bill better. And lastly, I want to thank the person sitting next to me, Kimmy Grove. I don't know how to describe her role. It's been virtually everything. She has helped us with policy, with arrangements. She's been a shuttle diplomat. She has taken on so many different roles that thankfully, I didn't have to do. So, we're very lucky to have her on the Energy Committee. It's more than just policy. It's the ability to find solutions, and that's what we've done on this bill. And I want to thank Sn/ak 580 everybody for helping us get to this point. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members of the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will announce a tally. Sn/ak 581
House Bill 5340, as amended by House A: Total number voting 142 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 99 Those voting Nay 43 Absent not voting 9
The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar Number 118.
On page seven, Calendar 118, House Bill number 5295, AN ACT NAMING THE CONNECTICUT NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER IN THE TOWN OF PUTNAM. Favorable report of Veterans Affairs.
Sn/ak 582 The good chair of Veterans Affairs, Representative Foster, you have the floor.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Foster, you have the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment. It's file number 138, Calendar Number 118. I ask for leave of the chamber to summarize. Oh, the LCO number 5406. My apologies.
Thank you, Representative. Will the clerk please call LCO 5406, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A. Sn/ak 583
House Amendment Schedule A. LCO Number 5406 offered by Representative Foster, Senator Honig et al.
The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Foster, you may proceed.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. If folks are feeling a wee bit of deja vu, that is because these concepts have been seen closely before the chamber before. But because of discussions between the good representative of the 50th House District and the adjutant general of the Connecticut National Guard, and the family, whose father is being named in the National Guard Readiness Center. The convention of the naming has been changed, and I move adoption.
Sn/ak 584 The question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule A, will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, is there an objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Foster.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment is the underlying bill. I move adoption.
Will you remark further, Representative Anderson? Sn/ak 585
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good bill ought to pass.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a great bill, great moment for the town of Putnam, and most importantly, a great moment to honor the Dempsey family and their legacy. So awesome, Bill ought to pass.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.
Sn/ak 586 chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is cast properly? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The clerk will take the tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.
House Bill 5295, as amended by House A: Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 8 Sn/ak 587
Bill, as amended, passes. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar Number 79?
Page four, Calendar 79, substitute for House Bill Number 5153, AN ACT CONCERNING MINOR REVISIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RELATED STATUTES. Favorable report of Environment.
The good chair, Representative Parker, you have the floor.
Good evening, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
Sn/ak 588 The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Parker, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO 5674. I ask for the clerk to call the amendment for a leave of the chamber to summarize.
Will the clerk please call LCO 5674, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.
House Amendment Schedule A, LCO 5674, offered by Representative Parker, Representative Bumgardner, Representative Callahan.
Sn/ak 589 Representative seeks leaves the chamber to summarize. Is there objection to summarization? Hearing none. Representative Parker, you may proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment here adds on some additional minor provisions that all move through our committee. I'd be happy to discuss it with my good ranking member when we get to it. But with that, I'll move for passage of the amendment.
Question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Callahan?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As my name is on the amendment, it's certainly considered friendly and no objection to a voice vote. Sn/ak 590
If there is no objection to a voice vote, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you mark further on the bill as amended?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is the department's minor revisions bill. What we did was in a collaborative manner, brought in a few other of related department bills that all passed through our committee, with strong support. And, with that, I move adoption.
Sn/ak 591 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Representative Callahan.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of brief questions. I'm not going to painstakingly go through every line.
Just a couple of questions. As the way I understand it, it'll just take about a minute to go through it with the good chair. The first section just expands available grants to adjacent areas for environmental justice areas, expands some of the requirements to get cheaper loans, also gets rid of a couple of defunct loan programs, and adds a couple of minor words to the deep revision bill. And it's really basically fixing some other errors that were in bills previously. There was a bill that was going to Sn/ak 592 require towns to -- when they pump out their fire hydrants to get trucks to put it into, this stops that. It helps the state when we have a severe drought situation to close some of the state areas for burning, all good public safety common sense stuff. I worked so well with the good chair to make sure this was all good policy for the state, and I certainly think it's a good bill to pass.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Gresko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no questions for the proponent of the bill. In sections one and two, I just want to point out we're crafted with the help of the OSBA board, which I am fortunately to able to sit on. It expands the availability of OSBA funds to parcels that are adjacent to EJ communities, as the good ranking member referred to in an effort for us to get to our 21% goal. Sn/ak 593 Thank you to our friends in the finance committee for committing monies for double rounds for these grant awards. But in section two, it also expands the eligibility to parcels already committed to public use. So, for example, in Stratford, there's an open space grant pending, but, because in the course of the transfer, the property owner listed the property as open space already, the attorney general's office is like, well, it's open space already. We don't need to do it. So this adjustment in section two fixes that, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Parker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, just a few thanks. Such a pleasure to work with our good ranking member on the committee. Very grateful for the representative's support. Thank you for our partners at the department for putting this together and working with us, and a number of people that helped make Sn/ak 594 sure that this bill had the right pieces in it to support the work of the committee more broadly. And while it's not entirely the support of this bill, in itself, I do want to acknowledge the good member from the 136th District, the chairman of the energy and technology committee, who taught me a lot in my work here, and grateful for the support on these and other related environmental issues. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.
chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. Sn/ak 595
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.
House Bill 5153, as amended by House A: Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 8
Sn/ak 596 The bill is amended, passes. (gavel) The chamber will stand at ease. The chamber will come back to order. Will the clerk please call Calendar Number 313?
On page 56, Calendar 313, substitute for House Bill Number 5485, AN ACT CONCERNING SUPPORTED DECISION MAKING. Favorable of Human Services.
Representative Dathan.
Good evening, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Dathan, you have the floor. Sn/ak 597
The clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO 5639. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and I'd be grant to leave the chamber to summarize.
Will the clerk please call LCO 5639, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.
House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 5639 offered by Representative Gilchrest, Representative Dathan, and Representative Case.
The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Hearing none, Representative Dathan, you may proceed.
Sn/ak 598 Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As you heard, it is a joint amendment, with the good ranking member of human services, as well as the chair of human services. It is a strike-all amendment. And the reason we're doing this bill, sir, is because people in Connecticut with disabilities have been excluded from making decisions about their own lives. This includes things where they do for banking, for their hospital, appointments, and other things. This bill is looking to establish terminology within statute, regarding supported decision making, and establish a working group to look into these arrangements more. I move passage. I move adoption. Excuse me.
The question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? If not, is there an objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Sn/ak 599 Aye.
All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Case.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments. I'd just like to thank my colleague who's worked very hard on this bill, ever since we did 5003. This was one thing that we really wanted to get across the line. It is just task force things to work on it to get the terminology. Good bill ought to pass.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended?
I would like to say one more thing, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 600
Please proceed.
Thank you very much. I just wanted to thank the working group for the last several years that have been working on this, and my good co-chair of the IDD caucus, Representative Case. This is a lot of work, and there's still more work to do. And I appreciate the various people out there from the banking association and the hospital association who've agreed to come to the table and work with us. And I think that is a true testament of what we need to do to support people with disabilities in our state. I move passage.
Thank you, Representative. Will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.
Sn/ak 601 The House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.
Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Please stay close. Have all the members voted? Please stay close. All those are. The machine will be locked. Will the Clerk, please take and announce tally.
House Bill 5485, as amended by House A: Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 8
Sn/ak 602 The bill passed as amended. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar 251?
Page 54, Calendar 251, substitute House Bill Number 5460, AN ACT CONCERNING STATEWIDE FIRE PROTECTION. Favorable report of Public Safety.
Representative Boyd, you have the floor, sir.
I move for acceptance of Joint Committee’s favorable report passage of the bill.
Question is acceptance of the Joint Committee’s favorable report and passage of the bill. Proceed sir.
Sn/ak 603 Mr. Speaker, the clerk has an amendment LCO 4975. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.
Mr. Clerk, please call LCO 4975, House A.
House Amendment Schedule A, LCO 4975, offered by Representative Boyd, Representative DiGiovancarlo.
You may proceed, Representative Boyd.
Mr. Speaker, this is a strike all amendment, although it does not substantially change the content of the bill. I will speak on the bill afterwards and move adoption.
Sn/ak 604 Question is on adoption. Representative McGorty, you want to do the amendment first? You want to talk? You want to do the amendment? We're going to take a voice vote. There's no objection. I see none. I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please go by saying aye.
Opposed nay? Ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. (gavel) Representative McGorty.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very good bill, and I want to thank all of the people on the Public Safety Committee that took part in this, and the state controller, Scanlon, for his efforts with the fire service and the health providing benefits to us. The only question I have for you, Mr. Speaker, is Section 13. Could you clarify the lights part of that, please? Sn/ak 605
Mr. Chairman, the lights.
So we're cleaning up some statutes and conforming to current practice in the emergency management side, and clarifying that cruise lights can be used by municipal and state vehicles, not by personnel, which is currently the statute. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative McGorty.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Good bill, ought to pass.
Staff, guests well of the House. Machine will be unlocked. Sn/ak 606
House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.
Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the clerk, please, take and announce the tally.
House Bill 5460, as amended by House A: Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 8 Sn/ak 607
Bill passed. (gavel) Calendar 122.
Page 7, Calendar 122, House Bill 5331, AN ACT CONCERNING THE AIR PERMITS OF CERTAIN CREMATORIES. Favorable report of Environment.
Chairman of Environment Committee. Representative Parker.
Good evening, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
May proceed. Sn/ak 608
Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO.
Is it 4327?
It is indeed 4327. I ask the clerk to please call the amendment and be granted to leave the chamber to summarize.
4327 marked House A.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill strikes --
Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Let's call it. Sn/ak 609
LCO 4327, offered by Representative Parker, Representative Callahan.
Proceed, Representative.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment is a strike call and puts a working group in to study the way the crematories are interacting with the environment around them. I move acceptance of the amendment.
Okay. We have Representative Callahan. You want to remark on the amendment? You want to adopt it?
Adopt. Sn/ak 610
Let's adopt. Is there objection to a voice vote? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please say no.
Opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Amendment adopted. (gavel) Just going to mark the bill as amended. Representative Callahan?
It's good study. It's something that's needed. It's a good bill. Hopefully, it'll help the industry. Thank you.
Staff and guests, come to the well of the House, members take your seats, and machine will be opened. Sn/ak 611
House is voting by roll. Members of the chamber. The House voting by roll. Members of the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Please carefully consider your vote and press the button. If all the members have voted, machine be locked and ask the clerk to please take and announce tally.
House Bill 5331, as amended by House A: Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 140 Those voting Nay 3 Absent not voting 8 Sn/ak 612
Bill passes as amended (gavel). 253.
Page 17, Calendar 253, House Bill Number 5493, AN ACT REQUIRING A STUDY TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE STIPENDS FOR
Representative Wilson, the vice chairman, the good old 46th. You've the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report, passage of the bill.
Question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. You may proceed. Sn/ak 613
The bill requires the comptroller to study the feasibility of establishing a stipend program for civil air patrol members who may be absent from work under conditions and do not result in a fiscal impact. I urge adoption.
Question we have adoption on the floor. Representative Canino. Nice jersey.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representing the best country in the world. Through you, Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill. As a former CAP member myself as a child, I think it's great to look to support these individuals. One fun fact: CAP members conduct over 90% of the inland searches in our country. We definitely should be looking at ways to support them. Good bill ought to pass.
Sn/ak 614 You care to remark further on the bill? If not, Staff and guests come to the well of the house. Members, take your seats. The machine will be open.
The House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.
Have all members voted? Have all the members voted? Please weigh your decision and press your button. Have all the numbers voted? I was always one of those people who would somehow just disappear. I get it. I used to sit out there too. I same way. I get it. Machine will be locked. Clerk, please, announce the tally.
House Bill 5493: Total number voting 143 Sn/ak 615 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 8
Bill passes (gavel). Would ask the clerk to please call Calendar 235.
Page 6, calendar --
Yep. 235, Mr. Clerk.
Page 15 Calendar 235, House Bill Number 5250, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FREEDOM INFORMATION Sn/ak 616 COMMISSION FOR REVISIONS TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. Favorable report of Government Oversight.
Representative Dathan.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I move for the acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
Question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's. Representative Dathan.
The clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO 5459. I ask that the clerk call the amendment, and I grant to leave the chamber to summarize. Sn/ak 617
Let's call 5459 marked House A.
House A, LCO 5459, offered by Representative Dathan.
May proceed, madam.
Thank you so much. This just strikes section two in the entirety. With that, I move adoption.
We got adoption. Is there any more remark on it? Representative Carney, from the 23rd, it is a pleasure to welcome you.
Sn/ak 618 Alright.
You have the floor, sir.
Nice to see you, too, Mr. Speaker. I can't imagine a better Friday night than spent with you and all these wonderful people.
It's better than watching the Mets, Carney.
True. I'll give you that. Well, the Red Sox aren't too good either. Alright. Let's go with the amendment. It's a good amendment.
Sn/ak 619 Alright. Let's adopt the amendment. Is there objection to a voice vote? I don't see any. I'll try your minds. All those in favor, say.
Opposed nay. Ayes have it. Amendment adopted. (gavel) Will you remark on the bill as amended? Representative Carney?
This is the annual FOI bill. It's a good bill, and auto- pass.
Staff and guests come to the well of the house. Members take your seats. The machine will be open.
Sn/ak 620 House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Please check the board to make sure your vote isn't properly cast. If all members have voted. Machine will be locked. Will the clerk please take and announce tally?
House Bill 5250, as amended by House A: Total number voting 142 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 142 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 9
Sn/ak 621 Bill passes as amended. (gavel) Will clerk please call calendar 495 --
Page 42 Calendar 495. Senate Bill Number 246. AN ACT REQUIRING A STUDY OF NATURAL GAS RATES FOR COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL CUSTOMERS. Favorable report of Energy Technology.
Chairman Steinberg, 136 Westport.
Joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
Question is acceptance of the Joint Committee’s favorable report. You may proceed.
Sn/ak 622 Mr. Speaker, this bill requires DEEP to do a study of gas rates, particularly for commercial and agricultural customers who might have been charged unfairly. After the study, they determine that they have been charged unfairly. They will recommend changes to the rates. I move adoption.
Thank you, sir. Representative Marra, from the 141st. You have the floor, madam.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. It's exactly as the chair explained, and it's a good bill. It ought to pass.
Staff and guests well of the House. Members take their seats. Machine will be open.
Sn/ak 623 House is voting by roll, members to the chamber. House is voting by roll, members to the chamber.
If all the members voted, please check the board to make sure vote has been properly cast. If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the clerk, please take and announce tally.
Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 8
Sn/ak 624 The bill passed in concurrence to the Senate. (gavel). LCO 329. Mr. Clerk 329.
Page 44, Calendar 329, substitute to House Bill Number 5562, AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS REVISIONS TO HUMAN SERVICE STATUTES. Favorable report of human services.
Chairwoman Gilchrest from the town of West Hartford. You have the floor, madam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
May proceed, madam.
Sn/ak 625 Mr. Speaker, the clerk has an amendment LCO 5692. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.
Mr. Clerk, please call 5692, mark it House A.
House A, LCO 5692 offer by Representative Gilchrest, Senator Lesser.
Proceed madam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a strike-all amendment that brings together many of the human services priority bills from this year. I move adoption.
Sn/ak 626 Question is adoption. Representative Case you want to do the amendment, or do you want to speak first? We'll do the amendment. Is there objection to a voice vote? Seeing none, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please vote by saying aye.
Opposed nay? Ayes, have it. Amendment is adopted. (gavel). Representative Case, you have the floor. The bill is amended.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 16 sections to this bill. Okay. Bill ought to pass.
Staff and guests, well of the house. Members take your seats. The machine will be open. Sn/ak 627
House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. House is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Please carefully consider how you're going to vote and hit the button. Have all members voted? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. I'd ask the clerk to please come take and announce tally.
House Bill 5562 is amended by House A: Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 8 Sn/ak 628
Bill passes as amended. (gavel) Please call 243, Mr. Clark.
Page 16, Calendar 243, substitute for House Bill Number 5352, AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION AND MANDATORY DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINTS, favorable report of Government Oversight.
We have a busy committee tonight. Representative Dathan, you have the floor, madam.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage to the bill.
You may proceed, madam. Sn/ak 629
Thank you very much. There is no amendment this evening. So the question, excuse me. I got wrong script here. So this is simply a update of a agency bill where we are changing the timing under section -- Chapter 151, for elections, and requires that one year of timing for the completion of SEEC investigations. I move passage.
Question is passage. Representative Carney from Old State.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And, this is a bill that will allow SEEC to extend investigations for serious issues like voter fraud. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, sir. Staff and guests come into the wall of the house. Members take their seats. The machine will be opened. Sn/ak 630
House is voting by roll. Members of the chamber. The house is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Please check the board to make sure vote has been properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. Thank you, sir. Let's announce tally, please.
House Bill 537: Total Number Voting 142 Necessary for Passage 72 Those voting Yea 142 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 9 Sn/ak 631
Bill passes (gavel). Calendar 297, please.
Page 56, Calendar 297, substitute House Bill Number 5354, An Act Concerning Medicaid Provider Audits. Fair report on human services.
Chairman of Human Services, Representative Gilchrest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
Proceed, madam.
Sn/ak 632 Mr. Speaker, the clerk has an amendment LCO 5579. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment. I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.
Let's do 5579, Mr. Clark, mark it House A.
House A, LCO 5579, offered by Representative Marra, Representative Case.
Representative Gilchrest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a strike-all amendment and becomes the underlying bill. I urge adoption.
Sn/ak 633 On the amendment, Representative Marra, of the 141st. Yeah. Take your time.
I will wait till we adopt the amendment.
Okay. So the question is to adopt. I'm going to try a voice vote then. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Amendment is adopted. (gavel). Care remark for the bill as amended. Representative Marrs the bills amended. You've the floor madam.
Sn/ak 634 Thank you so much. This bill started out with an issue in my town with Greaves Pharmacy, but found it happened in many other healthcare facilities, and in particular pharmacies in which a business had a paralyzing, fine put on them after a Medicaid audit for a non-fraudulent error. So this bill just offers an educational intervention before it goes straight to a fine to help support our health care access and small businesses.
Thank you, madam. Representative Demicco of the 21st from the town of Farmington.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering if I could ask the proponent of the amendment to explain how her amendment differs from the underlying bill that was passed by the Human Services Committee.
Sn/ak 635 Representative Gilchrest, you've the floor, madam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. The underlying amendment is a strike-all and changes this to an educational piece, versus changing the structure of how audits are done in the Department of Social Services.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Demicco.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Staff and guests come to the well of the house. Members take the seats. Machine will be open.
Sn/ak 636 House is voting by roll. Members of the chamber. The house is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.
Have all the members voted? I'd ask that you carefully weigh and consider your vote. Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the clerk please take it and announce tally?
House Bill 5354, submitted by House A: Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 133 Those voting Nay 10 Absent not voting 8
Sn/ak 637 Bill passed as amended. (gavel) Alright, we're going to do 25. I believe that's a four. Yeah. One could argue is a nine, but it looks like a four, 254.
Page 17, Calendar 254, substitute House Bill Number 5498, AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO STATUTES RELATING TO MUNICIPAL TAX COLLECTION. Favorable report of Planning and Development.
It's the chairwoman of the P&D Committee, Representative Kavros DeGraw, you've the floor, madam.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. It's a very tired chairwoman. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
How you may proceed, ma'am. Sn/ak 638
Thank you so much. The clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO 5454. I'd ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.
Mr. Clerk, if you don't mind, can you please call LCO 5454 and mark it House A.
House A, LCO 5454, offered by Representative Kavros DeGraw.
Proceed, madam, with summarization.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. The first part of our amendment is to ensure that people who live close to the border Sn/ak 639 of another state are able to advertise outside of the state if necessary, so that they can meet the sufficient circulation of municipal legal notices. The second piece allows towns if, someone loses a spouse or a child to waive interest on taxes if per chance they miss their tax payment. And finally, there is a small charter change for towns between 20 and 30,000 by the last census, and they would have to amend the charter with the approval of the entire membership of the appointing authority within the town. I move adoption.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Haines, you have the floor.
Go ahead with the amendment. Thank you.
Sn/ak 640 Alright. So, on the amendment, let's take Representative Gilchrest off. On the amendment, I see no objection to a voice vote. All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed nay? Ayes have it. Amendment adopted. (gavel) On the bill's amendment, Representative Haines.
Good bill ought to pass.
Staff and guests come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. Machine will be open.
Sn/ak 641 The House voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House voting by roll, members to the chamber.
If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. Yeah. And will the clerk please take and announce tally.
House Bill 549, as amended by House A: Total number voting 143 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 8
Bill pass as amended. (gavel) And we're going to move on to calendar 532. Sn/ak 642
On page 47, Calendar 532, substitute for Senate Bill Number 233, in concurrence with the Senate as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule A LCO 5160, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSUMER PROTECTIONS REGARDING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. Favorable report of General Law.
Chair will recognize Representative Lemar, the chairman of the General Law Committee, the 96th District from the city of New Haven. You have the floor, sir.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill, concurrence for the Senate as amended.
May proceed. Sn/ak 643
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us protects consumers in a rapidly growing, complex market, where high-pressure sales and financing agreements have led to numerous consumer complaints, standardizes cooling-off periods, requires plain language contracts, and is generally a very pro-consumer bill. They move adoption to you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm going to interrupt for one second. Representative Stewart, you have the floor, sir. Going to hit Representative Stewart out of order. Yep.
Hello? Mr. Speaker, I said I recuse myself.
So noted. Yep. So the chamber will stand at ease. Representative Stewart, you will leave the chamber. Don't go far. Don't go astray. And you have officially recused yourself. Sn/ak 644 And now that Representative Stewart, the record will reflect that he has left the chamber. We will continue. I believe Representative Lemar had moved adoption on the bill as amended in concurrence with the Senate, and it's now Representative Rutigliano's turn to speak. You have the floor, sir, the ranking member.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought the good chairman did a good job explaining the bill. Good bill ought to pass.
And staff and guests come to the well of the house. Members take their seats. The machine will be open.
The House is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll, members to the chamber.
Sn/ak 645 If all members have voted. The machine will be locked, and the clerk will please take and announce the tally. We have one more bill for this evening.
Total number voting 142 Necessary for passage 72 Those voting Yea 142 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 9
Bill passes as amended in concurrence with the Senate. Last bill for this evening, and will be Calendar 275.
Sn/ak 646 Page 19, Calendar 275, substitute for House Bill Number 5462, AN ACT CONCERNING NOISE POLLUTION. Favorable report of Transportation.
It's not Representative Kevin Brown, rather, it is Representative Marcus Brown, the vice chairman from the city of Bridgeport. You have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
You may proceed, sir.
Sn/ak 647 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 5682. I ask the clerk call the amendment. I'd be granted to leave the chamber to summarize.
Mr. clerk, please call 5682, mark it House A.
House A, LCO 5682, offered by Representative Brown.
Representative Brown to proceed, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a strike-all amendment. The amendment seeks to address noise pollution at an airport, and I move adoption.
Sn/ak 648 We have an amendment. Representative Zullo, 99 East Haven. You've the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is relatively fresh, but I've had a couple minutes to review it. And I have to tell you I have some substantial concerns about it. I know that we're nearing the end of the evening, and I just ask your indulgence and your patience for a few minutes while I voice those concerns. Quite frankly, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it affects my hometown substantially. It's the legislative byproduct of a memorandum of agreement between my town and the city of New Haven to put a very large airport in my backyard and in the backyard of a number of my constituents, thousands of them. It's a project that's backed by private equity. It's a project that will have substantial transformational consequences for my community. Let me be clear. This expansion, which is contemplated in the underlying MOU, which is the inspiration for Sn/ak 649 this legislation, it's going to put a new terminal in my backyard. That terminal will have lots of new parking, making that airport convenient, lots of new parking spaces. I know a lot of people in the region want this airport. I know that I've heard on many occasions that it will be an economic driver for the region. I'll tell you what else it will do. It will bring noise. It will bring pollution. It will bring traffic. It will put a host of burdens on my community. It will have dramatic health and safety impacts for my constituents. I have only a few questions to the proponent of the amendment. Through you, Mr. Speaker. My first is through you. Did this amendment or the content of this amendment get a public hearing? Through you.
Representative Brown.
Sn/ak 650 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe it did.
Representative Zullo.
Thank you. To the good proponent, it's my understanding that this did not get a public hearing. I want you to think about this. I have been told that this project will bring billions of dollars to the local economy. Its cost will be anywhere between 250 million and a half of $1 billion. We are contemplating a project that will potentially cost half a billion without a single public hearing. And by the way, this proposal and the underlying MOU got no review publicly before my legislative body, and to my knowledge, before any legislative body in any municipality where this was contemplated. No public input on a potential project costing half a billion dollars. Again, it is a project that is guaranteed to have transformational impacts. I do want to say one thing. To Sn/ak 651 the good credit of my mayor, he worked very hard, if you look at this bill, to negotiate concessions, credits to my town in the event that this project moves forward. He deserves credit for that. But those credits suppose that money alone can make my community whole. It cannot. You cannot neatly tally up the public health and safety impacts of this bill in dollars and cents. You just can't do that. Think about when you lose a loved one. Think about a happy time in your life. You watch your kids score the winning goal. Those moments, those people, they're invaluable. The community that I live in it's invaluable. You cannot just buy us off. The town of East Haven is not for sale. And neither is its future to the highest bidder willing to throw some money at us. There are some core problems with this bill. First, it allocates about $4 million a year in pilot money to the town of East Haven should this project move forward. That pilot does not increase to my knowledge with inflation. And so as time goes on and the impacts of that airport, if it's built become more and more impactful, the value of those monies decreases. Sn/ak 652 Again, how can you contemplate that this makes up for these transformational impacts? I got to tell you, everybody, I know it's the end of the night. I know we've had a long day, and we're staring into a long budget process tomorrow. But I hate to be funny about it. You should all fasten your seat belts. This debate could be a long one, kind of like a transatlantic flight. Could get turbulent. I just want you to buckle your safety belts. If you do move around the chamber, just be careful as you do so. If you lose your breath when I start to tell you about some of these awful impacts, there's going to be no masks that fall down from the ceiling. Okay? I know you're going to be stunned by some of the things that you're going to hear. And I'm sorry to keep you here, but I am prepared to go through this all night, line by line, as we do that. Because again, this got no public hearing. It got no input locally. And my constituents have not stopped asking for that. All they have asked for is the opportunity to be heard and to be treated fairly. And unfortunately, as we stand here tonight with this bill being offered, at the end of the night, when we're all tired, and we all want to go home, I'm sorry. I can't let that happen. Sn/ak 653 So again, there's no peanut service in here or anything like that. There's no meal, but you might as well go get one because we're going to be here for a while. Mr. Speaker, one of the things in this bill that I also have concern with is the bonding element. It calls for or, actually, I'm going to go backwards. This is actually most troubling. Calls for a pilot payment of $4 million, and it's based on the airport being built with 2,100 parking spaces. It says only if that airport is functional and operating with 2,100 parking spaces do we get the $4 million, the town of East Haven, and pilot money? Through you, Mr. Speaker, just one quick question to the proponent. Am I correct in understanding that if the airport is built with 2,050 parking spaces, we don't get any of that pilot money? Through you.
Representative Brown.
Sn/ak 654 Through you, Mr. Speaker, the good representative is correct.
Representative Zullo.
So let me get this straight. This entity in this long-time saga with the people of East Haven in this airport, where massive distrust has been built up over the years, we have this deal that says if this airport gets approved and if it has 2,100 parking spaces, we get this pilot funding. But if it has 2,099 parking spaces, guess what, East Haven? You don't get a dime. Because this is the law, and the town of East Haven will have to come back to this legislature for a fix to get that funding. Doesn't sound fair to me. Sounds like a lot has to fall into place to get that funding. And I hate to chuckle, but I'm at the point where I'm incredulous about it. Moving on to the bond funding incentive. Sn/ak 655 Again, let me be clear. My mayor put substantial assets in place to make sure that my town would do as best as it could as it tried to explore this opportunity. And to his credit, this bill, this legislation contemplates $40,000,000 in bond funding for public safety center for public safety resources in the event that this airport is built. Now, I don't know of any of you if you've tried to build a public safety center in your town recently, but I think the price tag is a little bit higher than $4 million, probably double that. Maybe more, depending on what you need. Maybe if you live in a small town where you don't have a lot going on, you don't need quite a big public safety center. But I guarantee you, if you're responding to an airport with increased incidences of medical calls, public safety calls, and other calls, you probably need a fire or public safety presence with a little bit more might than other public safety centers. So $40 million and then the town foots the rest of the bill? Interesting. I wonder if the taxpayers of the town of East Haven are ready for a potential tax increase down the road to try to pay for the balance of that public safety center. I doubt Sn/ak 656 they are. I substantially doubt that they are. Mr. Speaker, Section 1 of the bill, as I promised, because, again, we're going to go through this line by line.
Representative Brown, please ready yourself. May proceed, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, no. We're going to go to Section 9 of the bill because that's where the definitions of this begin. In Section 9, it discusses the definition of airport project, which is a new definition to the bill. And I'm just curious, it does contemplate, if I'm reading it correctly, that a project could also include the acquisition of land outside of the boundaries of the airport. It's required by a permitting agency like a zoning board through you, Mr. Speaker.
Sn/ak 657 Representative Brown.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. The bill does not.
Thank you, sir. For your concise answer, Representative Zullo.
Thank you to the good proponent for that answer. Because I'm looking at lines 150 and 151, and it indicates the acquisition of off-airport land required by a permitting agency. And as I read that, I can't help but get a little concerned. If a local or other permanent agency requires the acquisition of some type of land. And I'm reading it, saying, I wonder if this contemplates any type of eminent domain or taking. Because I certainly know that those impacted most by this airport would not want that. We have neighborhoods that have already been torn apart. Sn/ak 658 People who can't go outside, their kids can't play outside, they can't open their windows. They go to work in the morning. They open the door. They look at the side of their house, and you know what it's looks like? It's covered in tar and soot, and dirt from planes taking off, operating in the vicinity. So these poor people of orbit already been tormented, already dealing with the impacts of this airport, faced the potential, I don't know, potentially of some type of eminent domain, some type of taking if some local permitting agency requires land for part of this project? Haven't we done enough to these people? Oh, and by the way, you know, I hear a lot, didn't these people move there or own there knowing that there was an airport there? Well, let me tell you this. Because I think understanding this has -- in order to understand this, you really need to know the full history of this airport and how we got here. There was a state law in place a number of years ago that capped the runway length at this airport. There was a memorandum of agreement, if that term sounds familiar to you, between my town and the city of New Haven that called for certain restrictions on operations of that airport. Sn/ak 659 And a lot of people bought in my community and around that airport in reliance on that state law being in place and on that memorandum on that agreement being in place. And then something unexpected happens. That state law was overturned by none other than the Supreme Court of the United States. And that memorandum of agreement was ripped up by the city of New Haven. Paving, I hate to use the word, the way for the airport project that the town of East Haven is now staring at today. And so when I hear people say, oh, well, people bought there. They should have known there was an airport there. Well, they did, but they had a state law in place protecting them. They had a memorandum of agreement between two towns protecting them. And then all of a sudden, that was gone. They had the rug pulled out from under them. It's like their flight got diverted. It's like it got delayed. And all of a sudden, their plans didn't work out. And now here they are facing this behemoth potentially on the horizon. I think it's important that you realize that as you Sn/ak 660 think about the people and the lives that are impacted by this. This isn't just a bunch of people who don't want this in their backyard. These are people who really felt that they've been wronged. People like my cousins who live down the way from the runway, where if you go to their house on a Sunday morning and you sit at their kitchen table and you put a coffee cup on the table and you wait for a flight to go over the house, the house shakes, the table shakes, the coffee cup shakes. It's like that scene out of Mary Poppins at the beginning, where they fire off -- yep. You're right, Mr. Speaker. You're thinking about it. They fire off that cannon, and everything in that house goes all over the place. You're all laughing. And you want to know what? It's easy to laugh while you're in here when there isn't a 737 going over your house shaking it. But that's what it's like. These people's lives are impacted. And, again, money cannot alone fix it.
Sn/ak 661 Representative Zillow, if you don't mind, we can tell that there is determination in your voice. So I'm going to interrupt you for a second. Turn to Majority Leader, if you don't mind, sir. Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It appears we're not going to be able to land this plane. And with that, I move. We pass this bill temporarily.
So ordered (gavel) okay. That should bring us to the end of our business, except for business on the club. Mr. Majority Leader, what time tomorrow?
05:15, everybody should be here so that we can gather at 05:30 for a press conference.
Sn/ak 662 I think 05:30 would -- yeah. Okay. We've never done a 15, have we?
Well, I'm just saying -- if you say 05:30, people show up at 05:45.
Let’s be punctual. We'll do 05:30. I think there's going to be a caucus board. So 05:30 p.m. tomorrow night, we got a lot done today. Thanks everybody, for a productive day. 05:30 tomorrow. Okay? Any business on the clerk's desk?
Favorable reports Senate bills.
Yeah. That's PM, not AM. Yeah. 05:30 p.m. Business on the clerk's desk. Sn/ak 663
Favorable reports, Senate bills.
Mr. Majority Leader?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move we waive the reading of the
Without objection, so ordered. (gavel) I'm going to stick with you on immediate transmittal if you want.
That's what I'm going to do next. Mr. Speaker, I will immediately transmit all items requiring further action to the Sn/ak 664
Seeing no objection, so ordered. (gavel)
Representative O'Dea. REP. O’DEA (125TH): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just an announcement. Former Representative Steve Dargan's service is going to be at the Holy Infant Church tomorrow at 10:00 for anybody that's interested. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Representative Yaccarino.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Members missed votes as noted. Safe travels. Thank you. Sn/ak 665
Thank you as always, sir. And representative McGee, what do you got?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The clerk is in possession of members who missed votes and reasons why. Thank you. Good night, everyone.
Thank you, madam. Yep. Good night to you as well. We'll turn it over to the majority leader bring us home on this Friday night, May 1st.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 28 bills today, almost 29. And with that, I move we adjourn subject to the call of the chair.
Sn/ak 666 Thank you. Without objection, so ordered. (gavel) (On motion of Representative Rojas of the 9th District, the House adjourned at 10:59 o’clock p.m., to meet again at the Call of the Chair.) Sn/ak 667 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the preceding 666 pages is a complete and accurate transcription of a digital sound recording of the House Proceedings on Friday, May 1, 2026. I further certify that this digital sound recording was transcribed by the word processing department employees of Datagain, under my direction. Kanchan Mutreja Datagain 1 Creekside Court Secaucus, NJ 07094