Working Group Name: ________Environmental______________________________ List the priorities of your working group in the appropriate areas below… PRIORITY INITIATIVES: Things that should be addressed during the 2011 budget/legislative process

Policy Initiative Policy Initiative Report Section

Immediate Fiscal Impact

1. Mitigate/Eliminate Securitization of Energy Efficiency Funds III A None / positive savings 2. Strengthen & Clarify Commitment to Prioritize Energy Efficiency III A None to state 3. Promote LIS Action Plan and LIS access and education II B None 4. Continue Clean Water Fund Allocations II A & B Bonding 5. Consolidate Offices & Programs regarding Brownfields and DECD Office

(Responsible Growth and Brownfields) Promote Green Infrastructure I C None

6. Encourage Governor to articulate a Smart Growth Vision and direct agencies to follow principles in PA09-230.

I A B C

SHORT-TERM INITIATIVES: Things that should be addressed by 2012/2013

Policy Initiative Policy Initiative Report Section

Short Term Fiscal Impact

1. Establish Targeted Brownfields/TOD/Development Program I A None now 2. Evaluate Transfer Act and other Brownfields and Remediation Laws and

Programs for possible revision consistent with Smart Growth strategies I B None

3. Leadership on RGGI Reform & Retention of Dedicated Funding III B None Work with new DEP Commissioner to help establish better communication and

collaboration among stakeholders to achieve environmental goals IV At least current funding

4. Incent Green Infrastructure Projects in CSO Towns II A Expanded use of existing $ 5. Preserve Community Investment Act Funding No change

LONG-TERM INITIATIVES: Things that should be considered beyond 2013

Policy Initiative Policy Initiative Report Section

Long Term Fiscal Impact

1. Comprehensive Review of Environmental Laws and DEP Programs to ensure that resources are being used to achieve the most environmental benefit

IV None (except perhaps “savings” attendant to streamlining)

2. Additional Financial Incentives for Smart Growth and Brownfields Development I Amount of Funding TBD

Addendum to the Environmental Policy Working Group Energy Efficiency Proposal  

 

Gary O’Connor 

Jessie Stratton 

After discussion with the Energy Policy Working Group we felt it was important to be sure that the Malloy administration be aware that although Mary Healy, CT’s current Consumer Council opposed increasing rate‐payer funded efficiency investments,  her opinion is at odds with that of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, and with most other is in her position in states in this region who have supported increased investments.  As noted in our Prioritize Efficiency recommendation, MA and RI have laws that are essentially identical to CT’s in calling for energy needs to be met first through cost‐effective efficiency and their DPUC Commissioners, unlike the current commissioners in CT, have taken a very different approach and recently approved dramatic increases in efficiency investments  The attached  power point presentation by MA Public Utility Commissioner, Tim Wolf, presents a context for evaluating the relative rate and bill impacts of efficiency investments. In both Massachusetts and Rhode Island the Attorney Generals who have the same consumer advocacy responsibilities as our Office of the Consumer Council have supported the recent increases in ratepayer funded efficiency investments. 

 In addition, we have included: 

▪ The Press Release from the MA DOER that includes a quote from Attorney General Martha Coakley (who serves as the equivalent of CT’s Consumer Counsel) supporting  the recent very significant increase in efficiency investments. 

 ▪ A statement from the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates regarding support for energy efficiency. 

• Link to The Consumer Counsel’s brief on the 2010 IRP http://www.ct.gov/.../annual_report_2010_final.doc 

▪ http:/www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/08‐50/82208dpunoi.pdf See pages 21‐22 See pages 21‐22 in MA DPUC decision on efficiency and discussion of the overall price suppression impacts of efficiency (DRIPE) 

2. Proposal IV, A New Approach At Department Of Environmental Protection

The members of the Environment Working Group believe that DEP’s primary mission must continue to be the protection of public health and the environment. Nothing contained in Proposal IV is intended to suggest otherwise. In addition, the items listed for consideration at

“appropriate forums” convened by the new administration is not an exhaustive list and does not imply unanimous agreement among Group members regarding those items.