When it comes to environmental policy, Brown University researchers have found that lobbyists have had an outsized influence on Connecticut's legislature.

A study released this month, titled "Who's Influencing Connecticut Climate and Clean Energy Politics?," looked at 48 bills from 2013 to 2020 that prominent environmental organizations, such as Save the Sound, considered a priority. Researchers analyzed almost 3,000 pieces of testimony, as well as 263 examples of opposition testimony, to climate bills to determine the dominant arguments against the proposed legislation.

The study notes that 91.7% of the testimony was in favor of climate and clean energy bills across all issues in that time frame.  But "of all 354 introduced climate and energy bills, only 78 actually made it out of committee and 56 were chaptered into law by the Governor, a survival rate of 16 percent."

With that in mind, the study poses a question: If there is such overwhelming support for these policies, why do so few bills to this effect become law?

The study researchers found that Connecticut led the way in climate action early on starting in the '90s, but as of late, "Advocates for climate action and clean energy in the state have grown increasingly frustrated as bills have died in the legislature, and clean energy funds levied on utility customers' bills are sometimes diverted into the general fund to meet budget shortfalls."

The Transportation Climate Initiative is a good example, though discussion on the legislation took place this year rather than in the 2013–20 range covered by the study.

TCI languished after facing backlash, mostly from Republicans and lobbyists, because starting in 2023 the program was projected to drive up gas prices by about 5 cents per gallon. The measure is meant to reduce the state's carbon emissions by capping carbon pollution from transportation. Money generated from gas suppliers buying carbon credits would then go to certain Connecticut communities affected by pollution, as well as more environmentally friendly transportation initiatives.

One of the authors of the study, Timmons Roberts, said TCI was actually "quite meek," representing only a 6% improvement over emission reductions already happening in the transportation sector, and it only represented a small rise in gas prices. Still, "TCI was painted as an economy wrecker and the end of the world by some of its opponents," he said. "I think they were very effective at undermining its support."

More than $24 million was spent in lobbying on climate- or environment-related issues, with utilities, pro-business groups and others dwarfing the spending of environmental groups. The highest spender — Eversource — spent almost $7 million between 2013 and 2020.

"Opposition to key climate legislation is concentrated in several sectors: Electric/Gas Utilities, Heating Oil and Alternative Fuels, Business Association or Economic Councils, the Auto industry, Fossil Fuels, and Real Estate," the study reads. "Of these, the utility, business association, and fossil fuel sectors had the most engaged individual organizations: AVANGRID/UIL Holdings, CT Business and Industry Association, CT Petroleum Council, and Eversource Energy submitted more than 10 positions each in opposition to priority climate positions, more than double any other actor."

Eversource repeatedly opposed legislation that limited natural gas, as it testified against bills that would reduce methane leaks and restrict pipeline construction. Eversource, environmental groups and others all supported offshore wind bills.

Connecticut climate action has attracted some controversial characters.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, is a longtime conservative political analyst with an aversion to raising taxes in any capacity. The study names him in relation to carbon fee and dividend legislation that has been introduced in the state legislature multiple times, saying that instead of the professional anti-climate actors, residents have been involved in letter-writing campaigns. One illustrative email reads: "'The unquenchable thirst of the Democratic leadership in Hartford to tax and spend every hard earned dollar the overtaxed people of Connecticut sends them has got to END!'"

"These brief and angry emails appear to be the result of mobilization by libertarian groups in the state," the study reads. "Grover Norquist ... submitted written testimony of his own to attack the bill, saying that 'enactment of a carbon tax, a regressive tax that would disproportionately harm low and middle-income households, would exacerbate the exodus of individuals, families, and employers from the Nutmeg State.'"

Norquist exemplified one of the main arguments that has been used against climate legislation: it will hurt the middle and working classes. There are also anti-tax arguments, claims that Connecticut has done enough in the way of climate action and assertions that the state will appear anti-business, among other findings.

The study makes four pointed recommendations for the legislature. First of all, it urges the government to "evaluate and address utilities' political influence."

"While utilities support some pro-climate policies, as a government-backed monopoly with technical and legal capacity they are uniquely able to effectively block broadly popular policies on key issues such as solar energy and natural gas," the study reads. "Utilities are able to spend unlimited funds, which are ultimately collected from ratepayers, on lobbying and campaign donations. The state may consider reforms wherein utilities can be brought in as witnesses and technical experts, but restrictions are placed on private consultations with agencies and the legislature."

In addition, the study says legislators must better understand the new climate discourses and the arguments against them, which are no longer rooted in anti-science claims.

Researchers also point out how overwhelming support from the general public hasn't translated to action. The study recommends paying better attention to public testimony, holding more public hearings and keeping options for remote testimony past the coronavirus pandemic. In that same vein, the study recommends Connecticut bolster its lobbying data, as other states have.

Roberts wondered aloud why it seems the vast majority of public testimony has been ignored.

"It's hard not to conclude that something else is going on when it's that lopsided in favor of strong climate legislation in public testimony. It leads you to question, are the hearings largely theater?" he asked. "Have the decisions been made already? The influence has been exerted elsewhere, and the imbalance in lobbying expenditures is suggestive. Certainly the big utilities paying year in and year out big lobbying bills, hiring some of the most influential people in the legislature — recently retired speakers, other legislative leaders — it's hard not to think that's what's driving the train here."

s.spinella@theday