Navigating Policy Shifts: Legislative Insights for Manufacturers

As Connecticut embarks on a transformative year for policy and industry, Shipman & Goodwin Manufacturing Practice leader Alfredo Fernández sat down with CBIA’s Pete Myers to discuss the legislative landscape and its implications for manufacturers. Myers is a senior public policy associate, who graciously shared his expertise on the most applicable environmental and energy legislative and policy topic that manufacturers will face in 2025.

---

Climate Change Bill

Alfredo Fernández: Pete, welcome and thank you for taking the time to chat today. We want to start with what I think is going to be a big one for CBIA and for you personally, the climate change bill. Could you give us a quick history that bill—what’s happened in prior sessions at a high level—and where you see the 2025 action going?

Pete Myers: Absolutely, it’s a tricky issue, especially with climate change and the severe storms that have recently impacted Connecticut businesses. HB 5004, introduced last year by Rep.Christine Palm, aimed to encourage sustainability on both business and municipal levels. Key proposals included transitioning to all-electric construction and revisiting energy generation, though CBIA opposed and removed a proposed ban on new natural gas infrastructure. We’ve made it clear such a measure would remain a nonstarter.

Another concern was the introduction of a private right of action, which raised issues for manufacturers. While emissions are part of industrial processes, we support efforts to reduce carbon output and increase resilience. On the positive side, the bill proposed incentives for battery storage through the Energy Storage Solutions Program, helping businesses lower costs and improve grid reliability.

We expect the bill to resurface, likely under Rep. Joe Gresko’s leadership, and we’ll continue engaging to ensure it remains balanced and practical.

Fernández: Would it be fair to characterize it as more of a “carrot” program with incentives rather than a “stick” approach with strict penalties?

Myers: For businesses, that was the goal—an incentive-based approach. While there were some “sticks” in the bill, particularly for municipalities and the state, the focus for businesses was on providing incentives. For example, the initial draft included mandating all-electric school construction, which raised concerns.

For the business community, maintaining an incentive-based framework is crucial. Many manufacturers, especially smaller ones, struggle with access to capital for sustainability investments. Some business owners pay their employees more than they pay themselves, so incentives help make these investments feasible.

Renewable and Reliable Energy

Fernández: Regarding the battery storage component you mentioned, would that be located onsite? For instance, would a business’s facility operate its own mini system?

Myers: Absolutely. These batteries are part of the Energy Storage Solutions Program, which was launched in 2021. The program aimed to deploy 980 megawatts of battery storage across the state and has been widely embraced by manufacturers. In fact, there’s now a significant waitlist. Recently, PURA had to pause the program temporarily, but it continues to be administered through PURA via an annual docket review. CBIA is actively involved in this process and will be engaging in the docket again this year to advocate for the program’s expansion. Really it is an onsite battery that businesses can utilize to help offset some of their peak load demand.

Fernández: Solar power will of course be one of the options to charge those batteries. Beyond addressing climate change, are there any current bills or initiatives focused specifically on renewable energy as far as you’re aware?

Myers: This will be a major topic this year as we approach the end of our power purchase agreement with Millstone. There’s discussion about another multi-state agreement, which has some support, but without new natural gas infrastructure in New York, we’re nearing capacity.

Options include maintaining or expanding nuclear generation and exploring offshore wind opportunities. However, offshore wind faces uncertainty due to federal-level changes. While CBIA focuses on state-level issues, offshore wind is crucial for Connecticut, which has heavily invested in the industry. Getting that power onto the grid remains a priority. Ultimately, we’re pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy to meet future energy demands and maximize grid capacity.

Fernández: Now to shift the focus slightly to energy distribution and the cost of power, how are balance points being managed between energy costs, electricity rates, and grid reliability? Given issues like rolling blackouts and peak loads, are there any measures in the bills we’ve discussed, separate arrangements, or PURA-related initiatives that aim to keep energy costs manageable for businesses? Considering that our region already has relatively high energy costs, how do these efforts address the critical need for reliable, 24/7 power for businesses?

Myers: Yes, that’s an important issue. The Senate Republican caucus has consistently introduced legislation on capping PPA agreements and reallocating the public benefits charge from electric bills to the general fund—though that’s likely an uphill battle.

This session, we’re planning to work closely with the committee and even introduce legislation to revisit DEEP’s Integrated Resources Plan. Our goal is to ensure businesses have a voice in shaping energy generation and distribution plans, making them realistic and effective. Commissioner Katie Dykes has expressed a willingness to collaborate, and we’re eager to partner with DEEP to find practical, mutually beneficial solutions.

Resiliency

Fernández: Are there any other environmental or energy related topics, bills, or champions in the legislature that you’re keeping an eye on?  

Myers: Resiliency is going to be a major focus this year, especially for manufacturers along the coastline. With Rep. John-Michael Parker, the new House chair of the Environment Committee, also from the coastline, I think this will hit close to home. Efforts will likely center on making businesses more resilient, particularly through building code updates for new facilities.

For manufacturers, though, this raises concerns. Connecticut is already an expensive state to do business, and changes to building codes beyond appropriate standards could pose challenges for growth. This is something we’re closely watching and starting negotiations on soon.

Release-Based Cleanup Program

Fernández: One of our favorite topics is the eventual sunsetting of the Transfer Act and the transition to the release-based cleanup program. We know DEEP recognizes that some statutory changes will likely be needed to avoid conflicts between current statutes and new regulations. While it may be too soon to see specific language addressing this, how are you keeping track of potential remediation program legislation that could arise out of necessity this year?

Myers: It definitely has to come up. DEEP has indicated that they’ll be submitting these regulations for the February Regulations Review Committee meeting, so we’re fully aware it’s on the horizon. The committee chairs have also emphasized their intent to ensure bipartisan support for these changes, which we really appreciate. DEEP has been proactive in collaborating with us, and we value their willingness to work together.

We’re also expecting legislation around the voluntary site-wide remediation program, which DEEP has already shared language for. Our focus is on ensuring it’s practical—not just something that looks good on paper but also works effectively for the business community.

Fernández: DEEP’s voluntary remediation program has been around for years at DEEP but what’s the general gist of the changes? Would it be adjustments to match the release-based program?

Myers: It would be. It’s really aimed at being a voluntary program to reduce fees and release liability of voluntarily site-wide remediations. The goal is to encourage comprehensive cleanups by offering benefits such as fee reductions, extended timelines for completing the work, and liability protections, especially for cases where multiple releases are discovered.

Fernández: So, there will still be a site-wide program as opposed to the release-based cleanup efforts that will focus more on isolated releases?

Myers: The aim of the program is to have a better option for when there is a discovery of multiple releases indicative of site-wide issues. Here there would be fee reductions, additional time to complete the cleanups and liability relief.

Fernández: Okay. So it would be more aligned with the state’s current brownfield liability protection offerings.

Myers: Yes, similar to some of the brownfield benefits, that’s the intent here. We’re particularly focused on the fee structure, as multiple fees could become prohibitively expensive. The goal of this program is to effectively cap those fees, and we’ve asked DEEP to ensure that fee limits are part of the framework.

Looking Ahead

Fernández: And for my final question—while we’ve covered a lot of what CBIA is working on, I’m curious about your top goals for the 2025 session. Specifically, if by the end of the session you’ve achieved A, B, or C, what accomplishments would make you feel like you’ve really hit your targets?

Myers: Our top priority is ensuring the state remains in a strong fiscal position, continuing the success of the fiscal guardrails. We also aim to invest in workforce expansion for manufacturers while avoiding overreactions to federal environmental policies. This session will likely focus heavily on responses to federal actions, and we must remain measured and competitive, both regionally and within Connecticut.

A key goal is protecting businesses from unnecessary burdens while supporting initiatives like the release-based program, PFAS management, and emissions standards. Ultimately, we want Connecticut to be a place where manufacturers choose to grow, balancing environmental goals with economic competitiveness.

Fernández: Pete, it was great to chat with you and we appreciate hearing your insight on some of the environmental and energy issues manufacturers should be paying attention to this coming year.